Recent comments

Chris Dates, Let's jump to that last one, first. What is your Constitution? If it is the United States Constitution; from whence did you, or your government, get the lawful authority to compel me to continue one of a political corporation?

Just an FYI. Early on, I don't believe 12 years of "education" was required. In the 1859 Oregon constitution, there is no requirement at all; it only says the state will provide "education". In the Wyoming constitution (1889 I think) there is compulsory education, but only 3 years is required. Of course later (generally unconstitutional) statutes called for longer and longer periods of indoctrination.

Well, that''s why I wanted to filter out the government employees, thinking they would skew the results. But if you think about it, that makes no sense. For one thing, not all government employees would have a problem with an independent community. They are individuals too. For another thing, government employees affect what happens just as much as (if not more than) everybody else. So they really have to be included.

Very creative, Paul! Most interesting result. Am I right in supposing that the views of this gun-rights group would _not_ be echoed by government people, if such an enclave were actually formed?

How to keep anyone from ever reading anything you post. White print on a black background. Very effective.

Suverans2, You are using words like "ridiculous" and "foolishness" then you accuse me of being "aggressive". Please focus on the argument, and not so much on me. I would just like you to defend your definition and your position. >>Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "If we don't take this to ridiculous levels, voluntary slavery is, according to Noah, "when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another". This means he has voluntarily relinquished the "right" to object, nothwithstanding that he still has the "ability" to do so." Are you unwilling to defend the definition you provided? The definition EXPLICITLY states "absolute command". It is "ridiculous" to take it to "absolute" levels? If my master commands me to murder, do I have to follow the command absolutely? Yes or no. Does a voluntary slavery contract exclude either party from morality? If the voluntary slave retains the right to object on moral grounds, then the master does not have "exclusive rights" to the slave. The final arbiter in the matter is the slave.

Sorry about taking so long to respond; sometimes I forget to revisit these threads. "The moment the liberals and conservatives concede they may only "battle over the election process" with other willing participants, and not those who say no, there is no State..." Your error here is in speaking collectively. What I am talking about is a change of individuals. The State (to speak collectively for the moment) does not do anything it pleases; it must concern itself with legitimacy (or to be more accurate, the appearance of legitimacy). Eventually enough statists will disapprove of state action against anarchists, and then it will stop happening (probably in the same way that Catholics stopped approving of persecution of Protestants, in Catholic majority areas). We don't imagine the Catholic Church has ceased to exist because there is now tolerance of non-Catholics. "But you're wrong, that's the largest change possible for them. Tolerance is the crux of the matter. It is what distinguishes us, the anarchists, from EVERYONE ELSE. Again, if 'just tolerance, that's all' was so simple, we'd already be living in glorious anarchy. " No, I disagree. Most people are actually quite tolerant, and getting more so as time goes on. We no longer kill gays or string up dark people or beat Catholics, for the most part. The people we call "statists" simply have one area of inconsistency in their generally tolerant behavior, an area that has been carefully cultivated by the state through indoctrination camps and the Ministry of Propaganda. It is that simple. The reason we're not living in glorious anarchy is because it is hard to break through that indoctrination, through worldviews implanted by the state. It usually takes some kind of shock to break through - and we certainly face a major shock in the short-term future. As to successes, I actually have been having successes in internet discussions. If for example people want socialized healthcare, instead of arguing against socialism (well, I still do, but try to tone it down) I just tell them I agree they should have it and hope they get it. And even that I will do everything I can to help them get it. But I also say I don't want any part of it myself, neither the "care" nor the taxes to support it. I tell them I want to live in my own way. This really defuses their opposition. But if they decide to agree with me, I'm not going to start calling them an anarchist, any more than Catholics should be called Protestants when they start tolerating Protestants.

Why, of course, buying bulk foods to increase the probability of surviving a terrorist attack, is a "potential terrorist activity". Round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows.

"...it is just deception, a ruse, a tool to obtain power on the part of the government, just a part of the process of stripping away as many of our rights as possible." ~ Sharon Secor Absolutely! Those in power are trying to give validity to what they are doing, so as not to stampede the herd. "Disagreeing with anything we say or do is terrorism", is what it is slowly(?) coming down to.

"You go girl!"

