Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, You wrote: "Here the Constitutionalist jumps in to point out that the Constitution—the basis of this government—is not the source of rights, but merely the declaration that those innate rights shall not be infringed upon by the government." It's not even that, in my opinion, because, to be more precise, their beloved Constitution states that their voluntary members innate [natural] rights cannot be infringed upon by the government without "due process of law" , and, as has been mentioned elsewhere, "due process of law" is whatever the fox guarding the hen house says it is. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation*." ~ Excerpted from Amendment V of the Bill of Rights [Emphasis added] * Care to take a guess at who gets to decide what "just compensation" is? Furthermore, if that is true, then the opposite is also true, that is to say, if their voluntary members innate rights cannot be infringed upon by the government without "due process of law", then their innate rights can be infringed upon by the government with "due process of law", which, again, because it bears repeating, is whatever the fox guarding the hen house says it is.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    "...you apparently missed these three questions, (the previous three times I posted them), since you failed to answer...", so I will try once more. (1) What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to withdraw from membership in the STATE? [Edited for accuracy] (2) What is your strategy, change enough people's minds with your rhetoric, and "alternative news", that they will "alter or...abolish" the STATE for you? (3) Do you even know me, Michael Kleen? [This last one I have now asked five times!]
  • Neil D.'s picture
    Neil D. 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Tzo, as an ex-constitutionalist, I find your points to be very interesting. A concept that I only recently discovered as truth (I'm a slow learner) is that ultimately it is the individual (me) that can act in my own interest, with "act" being the important term. Rights that are "bestowed" upon me by the wonderful government benefactors are meaningless, for reasons you've already described. Lead-in aside, I invariably find this thought process ends in a "me-vs.-literally everyone else" situation. To wit, the only foreseeable outcome in a disagreement between a free man and agents of the government is death. David Koresh and his friends are an obvious example, but the hundreds of thousands of people rotting away inside prisons for what I would deem purely philosophical crimes (felony weapon possession, for example, which while not usually a life term has lifelong and life-altering consequences regardless of whether they are just or not) is also equally illustrative. It is insanity to engage in a physical confrontation with agents of the government with any expectation of victory; there are very many of them with vast amounts of resources. So as I see it, the only other option is to run. Where I am going with this is that it is an excellent thing to say, "Well, I'm not going to pay my taxes any more, because that money's mine." All of this philosophizing will not help one bit when goons show up to extract that tax; telling them that the property they seek is mine won't do much as they commence kicking my head in or locking me in a cage. OK, fine, I may flee from them. But then what? Does being a free man necessitate giving up some of the greatest advancements of humankind - division of labor, for example - for the sake of living in hiding? Thanks for tolerating my no-doubt poorly written wall of text. Please keep writing.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Very, very good. I've read most of your stuff here, and this is the best thus far. Your 'dancing round the volcano' imagery is as good a metaphor as Stef Molyneux's 'Giant Stone Chicken'. if you invented it; sudo kudos. As you are no doubt aware, a certain pirate vessel recently slipped anchor and began running a privateer operation on the information ocean; the growth in its fleet has been nothing short of staggering, and some of the captains of vessels in the flotilla are men of Hornblower-esque cunning and derring-do. Journalists understand DDoS (it's sufficiently simple) but the fleet's armements are now to DDoS, what Trident is to grapeshot (apologies for the state-navy imagery... but we's sea-farin' folk... arrrr) How I wish that Rothbard was still alive to witness the State's equivalent of the Church's foundering after Gutenberg (the first technological shift that helped disenchant - in the literal sense - a large chunk of the masses). Nobody with an IQ above 'educable' has any excuse for ignorance now - an with that, the modal forecast is that State hegemony will erode in the same way as Church hegemony eroded. Folks like us used to be called 'the Remnant', but now we are over 9000. We are Legion. Expect Us.