Recent comments

"...[T]he centuries-old tradition of common law" is not one of our "real...heroes"; it is the Natural Law that is our "real hero". Recommended reading: Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.

Horribly right, Glen Allport. This is just one of the many reasons my wife and I decided to secede from the U.S. corporation[1] and all of its franchises (States). And, no, we are not foolish enough to think that this decision will somehow protect us from what is about to happen, we just want to be able to say that once we began to see what was going on, we chose to no longer "take part in the lie[2]". _______________________________________________________________________ [1] ″Despite all the flags fluttering on First Avenue there are no nations any more, only companies; International companies.″ ~ Kuman-Kuman (Character in the movie The Interpreter) [2] "The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie." ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn

See Larken Rose's book entitled "How to be a Successful Tyrant." Contains lots of useful techniques that tyrants have utilized through the ages.

G'day Sam, Hope you enjoy Frank's treatise as much as I did, brother. One discrepancy I find with what you just wrote, according to "that book", I believe it talks about a "...government of the Creator, by the Anointed. ANOINT The use of oil in consecrations, was of high antiquity. Kings, prophets and priests were set apart or consecrated to their offices by the use of oil. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language And, who are the "anointed"? "Ye are a...royal priesthood" Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. According to "that book", the commonwealth of Israel, (not to be confused with the STATE OF ISRAEL), as I understand it, is made up of "fellow citizens", that is to say, all members have equal rights. FEL'LOW, n. [Heb. to tie or connect, to be joined or associated.] ...3. An equal. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Mellow Greetings Suverans2, Sorry for the delay in responding to this all important topic. You might establish a belief on a truth and work down from that reference point.Say, maybe that ''All men are created equal.'' From my perspective means that-God(The Sovereign) has granted all men personal sovereignty. Which leaves them to offend(sin) against a righteous Creator,(to their detriment)or accept the(Free) provision God has supplied for all. Their is a proof(many),That puts the fingerprints of God upon the Holy Scriptures. 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: The Fact that God tells the future as a history.(prophecy) You might be familiar with the Septuagint?These, the(old testament) Hebrew scrolls that were translated into Greek,300 hundred years before Christ.(ref-any encyclopedia) The Septuagint contains over 300 prophecies concerning Christ and was translated almost three centuries before his birth. Christ fullfilled every single prophecy! The odds of one historic personage fullfilling every single prophecy written almost 300 years before his birth are unfathomable.(impossible really) http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg018... All of Christianity would come crashing down in a rubble pile if one(1) prophecy of christ were shown to be unfullfilled.The critics have had 2,000 years to no avail. Nowadays,the best testimony against Christianity,would seem to be so called Christians. There is reason for this. The first century true christians were martyred by the thousands and the truth grew in spite of persecution.Onced the state legalized and endorsed it,it could control it.The modern apostate church has been infiltrated.We have wolves in sheeps clothing sheperding the laity to destruction. The Holy Scripture is the inexhaustible word of God.Libraries of books have been written on one verse. Generation after generation of men have studied it all their lives and have NOT plumbed the depths. There is reason for this. You would expect that ,from a writting that had the audacity to claim the exalted status as the ''word of God!'' I find a lot of intersting truths from the Scriptures that point to God. Exd 20:3 ¶ Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Which is to say-First is God,than is man.The creature is not above the creator.Do not bow down to the idol of a manmade government. or Christ Jesus has said; “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.21 Luke 22:25..."But ye shall not be so." Jesus said in Matthew 20:25 “But Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you Christ's admonition is wise than, and wiser today. Those who will not be governed by God,will be ruled by tyrants. “And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Governments operate under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. Christ cautions us.(This verse also condemns the universal 'catholic chuch' wher they call preist and pope Father.) 1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; You maybe familiar with the contractual nature of governments. The Scripture speaks- When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23:1 “A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” (Proverbs 17:18) Man has been warned over and over that he should be cautious at the table of rulers whether they be singular monarchs, elected executives or mobs of the majority. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:8-10 (no tax,no tribute,no voting,as that is a trespass and a violence to your neighbors.) Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. and Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (No room for a Government of rulers here.) The next verses are prophetic and point to the rulers(kings) and their creatures(corporations,merchants) and how we should ''come out of the mystery babylon.'') Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. + 2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. My purpose in this posting is that maybe you have not read the Scriptures in light of these truths that i am attempting to share with you,and hopefully you consider them in a 'new light'. let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written. ~Darkcrusade P.S. Believe nothing that i have wrote,unless you can verify it with the truth. As it is written> Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Geoffrey Allan Plauché at http://gaplauche.com/blog/2008/01/29/comments-on-roderick-longs-inside-a... has comments on Roderick Long's "Inside and Outside Spooner's Natural Law Jurisprudence". At the bottom of his comments is a clickable link to Rod's paper. I'm such a computer klutz I have no other way to post a link directly to Long's treatise, as it posts as a word file. Sam

This is gonna be problematic too. Several major state and US highways go through that spot.

Natural Rights clause of the New Hampshire Constitution. [Art.] II. [Natural Rights.] All men* have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. *It is important to note that, all "men" [humans] have natural rights, not all "persons" or "citizens". Governments give "citizens" civil rights and/or political rights; Natural Rights are "inherent rights". Then at Article three we read this: [Art.] III. [Society, its Organization and Purposes.] When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others... Oh, really? It would be interesting to see the list of "natural, essential and inherent rights" that members of their society have to "surrender up", would it not? Let's see now, would it be their right to life, their right to liberty or their right to natural and justly acquired property? As we have seen in a previous comment here, one of their most notable "founding fathers", and author of their manifest notice of secession, the Declaration of Independence, so-called, apparently disagreed with that constitutional article, and in no uncertain terms. "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare [not create] and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson (c.1816)

"...city-owned trees..."????????? Hmmmm, I thought if they were on the "public right-of-way", i.e. the "common right-of-way", that they are common property, i.e. everyone owns them. Damaging the bark. [laughing] Then I suppose woodpeckers and squirrels will have to be notified as well.

Natural law. This is the rules of conduct necessary for people to live and work in peace, based on human nature. A central feature of customary or natural law is that law is not made, it is not legislated, it is not decreed; it is discovered. The development of customary law is an ongoing effort to discover what the natural law is. It always focuses on resolving the specific issues of the specific parties to a specific case, and thus is far less vulnerable to lobbying and politicking than the process of legislation. The main elements of natural law as commonly understood are these: lawful behavior means to avoid physical damage to another's person or property; to honor one's contracts; and to compensate those whom one has harmed by infringing on their person or property. In other words, Ayn Rand didn't invent the Non-Aggression Principle; it is of ancient origin. The natural law has no notion of victimless crime; there is no case without a plaintiff to claim injury. Thus customary law tends to focus on compensation for injuries suffered, rather than on punishment. The purpose of law is to see that justice is done — that injured parties are made whole, to the extent possible — rather than to exact vengeance against evil-doers. ~ Excerpted from Rule-of-law Anarchism: A Strategy for Destroying the State's Legitimacy by Kevin S. Van Horn

The issue is not whether or not smoking tobacco causes lung cancer (I think excessive smoking probably contributes to the risk of lung cancer. I could be wrong about that). The issue is whether or not one accepts agents of state as serving a socially useful purpose (I don't). "No government anywhere, at any time, has ever brought net benefit to any society, and there is no desirable function that any government performs that could not be performed better, or less expensively, by free people operating on a voluntary basis for profit or for charity". ~Jim Davies http://www.takelifeback.com/tdaw/

This actually tries to tell us that smoking tobacco not only doesn't cause lung cancer, it protects against it.

I had watched and listened to Molyneux's video of this article some time ago, but was not aware of it in essay. Thanks to Stefan for this timely work. I have children and grandchildren beating the bush for Ron Paul, and this helps me to explain to them why I cannot join in their enthusiasm for his "campaign". I love them and do "grandpa duty" regularly while Mom, Dad and older grandkids (they have 9 children) are on the campaign trail for Dr Paul. And thanks, Vahram, for posting the link to John Pugsley's "Open Letter to Harry Browne". Pugsley also wrote The Alpha Strategy (pdf), available online for free -- a worthwhile read. I was a kid not long home from Korea when I was exposed to Harry Brown's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World", written around 1971. I had traveled the roads and cow paths of Texas in ardent support of Barry Goldwater for "potus" in the summer of 1964 on summer break from teaching. Totally disillusioned with politics after his sound defeat to Lyndon Johnson, I never again registered or voted -- 48 years now (I'm 75). That was the last year for the poll tax in Texas. That experience also introduced me to the grave compromise in basic principles that must be met if one wants to fool with the evils of politics. As Stefan outlined, you have to accept a few lynchings to succeed in politics for "high office" (or any government "office"). So I try not to come down too hard on my sons and their families in their promotion of Dr Paul for "Grand Wizard" (I haven't used that epithet with family, but may soon give it a try -- gently). Analogies such as Molyneux's help to plant seeds. Sam .