BrianDrake, If you were to sell me that car you mentioned, I would have the exclusive right to all that makes up that car; every single nut & bolt, all the wiring, and the engine and drivetrain, etc. You would be transferring 100% ownership over to me; everything that makes up that car is now mine. This is not the case with human beings, because you will never own 100% of what makes me, well.....me. A slave can still object to the will of the master, the car can't. Since the slave retains the ability and the RIGHT to object, the master will never have the "exclusive right" to control. Can the slave still be held responsible for his acts? Would the slave be relieved of all things moral? Would the master be held responsible for the acts of the slave? No? Then the master does not have the "exclusive right", and this is why ownership of yourself cannot be transferred. Let's go back to your example of the car. If you loaned your car to a friend and your friend killed someone with it, then your friend would be at fault. If you loaned your slave to a friend, and your slave killed someone, who would be at fault? Of course the slave would. This is why the example of the car is not right. The slave can never be relieved of the consequences of his acts, good or bad, they are HIS acts, HE OWNS them. They cannot be transferred to anyone else. If I were to sell myself into slavery, I would make sure the contract explicitly stated that I am now relieved of all things moral, and only my master would pay the price for my acts. Then I would just turn and kill my so-called master. Now who's the sucker?

Hopefully what you have written here will help to clear up, for some, at least, the confusion between "rights" and "abilities". Thank you, Brian Drake. "I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have the ability." ~ Ron White

Jim, It seems that you are defining ownership as the ability to control, when the more common definition used among libertarians is that ownership is the exclusive RIGHT to control. I may own my car (disregard the state for this example), and thus have a right (i.e., it would be unjust to interfere with me) to get inside it and directly control it to drive where I want. If I lend my car to a friend for a long-distance trip, I still own the car, but since it is now outside my direct control, I don't have the ability to control it. If I change my mind, I can call my friend and request the car returned (since, as the owner, I have the right to control the car; i.e., I have the final authority over its use), but until I am physically behind the wheel again, I do not have the ability to control the car. With a simple example like this, it seems clear to me that "ability to control" is an inferior definition of ownership and that "exclusive right to control" is more accurate and useful. So, barring literal mind-control like "The Manchurian Candidate", everyone realizes that the body still responds to the direct control of the slave's mind. No master or concentration camp guard ever claimed the "ability to control" the slave/prisoner's body. Instead, the essence of slavery is that the master, by claiming ownership of the slave, claims the exclusive RIGHT to control the slave (i.e., that he may not be justly prevented from enforcing his authority over that person). Self-ownership is not a declaration/recognition of function ("only I can wiggle my toes"), it is a declaration/recognition of jurisdiction ("I alone am the final authority on the use of my body".) Since no slave master ever (to my knowledge) possessed the ability to directly control the slave's body in contradiction to the slave's mind, if ownership is "the ability control", then there has never been such a thing as slavery. If a "slave" was presented with the choice "obey the master or be whipped", it was still the "slave" that chose to move his body to obey. But instead, if you accept that ownership is the exclusive right to control, then slavery is meaningful. Recognizing self-ownership means you recognize that a person may have final authority over their body and that any interference with that authority would be unjust. Recognizing slavery would be to consider unjust any interference (which includes disobedience) with the master's orders regarding the slave's body. In this light, I see it as being inaccurate to talk about "degrees of slavery" (and inversely, "degrees of liberty"). If we're talking about the "ability" to control, then the degree of slavery is basically always 0%, since the "slave's" mind still has 100% control over their body. But if we're talking about the exclusive right to control, then you cannot be partially enslaved and partially self-owning. Someone has the final authority (i.e., interference with this authority would be unjust). If it is you, then you have liberty (self-ownership). If it is not you, then you are a slave. Liberty/slavery clearly seem to me to be binary and mutually exclusive (antithetical - Slavery = not liberty. Liberty = not slavery). The degree of leniency of the master does not diminish that the final authority is still his, not yours. You don't have "2/7 liberty" if the master gives you the weekends off. He may be affording you some "freedom", or granting you "liberties", but as long as the final authority over you is the master, you have ZERO liberty. Likewise, the degree of leniency of a state does not diminish the state's claim of final authority over all those within its declared jurisdiction; i.e., that the state owns them. When boiled down to the essence of the matter, I think it is absolutely accurate to recognize statism as slavery. In fact, since slave masters were themselves subjects ("citizens") of states, they themselves were slaves. The "private" ownership of slaves under statism is thus exposed as a false concept, since the claimed final authority within a state's territory is the state. If I have final authority over you, and you buy a slave, I ultimately have final authority over him too and it cannot be said that you truly own him, since you are already owned yourself. "Slavery" was simply the allowance, by the state, for some state-owned-slaves to have more direct authority over other state-owned-slaves. Can you sell yourself into slavery? If you are talking about transferring the "right to control", then I think this is clearly possible. If you are talking about transferring the "ability to control", it does not seem that technology is at that point...yet.