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Highly logical, Mr. Spock, and well-spoken! I agree with nearly every word. But this give me pause: "There is very little difference between a citizen who supports the Patriot Act and one who doesn’t. Both have placed their faith and their human rights into a crapshoot wherein they accept to be forced into complying with whoever can summon enough force to get their way." I'd say it differently. There may be very little difference in the political framework those two people have absorbed, yes -- both may believe in the legitimacy of the State and of the Constitution -- but there is likely a large difference between them in terms of how they see and feel about their fellow man, and about how they feel about the freedom of each person. The Patriot Act supporter supports fascism (for whatever reason); the person who opposes the Act at least retains some of the spirit on which America was founded; i.e., that freedom was of central importance and the government was there only to protect that. Clearly -- and you've done a great job of making the point -- that belief was wrong, big-time. Small government is the ember that ignites the conflagration of big government. But that's a cognitive error, not necessarily a symptom of emotional damage. It's not necessarily a display of disrespect for one's fellow human beings. This person is far closer to the abolitionist position than the Patriot Act supporter, and I believe that as the Constitutional State becomes ever-more-clearly harmful to life and liberty, more and more of these confused but essentially decent people will find themselves crossing a mental Rubicon that puts them in the camp of (or at least on the road to) abolition of all State coercion. Writings like yours can help with that -- what other reason would you have for writing? And Dr. Paul's writing and interviews and so on help as well -- he's educating people about central banking, about the severe disconnect between the Constitution and actual government behavior, and so on. He's a way-station on the road to abolitionism, and unlike you and I, Paul has an audience of hundreds of millions, all around the world. He's a major boon to the freedom movement, not because his small-government Statism is the answer but because by consistently and honestly supporting and describing small government and the REASONS for keeping government small, he is shining a spotlght on both the evils of our present huge government and on the inherent failure of using ANY coercive government, no matter how small and "restrained", as the arbiter and protector of civil society. Aggression is not civil, and a civil society must completely embrace the non-aggression principle -- plus, it must do one thing more: it must widely and effectively encourage compassion and the sense of connection with others; that is, it must support emotional health, which in turn means it must strongly support the proper treatment of the very young. Even real freedom cannot survive the harm from a society full of emotionally damaged people; love (compassion, sense of connection, or whatever you want to call it) is the lubricant and anti-corrosive for a free society.
  • Dwight Packer's picture
    Dwight Packer 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Of course, Spooner and Rothbard were right, and Ron Paul, ultimately, is wrong. But I, too, have a soft spot for Ron. In 2007, while in college, I discovered Ron and the freedom movement. If it weren't for him, I would have never found Rothbard, Spooner, and the other giants. I won't vote, but I will silently hope Ron Paul goes far in the election.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    GregL: I, too, have a "soft" spot for Ron, but see below about sitting down. His value is that of a gateway drug.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    This is so damn good. Tzo, you're it. I've clipped bits of this to go on my FB page! Yes, I prefer Ron Paul to the others on Congress -- much as I prefer a non-bleeding hemorrhoid to a bleeding one! Go Ron, but don't sit down!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Your comment has triggered the Kleen filter.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    I'm verklempt.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    You're right as usual, but I still have a warm spot in my heart for Ron Paul. I see him as a portal through which more people might discover the likes of Spooner, Rothbard, and Tzo.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Just sycophantic praise, Suverans2, no reference to Black's Law Dictionary?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Standing and applauding! Encore! Encore! I'll have your horse saddled and ready, sir.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago
    Food Stamps
    Web link Michael Dunn
    KenK, Spoken like a true collectivist spin doctor. I'm sure we'd all like to see where Ludwig, Murray and Ayn explain "how it's the moral thing to do to let the poor starve".
