Recent comments

Full court press by "Morris the Wise" on this guy who is the Norwegian Martin Bryant (although Bryant was a bit of a goofball, and there's no evidence of that in Breivik's history). Same thing is happening over at Zerohedge, with recent registrants pouring reams of 'look at the lone nut' material into Oslo-related threads. As I said elsewhere, for a solo shooter to kill 80 people using light infantry weapons is as near to impossible as makes no odds. As the survivor testimony makes clear, people on the island clearly had cellphone signal - they sent messages and Twitter updates... so they are likely to have called police, too. So whoever did all that killing would have know they had a limited time budget. A man who has never killed, becomes a better life-taker than a professional JSOC/SEALTeam6 sociopath? Sorry, no sale. This has the hallmarks of a team effort - to get that kill count you would need five well-trained experienced killers, and twenty minutes or more (people run like fuck when crowds get fired upon, and moving targets are VERY hard to hit with assault weapons - even if it's not your first kill).

Evidence will show that the Oslo shooter was politically confused. He was suffering from a childhood trauma due to being sexually abused by an elderly housekeeper. His motive for the shooting had nothing to do with politics but only by a desire to become famous.

Yup. he was right. The only solution for this horrible choice between the chaos of democracy and the tyranny of despotism is the elimination of coercive government.

The massacre at Oslo has awakened all peace loving people. Never before has society become aware of the triple threat that is challenging its sanity. Mad bombers, mad shooters, and mad rapists have been showing their ugly heads. Unfortunately the police are not mind readers and these sickos cannot be detected and stopped beforehand. But thanks to the long hands of justice this insane trio will be caught and punished.

G'day Paul Bonneau, I've not had a gun put to my head, (and I doubt many here have), but I have had a taser put against my chest directly over my heart, by some no-neck thugs disguised as "peace officers", and I still said, "NO!" "If I have to check a little box that means nothing to me or offends me, to be able to engage in some commerce, I will play their game and check it." ~ Paul Bonneau [Emphasis added] This is not intended as a condemnation of you or anyone else, but as I wrote in a previous post, "(...I perceive that greed, i.e. the fear of the loss of material wealth, is greatest coercive force for many, if not most, of us)".

My prescription exactly. Add to that the mental preparation to go to war if war is brought to one. Fred Reed wrote an excellent article about disengaging here: http://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed210.html BTW seeds are taking root all over the place, these days.

Yeah, that's my reading too. And even if it wasn't, Suverans, you ignore the implicit coercion in the question. If I have to check a little box that means nothing to me or offends me, to be able to engage in some commerce, I will play their game and check it. It does not negate the reality, which is that they are illegitimate. They are putting a gun to my head, and contracts where a gun is on the table are not valid. I bet if they pointed a gun at you and asked you if you were a citizen, you'd say "yes" too.

Most of the time I spent in court I spent wondering why the judges even botrher to show up. The prosecutors run the courts and the police run the prosecutors. Seriously, is there anything the cops CAN'T do?

"The science of mine and thine --- [the natural law of man] the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other." ~ Natural Law by Lysander Spooner ________________________________________________________________________________ "Nowadays, the study of natural law virtually has been banned from the training of lawyers. What remains of it in the academic curriculum of most law schools is no more than a little bit of 'intellectual history', which is devoted mainly to the works of a handful of ancient, medieval and early modern writers and philosophers. Often, students get the impression that natural law is something that can be found only in books (in the same way that statutory law, the verdicts of courts and international treaties are mere texts). They are led to believe that the natural law is nothing but a collection of theories of natural law. It is not. Nor, of course, is the physical universe nothing but a collection of theories of physics. The practice of natural law also has been eliminated almost completely by the legal profession. Very often, the study and the practice of natural law are scorned if not ridiculed." ~ Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law. [Emphasis added]

Of course at the end it sounded as if he got to enjoy a ride in one of those police elevators I became very familiar with before I quit drinking 30+ years ago. Sam

The relationship between entities (cause and effect) is determined by the characteristics of the entities involved. This is no less true of human entities than any other. Even a cursory look quickly reveals that imposition upon personal preference by initiation of force and/or coercion produces the effect of resentment and hostility. It logically follows that if peace and harmony is the objective, refraining from initiation of force and coercion is the natural law means to achieve and sustain this end. How can any truth be more visible and irrefutable? ~Delmar England   

Very good, Sam. Did you hear that agent, "...we are allowed to lie in interviews"? The rule is, if their lips are moving they are lying. So, other than identifying who you are, keep your mouth shut...unless of course you are like the Articulant Motorist.

And remember this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=player_embedded Sam

Tzo (comment): "...If there are enough damaged people, then damage seems normal..." I've been rereading an essay, "Insanity As The Social Norm", by Delmar England: http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_insanityasthesocialnorm.htm It is 24 pages in a single space "Word" document. I've tried to edit my copy to produce more easily understood reading -- it does need work. England's main critique is the tendency in those of us professing anarchy to ignore "is" individual (the subjective definition we all have) in deference to "ought" individual (the objective definition), creating a subservient mentality. For instance, where you might say..."everyone gets to interpret the 'facts' of the world in his own way and draw his own conclusions"...England would insist: Everyone DOES interpret the 'facts' of the world in his own way and draws his own conclusions" -- the problem being those "conclusions" are sullied by "the confused and complex lies" with which s/he has grown up. England's very last paragraph: ...I do not propose to engage in such a futile effort (<== defining 'anarchism'). Suffice it to say, it is only by recognition of the truth of “is” individual without the subservient “ought” adornments of “morality” and “rights” that the real objective identity stands as a common frame of reference in unification, not division. In seeking freedom, peace and harmony, all else is folly... by Delmar England It's a good read for those wishing to expand this "objective, ethical rules" topic further. Sam

I think so. The belly-button thing covers the All Men Are Created Equal part, where everyone gets to interpret the "facts" of the world in his own way and draw his own conclusions. And I am happy to call all this personal interpretation subjective, as everyone will come to different conclusions about all kinds of "objective" things. The Just Society part is merely allowing each individual to live as he chooses and is able, as long as he does not hinder anyone else's ability to live likewise. This is the only way to preserve AMACE and to create a just society. So given the caveats, which I believe most people will agree to, then the entire objective ethics thing is done and done. It's that simple, and not really *subject* to much interpretation in any rational manner.

"Disengage from the government." John deLaubenfels Precisely!! DISENGAGE, v.t. [dis and engage.] ...4. ...to withdraw... 6. To release or liberate from a promise or obligation; to set free by dissolving an engagement ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

My computer says: "Critical error. The remote server has returned an error. Forbidden." I'm not paranoid or anything . . . or am I?

Wow! A terrific approach and VERY well done. (And so brief and concise! I'm impressed at the signal-to-noise ratio you've attained). I understand Samarami's point but disagree with it: civil society (that is, any society widely characterized by love and freedom, or compassion and liberty, or emotional health and laissez-faire -- depending on the wording you prefer) can be objectively described and does provide objective results that, as it happens, can be shown, scientifically, to be healthier and better (in terms of any number of important criteria) than what you get from a NON-civil society. So I'm in your corner on the objective rules thing, Tzo. Millions of people THINK various Statist schemes are in the best interests of all, but they're wrong -- and you've hit the nail on the head about it. Those who are sincere in wanting "justice, cooperation, freedom, and equal human rights" would be well-served to read your column. Not many will, but those who do may actually learn something important.

I would say there are two things we can do: . Sound off. Spread the word. Sure, it's frustrating to be confronted by ignorance, and many times it will prove a waste of time to try to counter it, but occasionally a seed will take root. . Disengage from the government. Attempt to live our lives out of its sight and away from its greedy, grasping hands.

For those who thought I was too hard on Lew Rockwell and his acolytes in this article. Here he is again at the following link, praising empire and Catholicism when they are linked to Austria. These are the 3 magic words of his sect at lewrockwell.com, and when they occur in close proximity, it becomes catnip to lew. Note how Lew drowns his brain in the holy water font in the following equation: Catholic + Empire + Austria = Good as in this link: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/91524.html He clearly gushes over the imperium when it touches a female imperial parasite, as he says himself in the post about the burial of the son of the Austrian Emperor, Otto von Habsburg: "His Body Interred in Austria, His Heart in Hungary...My favorite newspaper these days, the Daily Mail, has its usual stunning photos of the funerals of the great Catholic liberal Otto von Habsburg. Don't miss Otto as a boy, and if you want to know what a real queen-empress looks like, see his wife to be." Can he gush any more fully over the empress? While it is true that Hoppe has made a good case that private governments have a tendency to act more responsibly than democratic governments (Democracy: The God That Failed), this is yet another example of paleolibertarianism run amok.

Cops breaking the laws they enforce against the people? What a surprise.

G'day tzo, Express and implied. An express contract is an actual agreement of the parties, the terms of which are openly uttered or declared at the time of making it, being stated in distinct and explicit language, either orally or in writing. An implied contract is one not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law, as a matter of reason and justice from their acts or conduct, the circumstances surrounding the transaction making it a reasonable, or even a necessary, assumption that a contract existed between them by tacit understanding. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 323 ________________________________________________________________________________ TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Unfortunately, complaining to the other servants does not count as "objection or opposition".

Excellent column! The Higgs reference is probably my favorite from an author I much admire. This point needs to be driven home, "I do not consent!" "I did not sign that B***S*** contract!" I've got a domain, govNotLegit.com, that I need to flesh out. When I get time... I'll be sure to include a link to this column.

Just curious, Paul Bonneau, how many times have you checked the "yes" box, to either of the following two questions, and signed it? Are you a U.S. citizen? Are you a citizen of the State of Wyoming? If your answer is once, or more, (like I had), have you rebutted the presumption that that answer, or those answers, and signature created; the presumption that you have expressly consented to be a citizen, i.e. a subject, of a State government or, of the United States government?