Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    This may not appear germane, yet I believe "strikes the root" of the quandary: Whoever, I wonder, came up with the idea that the breasts of the human female should be prohibited from public view but the breasts of the male should not??? That prohibition is mainly practiced in western cultures (the professing Chr-stian genres) -- not in Asia. In fact in many Asian, African and other areas the ideas of "modesty" as we know them are not practiced. Such conventions as prostitution are (or were before "westernization") perfectly open, legal and normal. Yet those places appear to have far lower rates of VD, divorce, pornography, etc. (I have no current substantiation of that, so mark it as opinion for now). At least they didn't until heads of American Empire began to export their GI's into all the earth to conduct their wars and their "police actions". When I was a young draftee a platoon of soldiers and I dropped into remote rice paddies of Korea. One of our first sights was the appearance of many women -- topless -- with children strapped to backs, working in and walking along fields. Although curious and fearful of Yankees (as well they should have been), they did not appear embarrassed at being thus exposed. They went about their business of tending crops and nursing babies without chagrin. I didn't quite know how to deal with bare-chested women who were not soliciting for sex -- whether to turn my gaze away, stare, leer (isn't that why the U.S. GI is there -- in addition to killing???). I'm old (74), father, grandfather and great grandfather of many. I try to make it a point to lead family into openness -- to avoid the dilemma presented by the writer of the article. Avoidance of hypocrisy will go a long way toward solving these difficulties. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Sharon Secor, That's because you have "eyes to see", i.e. a rational mind, sometimes referred to as good ol' common sense, which very often will, in "real life", take one farther than an high school diploma and a college degree.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Point well taken, and very well stated, Paul Bonneau.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Lawrence M. Ludlow: First Point: Paul is correct on this one -- absolutely so. Dr. James Strong, in his Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, correctly defined רצח, transliterated, ratsach, as "A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder". [Emphasis added] Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon defines that same word thusly, 1) to murder, slay, kill 1a) (Qal) to murder, slay 1a1) premeditated 1a2) accidental 1a3) as avenger 1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle) 1b) (Niphal) to be slain 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to murder, assassinate 1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive) 1d) (Pual) to be killed [Emphasis added] And, the so-called BIBLE defines murder, within its own text, as the shedding of innocent blood, to separate it from killing, which is generally in self-defense or as a punishment or retribution. Jay P. Green Sr., in his Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, discovered this error and translated that commandment found at both Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17 as, "You shall not commit murder." And, the Institute For Scripture Research, defined those same verses this way, "You do not murder." And, I assure you, neither Jay nor the Institute For Scripture Research had a political axe to grind. In the King James Version (KJV) we find in the so-called NEW TESTAMENT the Greek word, phoneuo, which Dr. James Strong, in his Greek Dictionary, defines as, "to be a murderer (of)", which is taken from the Greek word, phoneus, "a murderer (always of criminal [or at least intentional] homicide", which in turn evolved from the base word, phonos, "From an obsolete primary φένω pheno (to slay); murder". These words, too, were translated "murder" (Matt. 19:18) and mistranslated, or at the least, sloppily translated, "kill" (Matt. 5:21) within the same version (KJV). Confusing these two words, murder and kill, is a very common error, in all languages, because, all murder (the taking of human life unjustly) is killing, (the taking of human life), but all killing (the taking of human life) is not murder, (the taking of human life unjustly).
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I have a natural human tendency to want you to believe that my particular philosophy is logical, correct belief. If I'm not careful I'll insult you if you don't agree ("sheeple", "slave"). Molyneux is good at attempting to turn folks around through insults. I don't totally disagree with him -- or you. I'm an advocate of Murray Rothbard's "Anatomy of the State" http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp All of us want to promulgate the "message of freedom". The nature of freedom is such, however, that you have a right to believe as you believe without interference from me or anybody else. So we often disagree on exactly what freedom is -- or how far "we" have to go to achieve it. But what is a libertarian/anarchy discussion forum if not to air views with an eye toward coming to greater understanding? Per Bylund kicked over a bucket some time back with a column insisting that anybody who gives a tiny sliver of legitimacy to state is "our enemy" (I may be over stating that). That was good for a lengthy thread that might finally have run its course for now. But Per gave rise to a number of us taking personal inventory as to just how committed to freedom we are. Is not a little bit of state something like a little bit of pregnancy? Good article, Paul. Sam
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Ah, but I still see a difference between nude and padded... Thank you for taking the time to comment, your thoughts are appreciated. Best Regards...