Wow... it is with amazement that I watch the evolution of the definition of terrorist until it encompasses me.

Thanks again for the information Suverans2, you always have detailed explanations even I can understand coupled with great footnotes. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and research with me. I'll have to meditate on this more, but it definitely feels true and seems logical.

In my relatively small town, where you're more likely to be killed by a cop than by your fellow citizens, a "dwindling police force" would be a blessing.

Where can I find proof that the following is true as it certainly isn't in Black's Law 5th edition: " The fact that a certificate for a married couple is commercial paper that can be used to pledge the future expenditure of labor of the married couple against the State’s borrowed money was only half the equation. By entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ultimate control of their children or marriage-related property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae." According to Black’s Law, 5th edition: I am really trying to figure out how the state gets parens patriae over our children. Yes I've heard that the marriage license/Birth Certificate are the sole things, but honestly I can not find any evidence to that fact.

I did read that but he only mentioned the certificate of no record found. You need more documents then this. I was wondering about all the documents he might have submitted. Thank you for trying to answer for me.

Jim's on to something when he says it's impossible to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery. I witness some debates here, and WhiteIndian likes to beg the question, because he assumes "self ownership" only refers to the human body, but it's so much more than that. Like Jim says it's also the human mind, but it's also owning all of the actions that the body and mind create; it's owning the consequences of those actions. NOTHING will ever change that. Nothing. Hey WhiteIndian, why are you making slavery sound so bad? Tell me, if I sell myself into slavery, therefore transferring ownership of all that is ME over to the new owner, what's to stop me from killing the new owner of me? How would that not be suicide? Hell, I'd do that ALL day long! Quick way to make a buck I'd say. Oh that doesn't sound right to you? Well, you might say I still retain ownership of the actions and consequences. Ahhhh...now you see exactly why it's impossible to sell yourself into slavery.

sorry. he was born january 2011.

Sorry you were confused, Mark. The "two verbs" were of course "Govern" and "Enslave", in the title. Agreed, treatment of slaves no doubt varied a great deal. But the threat of being whipped was the sanction available, and it was used. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASwhipping.htm has some graphic proof.

Very good, Paul. The only thing I might give constructive criticism on is this, "(or not at all, if anarchists)". I may be picking nits ;) but most so-called "anarchists", I have 'met', are lip-service anarchists, and are, in fact, full-fledged members of the STATE. It would be more concise to say, in my opinion, "(or not at all, if one is self-governing)", i.e. in harmony with the "Natural Law of the human world".

I think that it is a matter of semantics. Noah Webster (c.1828) clearly demonstrates that with his definitions. SLAVE, n. 1. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. 2. One who has lost the power of resistance; or one who surrenders himself [voluntary] to any power whatever; as a slave to passion, to lust, to ambition. [or to those who call themselves "master"[1]] 3. [Not applicable to our discussion.] 4. A drudge; one who labors like a slave. [for himself, his family, and/or those who call themselves "master"] I believe that Jim is using definition number one, while you and I are using definitions two and/or four, (or a slight variation thereof), when we claim that one can voluntarily become a slave. However, if we were to use only definition number one, in its strictest confines, we would probably agree with Jim. Believing that to be the case, I have given up debating the issue. "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." ~ Ayn Rand ___________________________________________ [1] MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States. Your "...highest or first magistrate [master]...is the President of the United States", IF you are a United States citizen (See the 14th Amendment to your Constitution).

This is a very thought-provoking article. Regarding the notion that an individual couldn't be a slave voluntarily, while I believe in free will and your points make me think a little more about the issue, I still believe that, in a voluntary contract between an individual and others with 100% consent from that individual, he could voluntarily be someone else's slave. And yes, re-education is the key to de-brainwashing the servile, obedient, government-schooled masses, to convince them through persuasion that they would probably be happier and more fulfilled in a land of freedom rather than under the dictatorship of central planning that we have now. Also, are you saying that Walter Williams was a slave of the 18th or 19th Century? Is he THAT old? And, you wrote, "Governing brings such a rush of intoxication that men spend fortunes to get elected." Yes, in 2008, Willard Rmoney spent over $42 million of his own personal wealth to lose in the primary, and he's spending more now to lose to Obama in November. And in 2010 in Commiefornia, Meg Whitless spent over $150 million of her own wealth only to lose to her fellow communist, Jerry Moonbeam.