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 43 weeks ago
    Food Stamps
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I agree with you Rita. But I fully expect someone to post a Mises/Rothbard/Randanista explanation of how it's the moral thing to do to let the poor starve.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 43 weeks ago
    Food Stamps
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Oh, yeah, make the poor stand in line at soup kitchens if they want to eat -- oh, wait, the people running the soup kitchens are being arrested for feeding the poor without the proper permits. I know, if they want to eat, let 'em get jobs! Oh, wait, there ARE no jobs, even for those capable of working. Lock 'em up! Lock 'em up for being poor! Oh, we already DO that. Here's a better idea -- why don't you just leave them the hell alone? Any program designed to help the needy is bound to be abused. People being what they are, there will ALWAYS be those among us who will take advantage. Being a taxpayer myself, and being, by reason of a drug felony, ineligible for food stamps myself, I'd rather my tax dollars buy steak and lobster and, yes, cigarettes, for a relative few than see the many go without.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    Seems that Noah Webster wasn't the only one who knows that a "right" is a "just claim". From "Word Magic Translation Software" we find these: just claim Noun Plural: just claims 1. derecho, reclamación justa; Synonyms: right, individual right... ___________________________________________________________________________________ de·re·cho Masculine - Noun - Singular Plural: derechos Feminine: derecha Plural and Feminine: derechas 1. right, individual right, just claim... __________________________________________________________________________________ re·cla·ma·ción jus·ta Feminine - Noun - Singular Plural: reclamaciones justas 1. just claim; Synonyms: derecho
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    "...government...is just another force of nature" ~ Paul Bonneau You know, "a force of nature", like tornadoes, hurricanes, earth quakes, tsunamis, etc. Be sure to read all the comments following that masturbatory article, and then draw your own conclusion as to whether we each have a "natural right", i.e. a "just claim"[1], to our life, liberty and justly acquired property. ...to rational individuals, like Ayn Rand, Lysander Spooner, John Locke, James Otis, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, and too many others to list here, natural rights are self-evident. _____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] In Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, under RIGHT, n. at positions 5, 6, 7 and 10 we find these two words, “Just claim”. Claim. To demand as one's own or as one's right... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 247
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    The prologue to The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible by Ken Schoolland My philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it. A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves. At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles. You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf. You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself. Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical. Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history. Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act - especially when it is easier to do nothing.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 43 weeks ago Page tzo
    I don't have much use for this discussion of rights, or distinctions about whether they are surrendered or taken away. That's why I wrote this article: http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights One always gets tied up in semantics and legal arguments, talking about them. To what end? It begins to resemble masturbation. No, government is just a criminal gang, exactly as Rothbard said. As such, it is just another force of nature. There always will be things like lightning strikes, rattlesnakes, slippery ice, and criminal gangs. One simply does what one can to either avoid them or fight against them, as seems fitting. No need to get wrapped up complaining that courts don't follow constitutions and other such irritants. Of course they don't; they are a criminal gang! We have to live inside of Nature; that is our fate. Might as well accept it as it is, and deal with it as we need to.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    People have to start telling the bureaucrats to take a hike, that's all. It will eventually come down to war, I'm sure. That or slavery; take your pick.
  • Guest's picture
    SSS (not verified) 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    Dear Sir, I live in Indiana. Is there a group in my state i can get involved with. Please contact me at rspringer2727@hotmail.com. Thanks
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day Sam, You're right about that, my friend, I never, ever, voluntarily enter the white man's "court" system, because they do not "recognize" my law, just as I do not "recognize" their law. "I understand", means, to their so-called JUDGES, "I consent". And, I guaran-fricken-tee you, you don't "understand" their law, even if you think you do. (Not meaning you, personally, Sam.) Those who think that they do are in for a very rude awakening, sooner or later. Quick definitions from Macmillan Dictionary (recognize)▸to accept the authority or status of someone or something
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day Tony Pivetta, You wrote: "I am not aware of my citizenship in any 14th Amendment or States association." Were you just twisting what I wrote, to be 'humorous', or are you truly "not aware" that you are a U.S. citizen, (which is a citizen created by the 14th Amendment), and/or a citizen of the STATE OF MICHIGAN, (which is an association of "persons" that have "submitted themselves to the dominion" of the U.S. government)?
