Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Pretty bad when even an institution like IMF starts sounding the alarms...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 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 3 years 5 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, My God, a true "strike the root" reply!! And that Étienne de la Boétie quote gives me goosebumps! A couple of things, though, my friend; first, regarding "inalienable rights". The question that begs to be answered is this, who would you "transfer" your natural rights to, since all men have them? ;) "...And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." A "tricky" phrase indeed, “Inalienable rights”; it is defined, not once, but twice, and in two entirely different ways, in Black’s 1991 Law Dictionary. On page 759 we find the one that pertains to civil or legal rights. Inalienable rights. Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights; e.g. freedom of speech or religion, due process, and equal protection of the laws. ...See Bill of rights Notice that it did not say e.g. "the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property", as the New Hampshire Constitution properly denoted the natural rights. enjoy verb: have for one's benefit Now, 764 pages later, on page 1523, we find a different definition; this one pertains to natural rights, the right to life, liberty and property (both natural and justly acquired). Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. In this context "abridge" means ...2. To lessen; to diminish... 3. To deprive; to cut off from...as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. (Source: Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language) You cannot be "alienated", or "cut off", from them, which is why John Adams reportedly said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws...". You can only lose them with your own consent, express or implied, or by forfeiture. And second, you wrote, "You can agree to pay 50% of your future labor/resources in exchange for citizenship, but it is not a valid contract because you can, at any time, decide to keep what you earn." In my opinion, for clarity, you should have added, "by withdrawing from membership in the [political] group and refusing to trade your natural rights for civil/political rights (member-only benefits/privileges)".
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    What's really pathetic about this article and the comments regarding it is that for decades, these filthy beasts have been gunning down human beings suspected of using and/or selling certain, arbitrarily banned substances, and no one in America seemed to mind at all. No, it takes the killing of DOGS to properly enrage the public. Kill our children, if you must, the the puppy? Oh, my God; not the puppy!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 5 weeks ago Page tzo
    Every definition of inalienable I find includes the concept of being "non-transferable." They cannot be voluntarily be given away. "Relinquishing inalienables" is indeed paradoxical by the definitions of the two words. This means you always retain the highest claim upon inalienable rights. You can agree to pay 50% of your future labor/resources in exchange for citizenship, but it is not a valid contract because you can, at any time, decide to keep what you earn. No one else can ever have a higher claim on your life, liberty, and property as do you. The citizen cedes his life, liberty, and property to the State, but of course, he really doesn't. He just doesn't realize that he really doesn't. He thinks the State owns him, but he really owns himself, so his actions are his own, and whatever he suffers from as a result of this error in judgment is self-inflicted. He has agreed, through ignorance of his own self, to make himself miserable. He has only himself to blame. The individual who understands that the government is a thief who steals from him because he understands that he has the exclusive right to his own life, liberty, and property, may suffer the same deprivations as the citizen, but he is not doing it to himself. He can rightfully blame others for violating his human rights. Just a subtle shift in the state of mind. May make no apparent difference in results obtained. But the difference between understanding that government is stealing and that government has just authority is everything. The false assumption that government has some kind of innate, just authority is the very consent that gives it life. Withdraw that support and it dies. Flip one little switch between the ears of enough people, and the government lights go out. Sounds too simple, yet this is what de la Boétie wrote about more than half a millennium ago. He is quoted and cited often, yet perhaps the subtlety and sheer simplicity of his argument is not truly appreciated: Free your mind and the rest will follow. "Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it cost the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak. I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?" ~ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Page tzo
