Recent comments

  • GregL's picture
    GregL 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Geoffrey, Thanks for a very interesting post. One of the difficulties of implementing "Liberty Pools" is the lack of an efficient way of anonymously transferring money. I was wondering how you think the advent of bitcoin possibly coupled with Tor (see Silk Road) might impact this in the future.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 42 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Oh, dear -- free the monkeys. Then you can use the extra cages for human beings, because God forbid you ever stop caging human beings.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 42 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Welcome to OUR world, Mayor -- the world of the people you step on every day.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 42 weeks ago
    Food Stamps
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I'm not an anarchist, not yet, although I can sure see it from here -- but here's the thing -- if you're going to give handouts, give handouts. If you can't help, stay the f**k away. One thing none of us, and the poor in particular, need, is more regulation. You can buy this, but not that -- who gets to decide, and who gets to enforce, and what are you going to do with people who violate?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Hi GeoffreyTransom, My 'First Axiom of Political Power' is simply this: "Any person who desires political power, should be kept from political power at all costs." EXACTLY right, (with no reference to Black's Law Dictionary)!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    We tend to toss the word "law" around as though there is only one law, one set of rules. Here is a partial list found under the heading "LAW" in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language. 2. Municipal law... Municipal or civil laws... 3. Law of nature... 4. Laws of animal nature... 5. Laws of vegetation... 6. Physical laws, or laws of nature... 7. Laws of nations... 8. Moral law... 9. Ecclesiastical law... 10. Written law... 11. Unwritten or common law... 12. By-law... 13. Mosaic law... 14. Ceremonial law... 21. Law martial, or martial law... 22. Marine laws... 23. Commercial law, law-merchant... 26. ...Civil law, criminal law... Laws of honor. I believe that "true laws" are discoverable, provable, and unchangeable, all the rest are the arbitrary and capricious laws created by men, "the congealed shit left over after a bunch of career parasites are finished taking bribes; when they get around to the serious business of politics, which is simply forcing people to obey their whims" (Quote by GeoffreyTransom).
  • DanClore's picture
    DanClore 2 years 42 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I dislike the way this article equates lack of an effective central government with lack of government -- Somalia has been overflowing with competing governments, from the warlords that divided the country into a patchwork of fiefdoms, to the Islamic Courts Union that provided a loose federation of regional authorities, to the US/UN/AU-backed Transitional National Government, to the Ethiopian military that invaded and occupied the country, to al-Shabaab, the extreme Islamist wing of the ICU that has seized power in most of the country now, as interventions from outside resulted in the opposite of their intended result. Anyway, I've followed the story closely enough over the years to know that warlords in particular favored the growth of the telecommunications industry, because that meant more remittances from expatriots, and hence more money for them to leech from their subjects.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Hi @Suverans2... EXACTLY right: the "without due process of law" is the thing that gives it away... all you need is a pet charlatan like Scalia, Yoo or Bybee, and hey Presto! Torture is legal, dropping bombs on water treatment plants and killing children is not 'war' (but hacking the Pentagon is an 'act of war'). YAY! I also have nothing but contempt for people who think highly of the notion of a bunch of robed geriatrics hand-picked by the political class, engaging in silly mediaeval theatre set pieces. No doubt that Tom Paine and (some of) the rest of them had the good intentions, but anyone with an IQ above about 60 sees the word 'law' FAR too often in the key documents of the Revolutionary (French and US) periods. For example - the French 1789 "Declaration of the Rights of Man" should fill its reader with nothing but dismay... leaving the way open for the Scalias, Yoos and Bybees of the world to parse its language out of all recognition. (By contrast, I find no fault whatsoever with Articles 30-35 of the 1793 version...) At bottom though, the political and juridical process are - as Tzo so eloquently put it - dancing around the volcano. Bones in the nose, grass skirts, stupid masks... when you boil it down, the "hooblah hoo" industry persists, be it at SCOTUS, the Congress or the Vatican. 'Law' is the congealed shit left over after a bunch of career parasites are finished taking bribes; when they get around to the serious business of politics, which is simply forcing people to obey their whims. My 'First Axiom of Political Power' is simply this: "Any person who desires political power, should be kept from political power at all costs."
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Neil D., It's possible to undertake (defensive) violent action against the State and its armed goons, without front-on confrontation in serried ranks... nobody with a lick of sense advocates a 'storm the barricades' action à la the French peasants at the Bastille - for the precise reason that had the Crown possessed modern high powered weaponry in 1789, history books would contain a story about how one day a bunch of uppity French peasants got cut to shreds. Serried ranks against the modern machinery of tyranny... that is the definition of stupid. In contrast, Jim Bell's "Assassination Politics" has a very stupid name, but its inner workings are a quite-precise formulation of how to go about things sensibly. In short, it's obvious on a moment's reflection that the right way to degrade State power is to degrade the operational effectiveness of its enforcement arm... and the way to do that is to 'tilt' incentives enough to engender a fall in the State-goon's willingness to furnish his labour. Targeted, extreme ultraviolence is the answer - Ghandians are simply wrong. The best recent example of the "swan's legs" fury that underpins 'peaceful protest", is the msot successful of the Arab Spring actions - OpEgypt. During OpEgypt, while DDoS furnished a diversion, folks like me were diligently hacking the Egyptian Department of the Interior in order to get information about Mubarak's secret police - the Mukhabarat. We got access to the Ministry's personnel database, which included lists of Mukhabarat undercover operatives and informants - names, cover names, addresses, safe-house extraction addresses, family details... you name it. There were about 3200 names from Cairo, of which 1600 were actual Mukhabarat (i.e., not just informants). From there, we identified a few dozen single men without children, and a subset of those were beaten to within an inch of their lives (5 died, in fact - you cannot control via the internet, the zeal of the man who gets to confront his oppressor). Thereafter, telephone calls were place to 5% of the remaining list - telling them what had happened to their colleagues, WHY it had happened, and informing the listener that their fate was similar if they continued to profit from participating in the machinery of tyranny... and that they should let everyone know that this was the case. The 'grapevine' did the rest. This attempt to use relatively-low levels of targeted violence followed by an information campaign to engender a 'chilling effect' is PRECISELY the primary operational feature of "Assassination Politics" (I prefer to call it "Liberty Pools" - but in deference to Jim Bell I stick with his nomenclature). And everywhere it gets implemented, it works. And it works FAST. The OpEgypt hack took place on January 24th: the attacks and phone calls happened on the night of January 26th. On January 27th there was ZERO State security presence on the streets of Cairo. The protest leaders were actually frightened - they were certain that Mubarak's forces had positioned themselves (or infiltrated the protests in plain clothes - that had happened before). When it became clear that the State's machinery of oppression had simply given up, it was clear that the Egyptian government would fall. By the end, Mubarak's remaining powerbase had to give out KFC vouchers to the unemployed to get counter-protests going... they became known as the 'shabaab kantacki' (Kentucky [Fried] Rabble). The reason for this long-winded explanation is to point out that, even (in fact ESPECIALLY) under the most despotic regime, the forces of tyranny are susceptible to focused ultraviolence: SWAT swaggering fucktards don't wear kevlar in their homes, and their vehicles are not in secure parking at all times. And if they're not in a pack, they are usually pussies - steroid enhancement or not. They might have visions of getting all Steven Segal against multiple attackers, but in real life getting jumped by just 3 decent sized men is a fucking nightmare and is impossible for even the best-trained fellow to counter: basically, unless you immobilise one of the 3 before the jump, you end up getting the shit kicked out of you (and it only stops when your attackers decide it stops). The basic point is this - if your average SWAT-tard knows he has to hold his breath every time he starts his car in the morning, he will feel more inclined to call in sick (and/or go look for productive work as a mallcop). If the local Deppidy-Sherrif knows he has to keep one eye on the window while jacking off to re-runs of COPS, he will feel less inclined to confiscate some poor guy's weed. If the undercover narc knows that he can be identified by an information insecurity, he feels more like quitting. And so on and so forth: in the humint world, clandestine operatives spend half of their psychic energy shitting themselves at the prospect of discovery... adding infosec vulnerability to that is a GOOD thing for the liberty-minded. The best bit: the 'Ooh-rah!' loud-mouth types are actually the biggest cowards. They give up first when the going gets seriously tough: the smarter cops/spooks/snitches learn to adapt their behaviour and start behaving like a human. It's harder with military or paramilitary - like the French gendarmes - because they live in barracks (this is precisely to remove them from interaction with those they oversee)... but undercover cops can't live in barracks - and the Surété's cyber-defences were written by an amateur. If you want to get a good parallel, think of Afghanistan and Iraq: the anti-invasion forces are undermanned and WAY underpowered - but they are gradually forcing the invader out of their homeland by harassment and insurgency. The same way the 'mighty' US military was defeated in Viet Nam and Mogadishu, and the French in Indochina and Algeria. And the blowback is that the US winds up with 2 million men who have been driven half out of their minds by combat stress... vast numbers of whom become progressively disenchanted with their post-deployment treatment.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Constitutionalists are fond of mocking the myth of democracy, likening it to mob rule. "God's law trumps man's law," they'll say, if they're inclined to a Judeo-Christian view of natural rights. "The Commandment is 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' not 'Thou Shalt Not Steal Except By Majority Rule.'" Then they'll turn around and defend the Constitution, which even under a narrow reading (whose?!) authorizes the Congress to violate all kinds of rights to life and property. In other words, "Thou Shalt Not Steal Except to Fund the Few and Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government as Stipulated by Article 1, Section 8." Who can mock that?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Your comment has triggered the Kleen filter.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    I'm verklempt.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 2 years 42 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 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Just sycophantic praise, Suverans2, no reference to Black's Law Dictionary?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page tzo
    Standing and applauding! Encore! Encore! I'll have your horse saddled and ready, sir.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 42 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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 43 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)".