  • Guest's picture
    mstmike (not verified) 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Kudos to Mr. Monson. He concerns himself less in his role as the as prize fighter and more that of the Martial Artist. Peace advocacy and civil disobedience, thank you very much sir. The government is engaging in illegal warfare. An anarchist recognizes no higher authority than their own conscience. Engaging in non-consensual combat violates the warrior’s code. It is nice to see someone who claims to be a fighter showing a little personal courage and self sacrifice and saying and doing something to oppose this Thomas Paine called his pamphlet “Common Sense” because anarchy .is simple. Two things are called to question, “social hierarchy and social injustice”. When Mr. Munson says these killers are not his leaders and that they should stop murdering people, he sounds very much the humanitarian to me. I have grown old as a practitioner and disciple of the Art. The Art as I know it is a path of personal development comprised of a trinity made up of the body, mind and spirit. Part of that training is self-defense, assuming responsibility for protecting the temple that houses your spirit. Rather than spectator sport, the emphasis is on the reality that a man must stomp his own snakes. Mr. Munson has his priorities right. Tournament play can be fun and prizefighting a more honesty way to make a buck than many but that is not where you will find as the song says “the fight of my life”. A man known by the strength of his rhetoric and when Mr. Munson calls for peace he is saying the right thing. He then does something about what he says. He says what he means and he does what he says. Life is simple. Once again thank you very much. I rarely watched MMA but I’ll be checking the schedule and viewing to support Jeff Monson. I’m calling and emailing my friends, family and fellow martial artist asking them to do the same. Fight the good fight. Best regards, Master Ellison
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    Tony: "...Irwin Schiff is in prison for tax evasion. He claimed the income tax amendment was not legitimately enacted. He claimed the income tax was voluntary even if it was legitimately enacted. He did not prevail..." Irwin gave up his natural "rights" by making the egregious error that he could get "justice" in the white man's "court" system -- that if he obeyed the white man's "laws" (which he did), well...perhaps parasites of state would not play the government game any more. What naiveness. When the accuser and the judge draw their booty from the same kitty there is not a question as to how the "court" case will come out, now is there? So Irwin Schiff is living out his life in the white man's rape cage as a martyr. I suppose I can rather respect him for that in a sense. Tzo's analysis of state as a malicious game is accurate. http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp Sam
  • Jerome L. Wright's picture
    Jerome L. Wright 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Why would one call this "an incredible (literally) prediction" when the notice from Forex.com is real? This is a credible (literally) situation! The action by Forex.com is based on the Dodd-Frank Act, which is real. According to the reading by Forex.com, individuals cannot trade in the silver and gold OTC market. (This does not prevent them from buying and selling with dealers.) It is the removal of one more freedom.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    You're also a racist, which in some circles (Washington, D.C., for example) is much more politically incorrect than being a murderer.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    And, top o' the day to you too, Tony Pivetta, Didn't you mean, "a similar fate awaits me if I adopt his [Irwin Schiff's] line of defense"? Quite frankly, I am familiar with little more than his name and that he was a tax protester, which, obviously, I am not. I think all "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" should pay their dues (income tax). A 14th Amendment citizen is a United States citizen, and a United States citizen is a TAXPAYER with a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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. Notice that it does NOT say, All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, [and] are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. So, the question that you need to answer correctly is, Why am I "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?", keeping in mind that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that it is not merely being "born...in the United States" that makes one a "citizen of the United States". That is a very important question to answer because, that same 14th Amendment, in it's so-called Due Process Clause, allows state and local governments to deprive persons[1] of life, liberty, or property (natural rights) with certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. ____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] "Scope and delineation of term [person] is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution affords PROTECTION since this Amendment expressly applies to "person"." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1142 [Emphasis added] Notice that "this Amendment" does not simply apply to "person", but, rather, it "expressly applies to "person"". Expressly. In an express manner; in direct or unmistakable terms; explicitly; definitely; directly. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill 336 Mo 17, 76 S.W.2d 685, 689. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 581 Why such strong legal language, inquiring minds should like to know?