    Good day tzo, Curious, what is the "paradox" in the below statement? "Well, what a stupid fecking game. I quit. I am a human being, not a Citizen. I was born to be sovereign upon the face of the Earth, and I do not relinquish this inalienable status (paradox noted) in order to participate in a rigged shell game." I ask this because, according to the natural law, as I understand it, one can consent (express), or appear to consent (implied/tacit), to "relinquish" one's "inalienable status". The reason our natural rights are called "inalienable" is because they cannot, rightfully, be taken by the so-called laws of men. "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams I don't see no stinking "paradox".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Never mind...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Sorens invited me to work on this study since I had helped expand the Free State Project spreadsheet, but I declined because I had other priorities. Also, I had come to the conclusion (though I really like spreadsheet work) that spreadsheets don't come close to giving you the whole picture. It's pretty amusing Sorens lives in the state that placed last in his study.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 3 years 5 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    It looks like the free market--that brought you the unstoppable BitTorrent--has now produced what promises to be an even better free market product: electronic, peer-to-peer Crypto-currency called Bitcoin. NOTE: Bitcoin, like BitTorrent is an anonymous peer-to-peer relationship--like paying cash or barter. AND, there is NO central control point like eGold and Liberty Dollar. As with BitTorrent, "authorities" may "take out" some users and even "outlaw" it, but the system appears to be impervious to centralized control. [Centralized control IS what governments are.] For more details I recommend the following video interview by Stefan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio: youtube.com/watch?v=ygoqDBfjimM&NR=1 followed by FAQ at Bitcoin WIKI: en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ Dennis
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I grew up in Central New York. They have had a housing bust since the 90s. Big, gorgeous, old, wooden houses going for $35,000. Everybody's leaving. Raise taxes and businesses leave. Businesses leave and people leave with them. People leave empty houses that they're desperate to get rid of. If I were rich, I'd move back to Central New York in a heartbeat. Cheap, big, gorgeous, old, wooden houses. Very sad. Sadder still, everybody still clings to government, which is why they'll get more of the same.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "Vote with their feet" and go where, to a State only marginally more free?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Serious controversy"? The department is facing a serious controversy? For murdering a man? Welcome to the United Police States of America. Some people call cops "heroes." Some people call them "law enforcement officers." (Oddly enough, they call THEMSELVES "Peace Officers.") But the truth is that they are nothing but greedy, self-serving thugs who have been elevated by the media to the status of gods.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Darkcrusade, "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me." ~ Darkcrusade And, presuming you do, just how is it that you came to believe that the BIBLE is "the Word of God"? My guess, it was from neither a priori or empirical evidence that you came to believe this, it was because some of those persons on that list told you it was, and you believed them; you believed them because, "they would never lie to me". http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.~ Frederic Bastiat Regardless of what the natural man may design, God has instructed all men through His Spirit to "judge all things by His Word." And: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 We know that man's laws and governments act beyond their humble task; it has little to do with law and much to do with religion--Mammon and Hedonism. What one worships, one imitates, and one's law is that imitation. Given enough time, all systems of man's law self-destructs in a fit of tyranny. God's Law is Truth and Eternal, so when the Truth provokes all of us, and it does, be diligent and remain grounded in the Word of God. All your life you have probably been told what you are allowed to know, and we have all been guided down the primrose path of half-truths which are lies. Maybe you have or have not really considered all things--why we exist; what our purpose is; what is real and what is not? Would you like to know the Truth of these things? It is said, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." That does not refer to the over 60 million laws of men on the books in America, but it refers to God's Law. Our Heavenly Father, the Creator of all, has written His Law not only in Scripture through His prophets and apostles, but also on every man's heart; that is why you ultimately