Robert: "...the heart and soul of order is anarchy and freedom. Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order..." Dead on, Robert! Good essay! Thanks! All too often I've seen on some of these sites well-meaning libertarians who lament "...we must work to bring about a libertarian society..." or similarly worded theses. But that very wording implies someone (or someones -- busybodies, perhaps) must "manage and control" society until "it" becomes free (or libertarian, or anarchic). That's not the way freedom works. If I practice freedom I'm free. I might inspire freedom by my example for you, but your freedom is your responsibility, not mine. My only responsibility is refraining from trying to manage your freedom. That can take skill and self-discipline -- especially for you young parents. I know -- I had 7, long grown up and producers of grandchildren and great grandchildren. Small children need loving, but sometimes firm, direction from Mom & Dad. Remember Hanoi. Resist the temptation to install traffic signals in life. Be free. Thanks again for the essay! Sam

"One Leftist spoke of how he was one of nearly two dozen anti-war activists harassed by the FBI last year. He literally woke up early one morning to the ominous sounds of somebody pounding on his door. He opened it up and some 20 or so Federal agents marched in and rifled through all of his and his wife’s personal papers and effects, eventually carting off some 30 boxes of the couple’s private belongings." Hopefully someone told this "Leftist" that should their desire for collectivism come true, history tells us, in no uncertain terms, that (s)he could expect more of this, not less. And someone should have shown that "Lefty professor from the University of Illinois at Chicago" the "bloody history" of socialist/communist governments against their own citizens (members).

The first question was "Who do you like in the GOP race?" and Hank answered emphatically "Nobody." He later said Herman Cain makes more sense than the others "Right now." and was later prompted to comment about his previous support of Palin to which he said "Did I." So he clearly stated that he didn't support any of the "GOP field" and later gave non-committal off hand comments after prompts on two persons of which one is running. This will help his career more than hurt it. Country music fans like their singers to have some balls, at least those of the male variety. Hating Obama is a good start on the road to hating the state. When more people figure out that our problems are systemic and not due to personnel issues, support for the state will fade quickly. Anarchy is a Big Tent and Obama haters are welcome to come learn about the alternatives outside the mainstream organs. I'm just trying to help them.

I find it interesting that so many people, including Democrats, automatically assume that Obama would be the Hitler. Why is it that even his supporters automatically assume he has to be the Hitler in the analogy? I find it is very revealing that anyone that hears that analogy automatically assumes the Obama-Hitler connection. Why couldn't Obama be the Netanyahu?

I don't know if Hank is that black and white but the hitler remark was blown way out of proportion compared to the current rhetoric used today and he certainly did not deserve to get canned for it.

I know, but hope springs eternal. If they have any sense of self preservation, they will act to rein themselves in.

In reply to: 12-Year Olds in CA Can Be Vaccinated Without Knowledge or Consent of Parents, I asked the the question that no one likes the answer to, "And, who is subject to this law?" Here, in this lead-in, we find the answer. "Lawmakers in Louisiana have effectively banned its citizens from freely using..." Which is why I do not consent to be a "citizen", i.e. a member of any of their body politics.

I was a little disappointed in this. The interviewee obviously hasn't thought out his position. I don't see how this is productive.

An excellent perspective is explored when one exposes the ad-hoc nature of statism... a concept I expounded upon in this piece, "History's Most Elaborate Ad-Hoc Hypothesis": http://strike-the-root.com/historys-most-elaborate-ad-hoc-hypothesis

Keyword Search: "Official", Check. Keyword Search: "Informant", Check. Drink!

More of the "if we just followed the Constitution" claptrap. No system of statism will have a good result. I'm surprised STR posted this at all.