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Paul: Unfortunately you are incorrect on this one -- absolutely so. It is not a mistranslation. Correctly translated as "kill," the Hebrew word is the most undifferentiated verbal expression of cutting down and killing. It is not the specific word for "murder." The myth that you are repeating is a relatively new one, and it has a political bias. I would suggest that you explore the writings of Laurence Vance on lewrockwell.com for the pertinent word studies on this. Furthermore, if you are looking for a good translation accomplished by a superior linguist, you can do no better than the potty-mouthed St. Jerome, who was the foremost scholar of Latin, Hebrew, and Greek in the Mediterranean world in the 4th century. He, too, translated the Hebrew word into the Latin equivalent of "kill" in its undifferentiated form. Please don't repeat that error. You may check any word-study list to verify this. The recent invention is no more than an escape clause for state murder. We may complain that it does not leave room for self-defense, but that is an ex post facto argument and should not justify the politically charged mistranslation you have cited. PS: Here's a Laurence Vance link that is must reading on this, and remember that Laurence does know something about Biblical languages as do his sources. I am limited to my Latin and reading of Jerome's Vulgate. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance111.html
  • J3rBear's picture
    J3rBear 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    People are prudes. In France and many other countries little girls run around topless or completely naked. Who cares. The media is spinning and playing this up way too much. File under #whogivesashit
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Ignorance is curable. Anyway, saying we all live on farms, as farm animals - even knowing the score - degrades us and glorifies the ruling class. It's not an analogy helpful to the cause of freedom.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Yes, all analogies fail at some point. Personally I consider parasites anyone who benefits from government other than those benefits government has forced on us (e.g., road users are not parasites). But the point of the article was to move us away from an analogy that aids the ruling class.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Consideration
    Page NonEntity
    While I agree generally with the article, this may be going overboard: "No one owes me anything. At least not until he and I have had the mutual respect of sitting down and discussing the mutually beneficial terms of our relationship. Not even courtesy." Courtesy is done not to benefit others, but to benefit oneself. It is done for self preservation. So no contract or prior discussion is needed. In fact it is most beneficial when encountering others that one has never met before.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I think there's problems with any analogy. For example, it's tempting to talk about a ruling class being a parasite on a productive class, but things are not as simple as that, especially in a "democracy" or a republic. The fact is, in the U.S. system, many collective interests compete to drain resources from each other, and they elect representatives who they believe with further their interests. So, these people are "hidden" from the public eye, but they are never the less the origin of much of the legal plunder in our society. It's no coincidence that the size of government expanded along with the voting franchise. So, you can't just blame a small class of people.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Too bad Joey wasn't carrying any illegal drugs; Officer Jones probably wanted a promotion, too.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    There is one sense in which libertarians can and should ally with this or with any other group: subsidiarity. Let libertarians have liberty, and let liberals have liberalism: http://www.strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    My kids used to complain that their schools looked like prisons. (Some of them really did) But in the 10 years between my youngest child and oldest grandchild, public schools have actually BECOME mini-penal institutions. The presence of security guards, armed or not, zero-tolerance policies, random drug tests, assaults by drug dogs, strip searches, the constant barrage of anti-anything-but-blind-obediance propaganda -- what are they teaching our children, if not to be good prisoners?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I like the farm analogy up to the "seeing it is leaving it" part. (In truth, Paul, those I call "sheeple" I pretty much don't depend on anyway.) And I don't think it's necessary for an analogy to be "uplifting" -- there's nothing uplifting about ignorance.
  • helio's picture
    helio 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I prefer the Antebellum South Plantation analogy.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    "Thou shalt not kill" is, I understand on good authority (!) a mistranslation, and nonsensical on its face, since it prevents even self defense. The correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder."
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    A decent IED could take that thing out.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Looks like Officer Jones wanted a paid administrative leave.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Excellent point. I completely agree. Cooperating with the ruling classes divide and conquer tactics will never win the battle for freedom. We must take control of the debate and the language used and unite free humanity against those that would move to kill/maim/destroy all that will not follow their random and quite often stupid edicts. If someone is so angry that they need to fight someone, they need to direct that anger at the root of the problem (the ruling class) and not the branches of the problem (the duped cooperative citizens).