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    Top of the day to you, Suverans2! I am not aware of my citizenship in any 14th Amendment or States association. I did not say you said I had traded my natural rights for government protection. I got my taxpayer identification number when I was 15. I had been informed by my high school counselor that a taxpayer ID would be required to land a job. Is that where I went wrong? Is that where I traded away my natural rights? I certainly did not intend to bargain away my rights. I just wanted to get a job. As a 15 year-old, I had not attained the age of majority. May I use that fact as a defense against the State's claim that I bargained away my natural rights? Irwin Schiff is in prison for tax evasion. He claimed the income tax amendment was not legitimately enacted. He claimed the income tax was voluntary even if it was legitimately enacted. He did not prevail. I believe a similar fate awaits me if I adopt your line of defense. I'm certainly not willing to take that chance. If you believe the difference between "take away" and "trespass" is not purely a metaphysical or semantic one, that is certainly your prerogative. I hope you have a great day, too.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    I tried to edit and add, "Hope you have a great day", but it triggered the spam filter.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day Tony Pivetta, Thanks for your reply. If you are not a 14th Amendment citizen or a member (citizen) of one of the associations (States) that have submitted themselves to the dominion of the government, then I did NOT say that YOU traded your natural rights for government protection. And, if you do not accept any "member-only" benefits/privileges, which includes protection, then you don't have to REFUSE to pay...because you won't be a TAXPAYER...you won't even have a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (U.S.). If you believe that the difference between "take away" and "trespass" is purely a metaphysical one, or a matter of semantics, that is certainly your prerogative.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Pretty bad when even an institution like IMF starts sounding the alarms...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zNf6_ivPk4 Or better yet... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfQcbm_Uass
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Yay! Even Conservatives are signing on. Not much time left for this rotten empire, I think.
  • Bill St. Clair's picture
    Bill St. Clair 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    If somebody launched a drone strike on the White House, you can damn well bet that Obama would call THAT "hostilities".
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    You seem to be arguing semantics, Suverans2. I did *not* trade in my natural rights for the State's protection (such as it is), but I find myself in the same position as those who did. If I assert my natural rights too enthusiastically by, say, refusing to pay my taxes, I face the same fate as those who refuse to pay but accept taxes as the price they pay for civilization. The State is no less likely to sic its agents on me for refusal to pay. In fact, it's more likely, insofar as the State lives in perpetual fear of mass resistance movements. Do the State's armed thugs "take away" or merely "trespass" against my natural rights? I'll let the metaphysicians (and semanticists) decide that one. I agree with the metaphysicians that the State has no moral right to behave this way. In other words, the State ought not to inflict or threaten me with violence for pursuing my natural rights to life and property. But inflict and threaten it does, in early 21st century American sensory-sensual space-time.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day Tony Pivetta, *Operationally*, "citizens" voluntarily, (albeit ignorantly, in the vast majority of cases), trade their natural rights for protection. "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109 [Emphasis added] Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. The protection of an individual by government is on condition of his submission to the laws, and such submission on the other hand entitles the individual to the protection of the government. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1223 [Emphasis added] But, for those of us who haven't, "Armed thugs, whether freelance or on government-payroll cannot" "take [our natural rights] away", they can only "trespass" upon them. Trespass. An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1502 [Emphasis added] Next, you wrote, ""inalienable" rights--to life, liberty, property, free speech, religion, etc.". Might I point out that with the first three, no other itemization is necessary. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment [sic] of government. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language To be more precise, this liberty is abridged when we submit ourselves, individually, to the dominion of the government. And lastly, natural persons[1] do not "evade its taxes or resist its edicts"; as non-members they are "exempts"[2] (as we see in the above definition of natural liberty), notwithstanding they may have a difficult time convincing ignorant agents of the government of this fact. As tzo correctly stated, "...the masses will want to force me to play anyway. But then it's not really a game anymore, is it? Can you tell the difference?" _______________________________________________________________________________________ [1] PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it implies. … Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic.” 1 Bl. Comm. 123 ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's Dictionary of the Law, 1st Edition (c.1891)], pg. 892 [Emphasis added] A "natural person" holds the highest rank in society, controlled only by jus naturale. JUS NATURALE [The natural law]. The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tay. Civil Law, 99. ~ A Law Dictionary (Black’s 2nd c.1910), pg. 804 [2] EXEMPTS. Persons who are not bound by law, but excused from the performance of duties imposed upon others. . ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (c.1856), page 1009
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    In discussing inalienable rights, one must take care to differentiate between what *ought to be* and what *is*. When John Adams says we have "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws," he means they *ought not to be* repealed or restrained. *Operationally*, however, they are routinely repealed and restrained. Armed thugs, whether freelance or on government-payroll, *do* take away our "inalienable" rights--to life, liberty, property, free speech, religion, etc.--by threatening or inflicting violence on those of us who try to exercise them. Adams himself signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act, thereby repealing Americans' right to criticize their government in *sensory-sensual space-time*, as Robert Anton Wilson tagged the here-and-now. Americans may well have retained the right in some Platonic realm. The fact remains they risked great bodily injury up to and including death if they presumed to exercise that right under the territorial monopoly of force we call the Adams administration. That's the paradox as I see it. What *is* conflicts with what *ought to be*. We can withdraw our consent to be governed. We can free our minds, recognizing the State for Rothbard's "band of criminals writ large" that it is. The insight in itself is worthwhile. Nevertheless, if you evade its taxes or resist its edicts, the State may well sic its agents on you. You may get away with it. But the threat remains. You risk fine, imprisonment or worse. That's the reality.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, My God, a true "strike the root" reply!! And that Étienne de la Boétie quote gives me goosebumps! A couple of things, though, my friend; first, regarding "inalienable rights". The question that begs to be answered is this, who would you "transfer" your natural rights to, since all men have them? ;) "...And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." A "tricky" phrase indeed, “Inalienable rights”; it is defined, not once, but twice, and in two entirely different ways, in Black’s 1991 Law Dictionary. On page 759 we find the one that pertains to civil or legal rights. Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g. freedom of speech or religion, due process, and equal protection of the laws. ...See Bill of rights Notice that it did not say e.g. "the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property", as the New Hampshire Constitution properly denoted the natural rights. enjoy verb: have for one's benefit Now, 764 pages later, on page 1523, we find a different definition; this one pertains to natural rights, the right to life, liberty and property (both natural and justly acquired). Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. In this context "abridge" means ...2. To lessen; to diminish... 3. To deprive; to cut off from...as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. (Source: Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language) You cannot be "alienated", or "cut off", from them, which is why John Adams reportedly said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws...". You can only lose them with your own consent, express or implied, or by forfeiture. And second, you wrote, "You can agree to pay 50% of your future labor/resources in exchange for citizenship, but it is not a valid contract because you can, at any time, decide to keep what you earn." In my opinion, for clarity, you should have added, "by withdrawing from membership in the [political] group and refusing to trade your natural rights for civil/political rights (member-only benefits/privileges)".