know what is just, what is right, what is good and what is evil. That is why we are warned that: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23 The Truth that He has written on all of our hearts is the inherent gift to man from our Heavenly Father. But, through the spirit of the world, those truths become perverted when one takes his eyes off of God's Truth. So, in all of the issues in your life, you have the choice to be diligent, to believe, to trust, and to walk according to the ways of God, in faith! Or, through the help of many around us who serve the prince of this world, there is the choice to be influenced to turn your back on God through reason and compromise following men and their false images. Throughout history, the spirit of the world has woven an intricate web around the disobedient and ignorant, influencing them by their temporal surroundings and lusts of the flesh to be "recreated" in the image of man. In Matthew 15:3, Jesus warned us of how man's traditions, i.e. denominations, family traditions, etc., nullify the Word of God, "my parents are I grew up a and I'll always be a" Too many will continue to cling feverishly and relentlessly to a tradition rather than obey the Word of God. Our Lord said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14). And: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17 As seekers of the Truth, we must be cognizant of how powerfully blinding traditions can be, in that they can rob one of the Truth. In other words, many "Christians" say in their hearts, "Don't confuse me with the Truth because God's Grace is sufficientmy mind is already made upand besides that, God knows my heart" In Truth, what they are admitting: "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me. An a priori law would be the fundamental economic axiom "humans act". An empirical "law" would be the law of gravity. The former is known to be absolutely true, just by considering it. The latter must be proved, and can never be known to be absolutely true.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Given that the minimum wage is an abomination which hurts the poor, it would seem that, for once, the Obama administration was doing the right thing.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    G'day jd-in-georgia, Yeah, their new MOTTO is a wee bit different.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "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 And just what is this "potent Law of Laws"? The answer, as we have posted here twice before is... "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page tzo
    And for you "game pieces" that believe the artificial entity known as the United States Government "owns" the approximately two trillion, four hundred and twenty-five billion, six hundred million acres of land commonly miscalled "the United States", you would do well to remember Richard Belzar's famous line, "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Without ever moving one's feet one can leave the artificial kingdoms and enter into the natural kingdom." This is why we have chosen individual secession, (as opposed to expatriation[1]), as the better answer. With expatriation one never leaves "The Great Game of Government"; one abandons or renounces one artificial kingdom only to become a member of another artificial kingdom instead of withdrawing[2] from the "stupid fecking game" altogether. __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Expatriation. The voluntary act of abandoning or renouncing one's country, and becoming the citizen or subject of another. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page576 [2] Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Ibid. page 1351 [Emphasis added]
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 6 weeks ago Page tzo
    Thanks! "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." King James usually sez it best. Sam
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Once upon a time, the motto plastered on the side of police cars was "To protect and to serve." I have not seen this motto on posters or website... let alone squad cars... for years. Law-abiding citizens should be able to feel safe around the police and not in fear of them. These people are supposed to be fellow citizens with an often thankless job to do. However, we should not wonder whether or not we are actually protected by the police or if we are nothing more than potential "collateral damage" which is just another way of disassociating themselves from the citizens they are supposed to protect. In a war zone, soldiers (or as in the case of this article, "operators") are doing a job in a place that is not their home. Those citizens of the countries where they are serving are typically going to look at them with skepticism and when the job is done, these operators are typically looking forward to going home. Unfortunately, the police are already home. This militarization sets a very dangerous precedent.
  • Guest's picture
    IRAHS (not verified) 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I will take a liver and a side order of lungs....
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    You want to know another tragedy? The language of self-described "drug law reformers" who are outraged only by police violence against innocent people, in "botched" drug raids where no drugs are found. Every drug raid is a terrorist attack. And since evidence of illegal activity is found only after the shooting stops, ALL that violence is being perpetrated against innocent people.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Yeh right. We've heard that for decades. Believe it when I see it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page tzo
    Welcome back Sam, What a great word, sharper, "a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud" [WordNet], since that is what the rules of "The Great Game of Government" are based on. "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, "The game is not reality, but it is superimposed over it like a giant 1:1 scale paper map." Exactly!! Trouble is we have been brainwashed since nativity to only see the "superimposed...giant 1:1 scale paper map", and most individuals will never give any real mental effort toward peeling it away in order to see the "reality" layer. Without ever moving one's feet one can leave the artificial kingdoms[1] and enter into the natural kingdom. "...be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." It's simple, but it isn't easy. __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] KING'DOM, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction.] ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 6 weeks ago Page tzo
    Excellent analogy, tzo. First you declare yourself sovereign. That releases you from the game. Does that mean agents of state are no longer pains in the ass? No it doesn't. All bandits and gangsters are pains in the ass: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/TaxationisRobbery.html But now you can take the same measures to avoid them that you take to avoid all the other thieves, robbers and shysters who beset you. You are no longer playing the game. But beware of the political robbers. With the ordinary holdup artist you have an advantage (if you're careless enough that he gets the drop on you): he knows what he is. He believes he is a robber. Once he gets your billfold and/or your watch or your ring, he goes away and leaves you alone. He does not wish to play further games with you. Not so with the political sharper. He is actually deluded into believing he is doing you a "great service". He would like you to speak in terms of "our country", "our leaders", "our president" -- "our forefathers". Thus he is far more virulent than all the good criminals lurking in dark alleys or along the waterfront. Beware the politico. Sam
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Touche, sir. Fine point and I stand, a little shame-facedly in light of the utter obviousness of your statement, corrected. Have a wonderful day and thank you for reading and commenting. Best Regards...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link strike
    From the comments on that article: Carl says: The sight of Daddy Bush and Slick Willie as BFF tells me all I need to know ………….. As for BABYBush’s “administration” …. who do you suppose wore the PANTS? Craig McKee says: The same people who wear the pants regardless of who is president. Exactly! Carl didn't have a clue, but he may now, because Craig gave him the answer. Daddy Bush never "wore the pants", as Carl appears to infer, Daddy Bush was (is?) controlled by those very same people as all the rest of the "puppets". "...the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." ~  Prime Minister of England, Benjamin Disraeli (during reign of Queen Victoria) Coningsby, by Disraeli; Longmans Co., 1881, page 252
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Has anyone else received a private message from a newbie [joined 6/9/11] called Jana?
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Did you mention it's an un-funded plan? Why should you need to, they're all unfunded plans. The government has no funds.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    Well said, Liberal in Lakeview, well said. P.S. Been wondering, are you what is called a Classical Liberal?
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    "a country and its government are not one and the same, they are two separate entities" We can assign the word, government, to an entity provided that the entity is a set. The set would have as its members numerous people such as legislators, prime ministers, judges, cops, taxgatherers, etc., but the set would not be an entity that exists in the physical world. Instead it would be a mental object. Furthermore, if more than one person conceives of this set, then there is more than one government. On the other hand, if we assign the term, government, to the behavior of the members of the aforementioned set(s), then we have a way to place government in the physical world. But when dealing with government in this sense of the term, it's important to recall that in spite of all the symbolism and pomp and circumstance, all we really have are a bunch of individuals acting in concert with one another and pushing around other individuals. If we want to eradicate government, there is no physical entity to eradicate, but only a relatively few individuals to disperse such that they can no longer act in concert with one another. (Granted, millions of benighted nationalists might clamor for their replacement with people who can act in concert for the purpose of governing.) The term, country, has its own idiosyncrasies. It could refer to some patch of land, which in any case existed long before anyone projected onto it terms such as England or USA. Or it could refer to a group of people, i.e. to a set people. But as with the set of governors, this set doesn't exist in the physical world. Unfortunately, the blood and soil man commingles the two different concepts, and mostly in accordance with borders drawn arbitrarily by his masters and stringpullers. He is the loudmouthed patriot, the warmonger, the boor who can be found driving around with an image of the American flag and bald eagle painted on the rear window of his pickup truck. Sometimes an FBI agent, too. There's serious problem with the word country when its used in the latter sense, to refer to a set of people. What, exactly, are the criteria by which we include members in this set? Is it based upon borders proclaimed long ago by a few members of a set called government? Let's take the case of someone who grows up in Detroit, as did I. It so happens that numerous Canadians live a little to the south and south east of Detroit, in Windsor and nearby areas. Why should any intelligent person in Detroit ever have counted as members of his country all the people in, say, Queens, San Francisco, or Dallas but not the Canadian? It's quite likely that the Detroiter and Canadian have more in common than the Detroiter does with many people on the west coast, east coast, or Texas. A similar argument holds for the Canadian in southwest Ontario with respect to people in Vancouver, Quebec, etc. So the Detroiter may include in his country someone in Windsor, but not the San Franciscan or other person who is supposed to be his fellow countryman and to whom he is yoked by a few knaves in places like Lansing and the DC. As you suggested yourself, your country is your civil society, but, given the limitations that come with being human, one isn't likely to have social relations on a personal basis with more than a few hundred or few thousand people at the very most. All the rest are mere strangers, and while that's no excuse whatsoever for deprecating their rights, as flagwavers and warmongers are wont to do with those they regard as foreigners, it remains true that those strangers have little claim to be counted as part of one's country.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 6 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    A friend of mine recently introduced me to the concept, and so naturally I see the word everywhere now. Strange how that happens... you can go years without ever seeing a word, (or if you do your brain just conveniently forgets it,) and then when you learn it you notice it all over the place.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Evan, If you truly did that without looking it up, go to the head of the class. Two out of four, is certainly better than I did, which was none out of four; I had to look it up. Quick definitions from WordNet (orthogonal) ▸ adjective: [1]having a set of mutually perpendicular axes; [2] meeting at right angles ("Wind and sea may displace the ship's center of gravity along three orthogonal axes") ▸ adjective: [3]statistically unrelated ▸ adjective: [4] not pertinent to the matter under consideration
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I don't believe the words agorist/agorism have been co-opted either. OneLook Dictionary Search has 19,317,398 words in 1063 dictionaries indexed and it only has one, single, solitary source, (Wikipedia), for a definition for these two words. Sorry, couldn't post this with the link to OneLook Dictionary Search embedded. Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Greetings AtlasAikido, Thanks, but I can't say that I ever thought that this Paul was Paul Bonneau. I believe there are at least three Paul's here at STR, so it can, perhaps, be a bit confusing. This Paul was referencing the word anarchy being used in a negative fashion in Herbert Spencer's, The Right to Ignore the State, where Herbert wrote: "In a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive of anarchy." Regarding the word "agorist", I particularly like this from Wikipedia, "Agorists...consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership." To be more precise, all of our natural rights are derived from the primary right of self-ownership. Sorry, couldn't edit this with the link to The Right to Ignore the State embedded. Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Suverans2, Paul is NOT Paul Bonneau according to the user profiles. (Could NOT post the links as it triggered spam editor). The article uses the term anarchist in a positive fashion, even if it is taken to be negative by some. This is an anarchist site (last time I looked). But then Paul could clarify this, which is what you and I requested in the first place. I prefer Agorist to abolitionist or anarchist. Living Free in an Unfree World: Stefan Molyneux at Libertopia 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OLSkhR-ve8s#at=195
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 6 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    At right angles to? Or something like that? In terms of concepts, it means irrelevant or beside the point.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    From the article: "Camping, sadly, also survives and is free to cause the world more grief." So, Camping should be killed? Or jailed? It's not Camping causing the problem. It's idiots who pay attention to him. There is no way to "fix" this problem, certainly not via state action nor assassination or other such violence. The thing to do is stop worrying about it. Let idiots suffer the consequences of their poor choices. If innocents also get caught up in that, oh well. Life is filled with hazards, even parents can be hazards.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    Quick, anyone, without looking it up, what's the word "orthogonal" mean?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    Beautiful sounding words, jd-in-georgia, and once we've overcome the years and years and years of government indoctrination center "brainwashing" and tv "programming" and "his" eyes are finally opened, and we've convinced "him" that we all have free will, and that there's more to life than a six pack and satellite tv, and we've taught "him" to swim in the deep end of the pool, where reason and logic reign supreme (good luck on those last two), Joe Lunchbucket will do WHAT for us?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Heroes? Not a one by Jim Davidson jim@vertoro.com http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle622-20110605-04.html L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 622, June 5, 2011 "The cops have gone crazy. There's lots of this going around, these days."