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Excellent points. I think Molyneux can come off as sounding condescending sometimes, and I think many people who haven't come across liberty ideas before might find the farm analogy to be offensive. The state is a parasite and a criminal gang, not good Old McDonald who takes care of us.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    I apologize, tzo, you did define authority, here, (I have written previously about where just authority originates), I missed it.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    This is the best commentary on the Milgram experiment I've ever seen. Clear, intelligent, to the point. I'll add two things: first, Milgram was wrong if he supposed the Nazi holocaust was anything unusual. History is filled with such horrors, and two even-larger holocausts happened in Milgram's lifetime: Stalin's and Mao's. But as R. J. Rummel documents in Death by Government, murder (mass murder, serial murder, all kinds of murder) is a very common behavior for governments and has been for thousands of years. Second, there IS one more element that makes a big difference in whether such things happen and if they do, how badly they play out, and that is the typical level of emotional health in a society. Psychoanalyst Alice Miller spent quite a lot of time studying and writing about murderers, psychopaths, and about Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler in particular. After decades of this, she said that she never once found someone evil who hadn't been abused in horrifying fashion in childhood. She covers the topic at great length and with interesting references in For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-rearing and the Roots of Violence. Emotionally healthy people do not participate in evil; they're the ones who risked their own lives to help the Jews hide from the SS and who do other things to oppose power and evil, even when the odds are terrible and the penalties are worse. Early -- very early -- affection and compassion are what build bonding with others in infancy and childhood, and create the sense of connection to others that no free society can remain free without.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Tzo: This is one of your best and most valuable articles -- and there are a lot of them! I read the details of the various sets of his experiments some years ago, but I did not read at length his confused analysis as you have. This is vital, and your untangling of his problem is on target! This is a terrific piece, and I'm going to link it around. Thank you!
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    "'I shalt not kill' implies that I cannot grant any 'Thou shalt kill' power to others." That single sentence appears to be unassailable from all sides. That's something to always remember.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Well done, excellent! I've always thought this was a great experiment with a crappy analysis and you nailed why Tzo. And using a proper analysis enhanced Milgram's work.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    G'day tzo, You mentioned "the proper definition of authority", but I can't seem to find it in your article. Technically, "authority" is defined as "permission"[1], more to the point, it is permission from the "author" (creator) of a thing, "to exercise power". Only the "author" (creator) of a thing, (or things), has the "de jure (rightful) authority" to "pronounce law" [jurisdiction], over that which he, she or it, created. The "author" (creator) may either use that authority him/her/it self, or, he/she/it may choose to delegate that authority to his, her or its agent through “manifestations of consent”. It is this knowledge that motivated those desiring "authority" over their fellow man to fraudulently come up with the "Religions", "Divine Right of Kings", et al, which has now evolved into the "Divine Right of Governments". Some people claim to be their own "authority", in other words their own "author". I don't know, with absolute certainty, who or what created me, but I am fairly certain that I did not create myself, and even more certain that the government did not create me. And, while we are on the subject of "jurisdiction" we might also want to question who or what creates "artificial persons", i.e. a "juristic personalities", and for what purposes? Artificial persons.. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 [Emphasis added] So, what do the PTB do when they tire of ruling over "artificial persons"? You can bet your bottom doll-hair that this is why the people behind MONSANTO (My Saint?) are trying to "officially" claim the title of "God", by "patenting" living organisms. ____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 133
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Great, tzo! Once again, you have provided a most thought provoking article. In retrospect, the most I was able to get out of a degree in psychology is that psychology is less a science than it is a cult. Milgram does a fantastic job in showing how this is possible.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    G'day Melinda L. Secor, As regards Libya, you may find this news enlightening: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110329/ts_yblog_thelookout/un... Be sure to see the last two entities he met with while he was on that short-lived internship, and who it was "approved by". It'll make your day.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day jd_in_georgia, Loved your example of the "desire for revenge"; that was William Shatner at his very best.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago
    Consideration
    Page NonEntity
    G'day NonEntity, Are you a U.S. citizen? Check Yes__ or No __ Would you say that one has voluntarily, albeit perhaps ignorantly, accepted the so-called "social contract", i.e. has "submitted himself to the dominion of the government", if he checked the "Yes" box and then signed his legal name thereto, so he could receive a member-only "entitlement", i.e. "the right to receive something [a benefit] or to do something [a privilege]"?
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    KHAAAAAAN! An excellent read, Mr. Wallace. Is this not the inner demon that truly is the seed of downfall, for governments as well as individuals?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Hey Paul, It just dawned on me where we might part ways. You write about "rights" as though there are only one kind, and therein may lie virtually all our differences. I realized, after reading my own reply to you, that I would have agreed with you, had you said, legal rights, civil rights, statutory rights, or political rights[1] keep members of the political corporation submissive, because, in my opinion, they do. A good example is the political right to vote; it fools the weakest members of the corporation into believing that they have complete "control" over what their government does, which of course they do not. The key to understanding rights is understanding that all rights are "entitlements". The primary thing that determines whether one is "entitled" to a particular set of rights is "membership". For example, one is not entitled to "political rights" unless he is a member of the political corporation. Another is "civil rights"; Noah Webster (c.1825), said it well, "civil rights, the power or rights which a man enjoys as a citizen." [Emphasis added] And, a "citizen" is what? citizen, n. ...2. A member of a state; a person, native or naturalized who owes allegiance to a government, and is entitled to protection from it... ~ Webster's 1960 New Collegiate Dictionary, page 151 [Emphasis added] Do you think this might bring us closer together? __________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] I failed to consider these other "rights", because I am a free man, and as a free man I am only concerned with my "natural rights". All men are equal in the eyes of the law, the natural law that is. Under man-made law this is not true, it is the law of "status", the "the legal character or condition of a person or thing". (Source: The 2010 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    G'day Paul, Let me give this one more shot, since I feel that you were baiting me with that post. Mark Davis wrote, “This seems like a long, repetitive strawman argument to me because I don't know anybody that considers the concept of rights to be equivalent to some kind of force-field.” Seems Mark Davis may have been wrong about that, because you wrote, “Rights do not protect us; they protect the ruling class by keeping us submissive.” [Emphasis added] That says, not only that rights exist, but that they are “equivalent to some kind of force-field” protecting the ruling class. Well they aren't, Paul, in fact, they are quite the opposite. The masses having knowledge and understanding of man's Natural Rights[1] is the ruling class' nightmare. "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe That is because, why would anyone fight to be free if they believed they already were free; similarly, why would anyone defend their natural rights if they didn't know they owned any? And, for some unknown reason you appear to believe that rights keep us [sic] “submissive”. [I now understand why you believe this. See my next post for the explanation.] Frédéric Bastiat wrote, “Each of us has a natural right [a “just claim”] — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.” [Emphasis and bracketed information added] Maybe if you had a “just claim” to something it would keep you submissive, Paul, but it sure as hell doesn't keep me submissive. It is the knowledge and understanding of my natural rights, my “just claim” to my life, liberty and justly acquired property that adds to my resolve to defend them. Allow me to explain that last statement with an analogy. Ever had an aquarium, Paul? Well, if you had, and you were attentive, you might have seen that a smaller fish, who had “staked his claim” first, could, many times, defend that territory even against a larger, more aggressive fish, which was added later. But, whether he could or not, even this stupid fish instinctively knew that he had a “right” to that property, because he was the first to claim it, and his instinctive knowledge of that “right”, I believe, made him stronger, and his foe weaker, than otherwise would have been the case. This is because one will naturally defend, far more aggressively, that which he has a “just claim” to, than that which he does not have a “right” to. If one does not have a “right” to a thing, that is to say, a “just claim” to a thing, it is not his, Paul, it belongs to someone else, to whoever does have a "just claim", i.e. a "right", to it, and I think, way down deep inside, most of us instinctively knows we should give it back. ___________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights or political rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
  • Guest's picture
    Samuel Marks (not verified) 3 years 48 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    The link from "As this strip clearly shows" is down... please reup (perhaps embed within this article?) http://www.s-anand.net/calvinandhobbes.html#19881106
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    LOL. The first (oldest) comment said to join the military and save for college. You cannot "be all that you can be" if you are dead or endlessly returned (enlistment "extended") to the Middle East until you ARE physically or mentally dead.
  • iliad's picture
    iliad 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Excellent article Bob. When you boil it down to its basic components, it really is that simple. Treat others with respect.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Dependence", and the more absolute, the better, is the name of the game.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Great article. And, sound advice, "This problem of feelings of humiliation followed by the desire for revenge is part of human nature. It’s not going to change. The best we can do is minimize the problem, by not humiliating people, by treating them respectfully." Thank you, Bob Wallace.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is a "Landmark ruling, citing the Fifth Amendment, says suspects must be reminded of their right to avoid self incrimination". Non-U.S. citizens, i.e. non-members, do not have the "civil rights", which are endowed to members of the STATE by the U.S. Constitution. Since seceding I have not once been read any so-called "Miranda rights" before, during, or after being arrested. Fortunately, as a free man, I have the "natural right" to speak, or not speak, to whomever I wish. I temper that "natural right" with, "all things lawful[1] are mine, but all things are not expedient", when making my decision to speak, or not. ____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Lawful. ...the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter [legal] goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former [lawful] usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 885
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    G'day AnarchoPhil, Perhaps you didn't see this. "But when I saw my girlfriend and everyone else taking their classes, I got a little jealous. I returned the car, canceled the check, and entered my sophomore year of college. But I regret it now." ~ James Altucher
  • Guest's picture
    AnarchoPhil (not verified) 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Don't go to college says the guy with the degree...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Silber may pull no punches, but it's in a subject he knows nothing about: "If you join the U.S. military, you want to be a murderer and/or you want to support murderers." Whether he is helping fix the problem, is another question entirely.
  • Guest's picture
    Temujin (not verified) 3 years 48 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Most of his podcasts are first rate. This one even more so.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 48 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    I would recommend listening to Gary Chartier's presentation here: http://agora.io/etienne/archives It is the top right video. It relates to this very strongly.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    G'day once more Sam, You are most certainly "in" a "Sovereign State", as regards other men, if your "President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis"; in that "state" you are, in my opinion, subject only to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". "That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to [coming after] the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, [in the natural state] every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. [Bracketed information added] What the so-called Christians of today don't appear to realize is that "no man can serve two masters (supreme magistrates)". If one is a U.S. citizen who is his "first", i.e. "supreme", magistrate? 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, ...the highest or first magistrate...is the President of the United States ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Oh, by the way, Sam, Yisra'el, literally translated, means, "prince (sar)/princess (sarah) of God ('el)", or "prince and princess of the Supreme Magistrate", if you prefer. And what is a prince? "1. In a general sense, a sovereign". And what is a princess? You probably already guessed it. "A female sovereign". "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire May I call you "fellow citizen"? ;) Suverans2
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 49 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Yeah, and what will happen if they sell it to Libya or Afghanistan?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    G'day Sam, Thanks. There are a few neighbors around me who have gotten a "kick out of it", too. The last man, with lights on top of his car, who spied it, "invited" me to pull over so he could talk to me. The first question out of his mouth was, "Where's your tag?" To which I answered, "On the back of my car." After politely explaining that I was not a U.S. CITIZEN, nor was I a CITIZEN or RESIDENT of the STATE he worked for, he bid me good day and left. Our last several encounters with agents of the STATE and COUNTIES have been similar, but, so I don't misrepresent, they haven't all been that pleasant. When you give men of low self-esteem a little delegated authority, an assortment of weapons, and a license to use them, it can sometimes turn ugly. Speaking of "President", Sam, did you know that the Aramaic[1] word for god, in the so-called "Old Testament", (singular) is 'el (pronounced ale), which is the short form of the word 'ayil (pronounced eye-eel), which, according to Dr. James Strong's studies means, "specifically a chief (politically)". (See H410 and H352 in any of the older versions of Strong's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.) And, that the number one meaning of 'elohiym (plural of 'el), also translated God, gods and goddesses is, "1a) rulers, judges" (See H430 in Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon.) Exo 23:32 Thou shalt make no covenant[2] with them, nor with their gods [rulers, judges]. Sound advice! I thought that this information might be of use to you, (and perhaps even one or two others), in some small way. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Aramaic n. a Northwest Semitic language that was the lingua franca throughout the Near East from c. 300 B.C. to c. A.D. 650; it replaced Hebrew [Ibriy] as the language of the Jews [sic][a] and one of its dialects was spoken by Jesus and his disciples ~ Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 70 [Emphasis and bracketed information added] [a] It was the language of the house (ten tribes) of Yisra'el, as well, not just the "Jews", i.e. members of the house (two tribes) of Judah. [2] H1285 Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon definition: 1) covenant, alliance, pledge 1a) between men 1a1) treaty, alliance, league (man to man) 1a2) constitution, ordinance (monarch to subjects)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    I like the "State of Nature" plate. Think I'll build one if I ever decide to rescind my "car free" status. I refer to myself as "A Sovereign State". My President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis. A good State in which to be, I is, I is. Sam