Recent comments

″Natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason.″ ~ Hugo Grotius "...adapted to receive them..." = "...able to discover by the use of his reason" It is precisely because you are "...adapted to receive them...", that is to say, a man of reason, brother, that you have "always felt a kind of natural and intuitive appreciation for natural law". It is for this same cause that no "government", thus far, has ever been based on the natural law (of man). "Government is not reason..." ~ George Washington But, does, "is not", necessarily have to mean, "can never be"? What if....? "These [natural law] precepts will serve for the government of our conduct." ~ Noah Webster (Adapted)

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 For anyone, even the least bit interested in freedom, NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE: A TREATISE ON NATURAL LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, AND NATURAL SOCIETY; SHOWING THAT ALL LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER IS AN ABSURDITY, A USURPATION, AND A CRIME by Lysander Spooner is the "foundational stone"; it is the stone that the builders rejected. "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."

Excellent article!

Interesting comparison, Mr. Davis. Fire connects with humans, because we are electrical beings. Fire and electricity spring from the same natural phenomenon. Unlike television, though, fire doesn't lie. I really, really wish I had a fireplace. All I can do in the winter is burn a candle, but I find that usually suffices. Great observation.

One more step in what's become the most important function of public schools -- teaching children to be good prisoners.

I should also mention that one reason TV is such an effective propaganda organ is that it sends direct light through your eyes into the brain. It is mesmerizing, kind of like sitting around a fire and getting hypnotized by the flames. Eventually images and then words flow right past any filters we consciously put up to weed out the bullshit. Not to mention how easily it distracts the simple minded from reality. Putting that genie back in the bottle will be difficult, but your efforts to help addicts get off the tube are worth it.

As an ex-Mormon myself, I greatly empathize with the absolute rage (anger is too mild a term) that can happen when one is lied to, especially when the lies are patent like WTC 7 (welcome to the kooky party, plenty of room for all of us).

They don't care about obeying their own rules, Mr. Wilson, because no government can exist without first initiating coercion. If a government ever came along and left non-contributors entirely alone, it would be called an insurance company. As soon as you initiate coercion, The Ring is in charge, not you.

*I* never signed a contract with any government. Furthermore, I haven't seen any government offering a contract to protect any of my rights. Instead, I have been victim of several overlapping governments (school board, city, county, state and federal) violating my rights. Experience tells me that governments do not care about "legitimate", they just take. They also make "rules" but care nothing about obeying them. And they claim exclusive judgment of the "rules" they make and break.

"Huh? Anarchists want to kill all politicians?" I agree that most consistent libertarians/market anarchists/anarcho-capitalists/whatever-you-want-to-call-those-who-oppose-aggression-in-all-forms do not support a violent revolution where we "kill all the politicians". From a moral perspective, it's highly unlikely such a revolution could be conducted without murdering/injuring innocents or damaging their property ("collateral damage" in state-speak) and thus is incompatible with the NAP. Practically, violence tends to beget violence and the only real shot we have at abolishing the state is through a peaceful revolution of education and mass-scale withdrawal of consent/acceptance of the state (the de la Boettie approach). Killing all the politicians (even targeted assassinations, to avoid aggression against innocents) is more likely to marginalize us further as the slaves rally behind their masters and seek vengeance for our slight against their god (the State). But one wonders, in a state-less society, would politicians, and other responsible members of the former ruling class (and their henchmen) really be granted full pardon for past aggression? I imagine that "libertarian Nuremburg trials" like Walter Block (and others) have proposed may be distasteful for many and probably won't happen or have much bite to them if they do. But in a free-market of justice provision, is it not likely that the aggrieved relations of those who have been murdered by the state (a whole lot of Iraqi or Afghani mothers comes to mind, or survivors of victims of the drug war, etc...) will seek redress against those they can single out for their criminal (state sanctioned) activity? Personally, I would prefer that DROs (dispute resolution organizations - one form the justice industry may manifest as) that focused more on restitution (such as lifetime slavery in a work camp to pay the family of the one you murdered) would be more successful and thus more prevalent than those that doled out punishment (such as labor-less incarceration or execution), but really, the market would decide that. So it's possible that "we'll kill the politician that voted for the war that killed your son" (or the general that ordered the bombing of your city, or the DEA agent that tazed your grandma to death, etc...) courts would arise and be popular for a time (at least until the politicians are dead), resulting in the execution of many of the worst-offenders from the former state apparatus. Because let's face it, though it is a heretical, lunatic thought in today's Statist reality, from a consistent justice point of view, those in the State ARE murderers and thieves. Just because the majority have been indoctrinated into believing the myth that association with the State magically makes murder, kidnapping, theft, terrorism, fraud, etc... not only not criminal, but virtuous, doesn't make it so. Politicians, members of the military, IRS agents, police, etc... ARE criminals, and it is not extremism, but rather moral and logical consistency for one to advocate they meet justice in the same manner any "private" criminal would. It is within the right of the aggrieved individual to offer pardon and forgiveness and therefore spare the politician his just fate. But the vast number of victims of the State makes unanimous clemency highly unlikely. Even as one forgives the DEA agent for tazing his grandmother to death, another may choose to not forgive the same agent for planting coke on his brother who was subsequently stabbed to death in prison. Nor is it likely that the aggrieved masses of Iraq (or, pick a country) will all individually decline to seek justice. Will that necessarily result in death for the politicians? Probably in most cases, but not always (when some seek restitution rather than punishment, or pardon is actually unanimously granted by the victims). Either way, due to the heinous nature and scope of the crimes of the State, it is most certain that whatever form justice is delivered in, it won't be pleasant for the recipients, nor should it be.