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    What's really pathetic about this article and the comments regarding it is that for decades, these filthy beasts have been gunning down human beings suspected of using and/or selling certain, arbitrarily banned substances, and no one in America seemed to mind at all. No, it takes the killing of DOGS to properly enrage the public. Kill our children, if you must, the the puppy? Oh, my God; not the puppy!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    Every definition of inalienable I find includes the concept of being "non-transferable." They cannot be voluntarily be given away. "Relinquishing inalienables" is indeed paradoxical by the definitions of the two words. This means you always retain the highest claim upon inalienable rights. You can agree to pay 50% of your future labor/resources in exchange for citizenship, but it is not a valid contract because you can, at any time, decide to keep what you earn. No one else can ever have a higher claim on your life, liberty, and property as do you. The citizen cedes his life, liberty, and property to the State, but of course, he really doesn't. He just doesn't realize that he really doesn't. He thinks the State owns him, but he really owns himself, so his actions are his own, and whatever he suffers from as a result of this error in judgment is self-inflicted. He has agreed, through ignorance of his own self, to make himself miserable. He has only himself to blame. The individual who understands that the government is a thief who steals from him because he understands that he has the exclusive right to his own life, liberty, and property, may suffer the same deprivations as the citizen, but he is not doing it to himself. He can rightfully blame others for violating his human rights. Just a subtle shift in the state of mind. May make no apparent difference in results obtained. But the difference between understanding that government is stealing and that government has just authority is everything. The false assumption that government has some kind of innate, just authority is the very consent that gives it life. Withdraw that support and it dies. Flip one little switch between the ears of enough people, and the government lights go out. Sounds too simple, yet this is what de la Boétie wrote about more than half a millennium ago. He is quoted and cited often, yet perhaps the subtlety and sheer simplicity of his argument is not truly appreciated: Free your mind and the rest will follow. "Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?" ~ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Page tzo
    Good day tzo, Curious, what is the "paradox" in the below statement? "Well, what a stupid fecking game. I quit. I am a human being, not a Citizen. I was born to be sovereign upon the face of the Earth, and I do not relinquish this inalienable status (paradox noted) in order to participate in a rigged shell game." I ask this because, according to the natural law, as I understand it, one can consent (express), or appear to consent (implied/tacit), to "relinquish" one's "inalienable status". The reason our natural rights are called "inalienable" is because they cannot, rightfully, be taken by the so-called laws of men. "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams I don't see no stinking "paradox".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Never mind...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Sorens invited me to work on this study since I had helped expand the Free State Project spreadsheet, but I declined because I had other priorities. Also, I had come to the conclusion (though I really like spreadsheet work) that spreadsheets don't come close to giving you the whole picture. It's pretty amusing Sorens lives in the state that placed last in his study.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 2 years 44 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    It looks like the free market--that brought you the unstoppable BitTorrent--has now produced what promises to be an even better free market product: electronic, peer-to-peer Crypto-currency called Bitcoin. NOTE: Bitcoin, like BitTorrent is an anonymous peer-to-peer relationship--like paying cash or barter. AND, there is NO central control point like eGold and Liberty Dollar. As with BitTorrent, "authorities" may "take out" some users and even "outlaw" it, but the system appears to be impervious to centralized control. [Centralized control IS what governments are.] For more details I recommend the following video interview by Stefan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio: youtube.com/watch?v=ygoqDBfjimM&NR=1 followed by FAQ at Bitcoin WIKI: en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ Dennis
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I grew up in Central New York. They have had a housing bust since the 90s. Big, gorgeous, old, wooden houses going for $35,000. Everybody's leaving. Raise taxes and businesses leave. Businesses leave and people leave with them. People leave empty houses that they're desperate to get rid of. If I were rich, I'd move back to Central New York in a heartbeat. Cheap, big, gorgeous, old, wooden houses. Very sad. Sadder still, everybody still clings to government, which is why they'll get more of the same.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 44 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "Vote with their feet" and go where, to a State only marginally more free?
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Serious controversy"? The department is facing a serious controversy? For murdering a man? Welcome to the United Police States of America. Some people call cops "heroes." Some people call them "law enforcement officers." (Oddly enough, they call THEMSELVES "Peace Officers.") But the truth is that they are nothing but greedy, self-serving thugs who have been elevated by the media to the status of gods.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Darkcrusade, "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me." ~ Darkcrusade And, presuming you do, just how is it that you came to believe that the BIBLE is "the Word of God"? My guess, it was from neither a priori or empirical evidence that you came to believe this, it was because some of those persons on that list told you it was, and you believed them; you believed them because, "they would never lie to me". http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm