Recent comments

  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Most of the time I spent in court I spent wondering why the judges even botrher to show up. The prosecutors run the courts and the police run the prosecutors. Seriously, is there anything the cops CAN'T do?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 5 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    What is amazing is that the cops have no interest at all. Sure they're tight on resources now but still...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    "The science of mine and thine --- [the natural law of man] the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other." ~ Natural Law by Lysander Spooner ________________________________________________________________________________ "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics. The practice of natural law also has been eliminated almost completely by the legal profession. Very often, the study and the practice of natural law are scorned if not ridiculed." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law. [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 days ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Yup, the ones with no video or audio equipment on board.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 5 days ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Of course at the end it sounded as if he got to enjoy a ride in one of those police elevators I became very familiar with before I quit drinking 30+ years ago. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 5 days ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    You've pulled out the essence of the lengthy article and used it as an excellent summary. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 6 days ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    The relationship between entities (cause and effect) is determined by the characteristics of the entities involved. This is no less true of human entities than any other. Even a cursory look quickly reveals that imposition upon personal preference by initiation of force and/or coercion produces the effect of resentment and hostility. It logically follows that if peace and harmony is the objective, refraining from initiation of force and coercion is the natural law means to achieve and sustain this end. How can any truth be more visible and irrefutable? ~Delmar England   
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 6 days ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Thanks.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 days ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Very good, Sam. Did you hear that agent, "...we are allowed to lie in interviews"? The rule is, if their lips are moving they are lying. So, other than identifying who you are, keep your mouth shut...unless of course you are like the Articulant Motorist.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 days ago Web link Michael Dunn
    "...memorize your attorney's phone number..." ~ rita Memorize this, rita, "your attorney", whether (s)he is appointed by the court or paid for by you, is, first and foremost, an officer of the court.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 6 days ago Web link Michael Dunn
    And remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=player_embedded Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 6 days ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    You had pointed out this paper a few days back, and I buzzed through it rather quickly. I think there's a lot of good things there, and I agree that it needs some editing, but it will need a more careful reading on my part, which I plan on doing. I think I want to like it. :>
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 6 days ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Tzo (comment): "...If there are enough damaged people, then damage seems normal..." I've been rereading an essay, "Insanity As The Social Norm", by Delmar England: http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm It is 24 pages in a single space "Word" document. I've tried to edit my copy to produce more easily understood reading -- it does need work. England's main critique is the tendency in those of us professing anarchy to ignore "is" individual (the subjective definition we all have) in deference to "ought" individual (the objective definition), creating a subservient mentality. For instance, where you might say..."everyone gets to interpret the 'facts' of the world in his own way and draw his own conclusions"...England would insist: Everyone DOES interpret the 'facts' of the world in his own way and draws his own conclusions" -- the problem being those "conclusions" are sullied by "the confused and complex lies" with which s/he has grown up. England's very last paragraph: ...I do not propose to engage in such a futile effort (<== defining 'anarchism'). Suffice it to say, it is only by recognition of the truth of “is” individual without the subservient “ought” adornments of “morality” and “rights” that the real objective identity stands as a common frame of reference in unification, not division. In seeking freedom, peace and harmony, all else is folly... by Delmar England It's a good read for those wishing to expand this "objective, ethical rules" topic further. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 1 week ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Yes, it's a bit like arguing that sunlight to a plant is neither good nor bad. Who can say? Everything is subjective. Well, if you do a bit of objective science, you will discover that sunlight is objectively good for the plant. The need and desire for love, justice, respect, and cooperation are built into us, and just like a plant's chlorophyll, we have a mechanism to manufacture energy out of these ingredients in order to thrive. And anyone who demands to see proof of this hasn't really looked at the world that surrounds him very closely, or can't evaluate the data accurately because he has been damaged by lack of love, justice, respect, and cooperation. If there are enough damaged people, then damage seems normal. Unfortunately, I think this is the case in this society and is what makes it difficult to get these kinds of points across.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 1 week ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    I think so. The belly-button thing covers the All Men Are Created Equal part, where everyone gets to interpret the "facts" of the world in his own way and draw his own conclusions. And I am happy to call all this personal interpretation subjective, as everyone will come to different conclusions about all kinds of "objective" things. The Just Society part is merely allowing each individual to live as he chooses and is able, as long as he does not hinder anyone else's ability to live likewise. This is the only way to preserve AMACE and to create a just society. So given the caveats, which I believe most people will agree to, then the entire objective ethics thing is done and done. It's that simple, and not really *subject* to much interpretation in any rational manner.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Try it here, rita. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEb666Szs8s&feature=player_embedded#at=482
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "Disengage from the government." John deLaubenfels Precisely!! DISENGAGE, v.t. [dis and engage.] ...4. ...to withdraw... 6. To release or liberate from a promise or obligation; to set free by dissolving an engagement ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 1 week ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Anyone who believes that "convicted of" always means "guilty of" is woefully ignorant of how our travesty of justice system works. Over 90% of felony cases in this country are settled by plea agreements, arbitrated behind closed doors between prosecutors who see more convictions as their tickets to stardom and court appointed "defense attorneys" who are, at best, overworked and indifferent. And have you SEEN the inside of a prison? Education? Health care? Oh, please! You're right; America's justice system is broken. And it's people like the person who wrote this article, like the ones even now screaming for Casey Anthony's head on a pike, people who believe that accused always means guilty -- those people are already in charge.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 1 week ago Web link Michael Dunn
    My computer says: "Critical error. The remote server has returned an error. Forbidden." I'm not paranoid or anything . . . or am I?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 1 week ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Forget speed dial; memorize your attorney's phone number, because if there's one thing the cops fear more than people with guns, it's people with cell phones.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 1 week ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Wow! A terrific approach and VERY well done. (And so brief and concise! I'm impressed at the signal-to-noise ratio you've attained). I understand Samarami's point but disagree with it: civil society (that is, any society widely characterized by love and freedom, or compassion and liberty, or emotional health and laissez-faire -- depending on the wording you prefer) can be objectively described and does provide objective results that, as it happens, can be shown, scientifically, to be healthier and better (in terms of any number of important criteria) than what you get from a NON-civil society. So I'm in your corner on the objective rules thing, Tzo. Millions of people THINK various Statist schemes are in the best interests of all, but they're wrong -- and you've hit the nail on the head about it. Those who are sincere in wanting "justice, cooperation, freedom, and equal human rights" would be well-served to read your column. Not many will, but those who do may actually learn something important.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 1 week ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Clever, Tzo. Anybody who knows me would be disappointed if I did not announce at this point that we've already organized society -- and declared statehood no less. I use "we" loosely -- so far I'm the only member but "we" have a sovereign state. I am Head of State, as a matter of fact -- the most powerful man in the world. Of course the world revolves around MY belly-button -- not yours. My world. What makes me the most powerful man in the world is the knowledge that YOUR world revolves around YOUR belly-button -- whether you admit it or not. That gives me a lot of power, because I can know with certainty if you disagree with me over a matter it's not because there is something wrong with me -- or that you got up this morning attempting to find a way to screw me over. It's only that in your world the facts are defined differently. How's that for "objective, ethical rules..." Am I gettin' there yet??? Sam
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I would say there are two things we can do: . Sound off. Spread the word. Sure, it's frustrating to be confronted by ignorance, and many times it will prove a waste of time to try to counter it, but occasionally a seed will take root. . Disengage from the government. Attempt to live our lives out of its sight and away from its greedy, grasping hands.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 1 week ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    For those who thought I was too hard on Lew Rockwell and his acolytes in this article, here he is again (following his overriding interest) at the following link, praising empire and Catholicism when they are linked to Austria. There are 3 magic words at lewrockwell.com, and when they occur in close proximity, it becomes catnip to the Lewciferians: Catholic + Empire + Austria = Good as in this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/91524.html Note how he gushes over the imperium when it touches upon a female empress to be, as he says himself in the post about the burial of the son of the Austrian Emperor, Otto von Habsburg: "His Body Interred in Austria, His Heart in Hungary...My favorite newspaper these days, the Daily Mail, has its usual stunning photos of the funerals of the great Catholic liberal Otto von Habsburg. Don't miss Otto as a boy, and if you want to know what a real queen-empress looks like, see his wife to be." While it is true that Hoppe has made a good case that private governments have a tendency to act more responsibly than democratic governments (Democracy: The God That Failed), this is yet another example of paleolibertarianism run amok. This is particularly sad because Lew does so much good, but then he paints a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 1 week ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    For those who thought I was too hard on Lew Rockwell and his acolytes in this article. Here he is again at the following link, praising empire and Catholicism when they are linked to Austria. These are the 3 magic words of his sect at lewrockwell.com, and when they occur in close proximity, it becomes catnip to lew. Note how Lew drowns his brain in the holy water font in the following equation: Catholic + Empire + Austria = Good as in this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/91524.html He clearly gushes over the imperium when it touches a female imperial parasite, as he says himself in the post about the burial of the son of the Austrian Emperor, Otto von Habsburg: "His Body Interred in Austria, His Heart in Hungary...My favorite newspaper these days, the Daily Mail, has its usual stunning photos of the funerals of the great Catholic liberal Otto von Habsburg. Don't miss Otto as a boy, and if you want to know what a real queen-empress looks like, see his wife to be." Can he gush any more fully over the empress? While it is true that Hoppe has made a good case that private governments have a tendency to act more responsibly than democratic governments (Democracy: The God That Failed), this is yet another example of paleolibertarianism run amok.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day tzo, Touché! Your parallels are apropos, my friend, regardless of the fact that they may be a bit "overboard". So, now that we know that there is no "lawful" contract, that we have been "tricked" into it, what do we do about it? Do we succumb to the fear of "coercion", (though I perceive that greed, i.e. the fear of the loss of material wealth, is greatest coercive force for many, if not most, of us), and just sit around complaining to each other? Or, do we stand up for what is right, and "pledge...our lives, fortunes, and sacred honour" to the great and honorable fight for freedom? "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom..." ~ Samuel Adams
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 1 week ago Web link Mike Powers
    Cops breaking the laws they enforce against the people? What a surprise.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Suverans2, When coercion is used, it is difficult to accept that there is an implicit contract based on the behavior and actions of the coerced. If the threatened party elects to interact with the thug because he believes he will be better off than by not, then this is merely self-interest, and is action taken under duress. To claim that a government has some ethical claim to being a valid party to a contract because it successfully threatens or tricks people to interact with it just can't process in my brain. Every armed robbery in history where the victim acquiesced peacefully was legal because there was no objection, thereby creating tacit consent which made the "interaction" a contract? Every fraud and theft is legal because the unaware victim fails to object as the event is occurring, which creates a valid contract based on tacit consent? I'm sure I went overboard with my parallels in the previous paragraph, but I'll need you to point out how they fail in comparison to "contracting with government."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day tzo, Express and implied. An express contract is an actual agreement of the parties, the terms of which are openly uttered or declared at the time of making it, being stated in distinct and explicit language, either orally or in writing. An implied contract is one not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law, as a matter of reason and justice from their acts or conduct, the circumstances surrounding the transaction making it a reasonable, or even a necessary, assumption that a contract existed between them by tacit understanding. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 323 ________________________________________________________________________________ TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Unfortunately, complaining to the other servants does not count as "objection or opposition".
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Valid contracts imply "a meeting of the minds," where all parties are informed on all points. The old argument about signing away your rights because you said you were a citizen in order to get a social security card in order to get a drivers license in order to get a job just doesn't work. How many of you have done a one-click agreement online in order to make a purchase or join a website? What if it said in the seventh paragraph of stipulation number 437 that you hereby relinquish your first born child?
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Excellent column! The Higgs reference is probably my favorite from an author I much admire. This point needs to be driven home, "I do not consent!" "I did not sign that B***S*** contract!" I've got a domain, govNotLegit.com, that I need to flesh out. When I get time... I'll be sure to include a link to this column.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I don't think so. The questions being asked in these cases are, "Do we classify you as a U.S. citizen" and "Do we classify you as a resident (not citizen) of the state of Wyoming". To reply truthfully is not to pledge any fealty whatever to any institution, legitimate (ha!) or otherwise.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Just curious, Paul Bonneau, how many times have you checked the "yes" box, to either of the following two questions, and signed it? Are you a U.S. citizen? Are you a citizen of the State of Wyoming? If your answer is once, or more, (like I had), have you rebutted the presumption that that answer, or those answers, and signature created; the presumption that you have expressly consented to be a citizen, i.e. a subject, of a State government or, of the United States government?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    Discovering True Laws
    Page Bob Wallace
    Natural law is "a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independent of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people,' [are] 'discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and' [are] 'found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution". ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 2ND c. 1910), pg. 804 "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics." "The natural law and the positive law are not alternative systems of rules that apply to the same thing. The natural law is the law of natural persons and positive law is a law of artificial persons." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
  • Guest's picture
    crisJ (not verified) 3 years 1 week ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I'm not against the security check in airports since it's just only for our safety but doing security checks by the agents should be careful and gentle that the one being examined is not feeling being abused or assaulted because it's just normal for the public to react violently about these security checks when they are feel like being assaulted already. I remember the news about what happened last Saturday when a mother from TN was detained for objecting when TSA workers tried to pat down her daughter. The female allegedly became belligerent and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Recently, the TSA altered its policy on pat downs of children. This incident comes after that policy change. The proof is here: Woman arrested for scene when TSA attempt to pat down her daughter. I think if the TSA agents just explained the change in their policies with the woman and the woman just made a proper approach to the TSA agent, the situation would not come to the point of arresting her. This is the only thing that both parties must understand and consider.
  • Peter McCandless's picture
    Peter McCandless 3 years 1 week ago
    Woman Gropes TSA Agent
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Let's hope she has a trial by jury and the jury is smart enough to acquit her.
  • Paul the cab Driver's picture
    Paul the cab Driver 3 years 1 week ago Web link Westernerd
    Ms. Flowers states, "The idea that no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives (Legalize drugs! Ban motorcycle helmets! Don't ban violent videos! Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!) has led us to a place where caring about No. 1 has become a secular religion, and turned all of those who preach restraint into heretics." She is absolutely right! Libertarianism is the problem! Yes, that philosophy that teaches that you own yourself is evil and must be stomped out. The idea that people need to take control of their OWN lives and determine what they ingest, and where they live and what they do for work is BAD!!! It leads to baby killers who party while their child is missing! We need women like the brave, hyper-intelligent, clear thinking Ms.Flowers to guide our EVERY step, and mind our EVERY move. And to kill people who get out of line. She and her minions will lovingly and kindly direct every movement of all 300 million of us. Hey it will be tough work, but Flowers is cut out for just such a task. And think of all the child killers she will stop! We do need a catchy name for her utopia. How about: "Worker's paradise?"
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 1 week ago Web link Westernerd
    It is for this type of detritus that I "divorced" and have not owned a television set for over 35 years: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "...even if the justice system has denied her the official title of child killer. "As surely as O.J. Simpson plunged a knife into his ex-wife, Caylee Marie's mother guaranteed she wasn't going to see her 3rd birthday. The evidence, though circumstantial, was powerful. The fact that the jury failed to connect the logical dots is an indictment of our system..." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * wkmac is absolutely correct: this gal is your classic media moron, claiming to "know" all the facts and information the jurors had at their disposal to conclude the prosecutor(s) had not proved their case within the framework of "law". The white man's "justice" system is bad enough as it is without nerds like Flowers. She reinforces my mantra: television, if I were to own one, would be an insult to what little intelligence I have left. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 1 week ago Web link Westernerd
    "...President Felipe Calderon has deployed tens of thousands of troops to the streets to take on powerful drug traffickers shortly after taking office in late 2006. "Violence has spiraled since then, with more than 40,000 people killed across Mexico, hurting support for Calderon’s conservative National Action Party (PAN), which faces an uphill struggle to secure re-election next July. "Mexico is America’s top supplier of marijuana and most cocaine consumed in the United States passes through Mexico..." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tell me, friends. With the example of 40,000 people killed across the land area referred to as "Mexico", and Calderon's primary concern being how those deaths might affect his re-election chances, would it not appear rational for agents of state in this area (read: "U.S. of A") to stop this carnage, allow Walgreens and other "free" marketers to sell the products agents of state deign to prohibit their subjects from ingesting, and end the drug "war"? Never. If you haven't read "Insanity As The Social Norm" ( http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm ) and you would really like to cut through the bullshit and understand WHY the white man has no intention of ending this or any other violence (his "wars" and his "swat" attacks against random citizens) or his "police state" stance, I urge you to set aside half a day and filter your way through it. Delmar England -- even though the essay needs some "trimming" in the way of grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc --will help you see clearly the fact that the drug "war" (like all his "wars") is religion to The Man. And religion equates to power -- throughout all human history. Just like priests understand that a certain percentage of the flock will always file obediently into their "services" as long as ritual and liturgy are upheld keeping "the church" strong and canonical; the white man understands there will always remain enough sheep who will "register" with him and docily promenade to "the polls". That keeps The Great White Father legitimatized and commanding. Drug Wars, Death Penalty, Wars against "terror" are absolutely essential in order to keep them cards and letters comin' in. Sam.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 3 years 1 week ago Web link Westernerd
    Well the good news is that when Nancy Grace decides to hang it all up, there's another hysterical lawyer to take her place. But then I know so many of our friends, like my wife and I, became libertarians (geez should I tell her about anarchism?) just so we could change society in order to kill our kids on a regular basis. To hell with that Non-Aggression Axiom crap! Ms. Flowers, Bugs Bunny had you pegged. "What a maroon!" She shows an aversion to violent videos (I do too and that's why I don't play them) but I bet when it comes to the Warfare State, she's all over it. Support them heroes! Think she ever looks at the forces behind "Full Spectrum Warrior"? Or Lt. Colonel Hank Keirsey and Call of Duty? And she's upset at Casey for killing one kid? Maybe that should be "What a Hypocritical Maroon!"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    A Quest for Sanity
    Web link Michael Kleen
    "...far too many calling themselves "anarchists" are actually governmentalists deep down. They simply cannot imagine "society" not having to be refashioned into their brand of "anarchy" (with ME as the "leader", of course)." Amen! "I believe you can be sovereign also. But that's totally up to you. Not me." And, amen! The perfect excuse for not doing it, is to say it can't be done.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago
    A Quest for Sanity
    Web link Michael Kleen
    "Anarchism won’t happen in our lifetimes despite what any organization tells us that[sic] but that doesn’t mean it’ll never happen or that such a goal isn’t worthy of pursing." ~ Nick Ford If we define anarchism as the "no ruler doctrine", and we define ruler as "one that governs; one that makes or executes laws", I don't want anarchism for "everyone"; I don't want it for those who want a ruler; I do not want it for those who cannot, or will not, govern their own behavior according to the law of nature, so why can't it happen, in their lifetime, for those who do want it and who can, and will, govern their own behavior according to the natural law of man? As an individual secessionist, I say that it has already happened for me. I do not consent to be ruled by any man, or "man-made" laws, I am therefore without ruler. But this should not be construed to mean that I am without rules. I am not lawless. My law is the law of nature, the natural law of man. "The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws." ~ Walt Whitman This does not mean that you, or your master(s), will not use, or threaten to use, force to trespass upon my natural rights, it means that I will do all that is within my power to rationally resist such force. All things lawful are mine, but all things are not expedient: all things lawful are mine, but I will not [voluntarily consent[1] to] be brought under the power of any [man]. _________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 1 week ago
    A Quest for Sanity
    Web link Michael Kleen
    ...the root problem is in and of the mind and only this understanding will effect resolution. Alas, knowledge about the mind has been excluded as well by the false, mind-dominant, “sacred ideas” ie, mental inventions thought to be real. The failure to make a distinction between what is inside the mind and what is outside is often referred to as insanity. This is the past and current saturate condition. Unpopular as this notion may be, this mental malady is what has established and sustained the past and present philosophical, epistemological, psychological, death-oriented, anti-individual environment. The evidence is abundant and clear: Beliefs direct actions. Actions cause effects. If the effects are not as consciously intended, it is indisputable that the actions (means) are not suited to the purpose. It is just as indisputable that the beliefs directing the selecting and application of means are false. Isn’t this proven a trillion times over? Is there anything complex and hard to understand about this? If so, what? If not, why the perpetual rejection of this proof if not a mental malady?... (from "Insanity as the Social Norm" -- see above post for link) Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 1 week ago
    A Quest for Sanity
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Anarchy will not only happen in MY lifetime, IT IS HERE. NOW. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf Anarchy is not something that will be imposed upon others -- that's statism. I've come to use the term "governmentalism" instead in most cases, since "statism" is becoming trite and overused on these forums. I strongly urge any who want to anarchy clearly to also read an essay by Delmar England, "Insanity As The Social Norm": http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm It's long (24 p M/S "Word" single spaced), could use some cleaning up in grammer, punctuation, syntax, etc. England's message is that far too many calling themselves "anarchists" are actually governmentalists deep down. They simply cannot imagine "society" not having to be refashioned into their brand of "anarchy" (with ME as the "leader", of course). I am a sovereign state. I believe you can be sovereign also. But that's totally up to you. Not me. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Now, perhaps, just perhaps, mind you, it wasn't that Dan [INOUE] couldn't answer Jan's [HELFELD] question, but rather that he wouldn't, because had he done so he would have given away the whole scam. Dan's first answer was, "Because the government has been authorized by the people". Now, that is true -- as far as it goes. But let me finish Dan's answer for him, (because he may not even know it). To be more precise, Jan, the government has been authorized by you, Jan, not to take your neighbor's stuff, but to take your stuff, Jan, just as every other member of the body politic has, by not "withdrawing from membership in [the] group[1]", authorized the government to take his or her own stuff, which, of course, each of us has the natural right to do. Let me ask you a question, Jan. Do you use a membership number, i.e. a Taxpayer Identification Number, to procure certain member-only benefits and privileges? Oh, you say you don't take any "member-only benefits and privileges", Jan? If that be true, then why on Earth would you voluntarily want to identify yourself as a TAXPAYER, Jan? Quit using that damned Taxpayer Identification Number! "Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord..." ________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), definition for "Secession".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, That YouTube exposing "Sen. Inoue's inconsistent logic" is, in my opinion, the perfect example of someone whose mantra is, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind". From his responses in this interview, it is apparent, to me, that this man doesn't even have a clue what the verb "delegate" even means!! Keeping in mind here that this man is the acting "President pro tempore of the United States Senate", the second-highest-ranking official of the United States Senate, is it any wonder that certain of us here have chosen to withdraw from membership in the body politic? Sheesh!!
  • morristhewise's picture
    morristhewise 3 years 1 week ago
    Wealth Disparity
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Bernanke is my hero, he believes in a God that will pay the bills. Most of the stimulus money will wind up in the bedrooms of hookers, they own 85% of the nations wealth. Lets make the ladies happy,life is too short to worry about the future.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 2 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    G'day to you, Sam. Glad to see someone noticed, and appreciated, that correlation. ;)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 2 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Well, Suverans2, since politicians are parasites with big smiles and waving arms, you might just have a point! Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 2 weeks ago Page tzo
    Nice work, Tzo. Government, like pregnancy, cannot be stopped at smallness. It will make little difference if "secession" has advances here and there. The state is the state. Not really -- the state is an abstraction. State agents are parasites and thieves and robbers; and whether they start down the street, over in Capitol City, or out in the District of Collectivism...er, Columbia, they will multiply themselves, engorge themselves with stolen money, and oppress if and when they get the opportunity. For our own good, of course. Most totalitarians in history have referred to themselves as "The People". The shapeless masses somehow feel they are playing a part -- that they have the power. The People's Republic of America. Once you and I declare ourselves sovereign we create a whole new way of looking at agents of state. Like thieves and robbers who slink in dark alleyways, state (city, county, federal, etc) actors will abscond with my valuables if I give them any support or encouragement at all. So I learn skills to avoid them where I can, reduce their pilferage when the thievery is unavoidable (and much of the time it is unavoidable -- but the sovereign individual can nip it in the bud). I never "register, file, voluntarily comply" with anything. I stay "judgement proof" to all extent practicable. And I have no illusions The-Policeman-Is-My-Friend. No sir ree, Bob. Sam Sam