Nice, Jim. I hope you don't mind if I rewrite one of your paragraphs: Mormon belief begins with the fable that between 1820 and 1830 AD, the Angel Moroni told Joseph Smith there was only one God and that Smith was His messenger. Moroni didn't really need to stir from his heavenly repose, for that dude could have found out the first bit from at least two other local sources at the time, and the second bit might be thought suspiciously convenient for someone bidding to extend political power. Any conflict with those earlier alleged revelations was put down to textual corruption, while the new one--the Book of Mormon--was infallible to the letter, as freshly dictated by power given from on high (was that the origin of shorthand? It does look a bit like Egyptian script)... The verbal infallibility however is quite handy, since all discrepancies between it and the Old and New Testaments can be disposed of quickly: Those others are wrong, period. I wonder if the next planned Mormon temple will become a nationwide scandal. There's always one belief system -- Islam, Mormonism, Catholicism ("Papists" in England), the International Jewish Conspiracy, etc. -- that simply CANNOT be tolerated in a free society.

Perhaps these CafePress stickers and buttons will be helpful. I have linked back to your article from this page...: http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna/7272157 Best regards, Dennis

Call Me an Abolitionist, Please* http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=106.0 I had my mind changed by Glen Allport regarding using and defending the term "anarchist". In an article at Strike the Root, dated 2006-Dec-18, (which was finally called to my attention 2 years later) he presents an EXCELLENT CASE for choosing another term to describe my general political position (which, of course, is broader than my specific political position which is Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent). Perhaps he can change your mind also. His article is at http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html Henceforth, Call Me an Abolitionist, Please Dennis Wilson Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent http://tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant *All due respects to Glen Allport and his article with the same title.

Agreed. Unfortunately, for the purposes of my comment, there are far too many money quotes, especially when I take under consideration an ongoing discussion with one of my friends concerning the feasibility of anarchy: "Nonetheless, the obvious fact that events beyond anyone’s control affect people’s preferences, and do so in ways not fully understood, should no more inevitably lead libertarians to strategic pessimism than it leads business people to abandon all marketing and advertising." This article is an absolute gem.

Hi, B.R.: I was sent this posting privately to my email. I'll leave off the writer's name: Hey Lawrence, 911 wasn't blowback it was a false flag black op perpetrated on the American people by the Israeli's and their sayanim neocon allies in the Bush Administration! This blowback theory is just another layer in the onion of lies! Have a nice day!

This is a long scholarly article and the basic theme is that it's possible to change society, and that a prerequisite for change is to change the beliefs or attitudes of some critical mass of the population. In itself, this is not a new or startling conclusion, but I've never seen the question addressed so thoroughly before and the authors make a good case for their position.

Thank you for your comments on this post -- some of which have claimed it was a false-flag operation. Certainly the people in government are capable of such a tactic, and while it may be true that the 9-11 attack was a false-flag operation, since I am not certain of that, I have represented it as a blowback event. We do know -- after the testimony of FBI whistle-blower Colleen Rowley -- that many in the government knew about it ahead of time, and of course there is that famous photo (printed in the Newark Star-Ledger) of the Israeli art students dancing on the roof of a Jersey City apartment with the WTC burning in the background. Beyond that, I can't say much. If you know more, you are welcome to comment or point out a good link.

If one chooses to remain a member of the body politic, i.e. chooses not to secede from it, then all that he thinks he "owns", belongs to his master[1], the STATE. ″The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.″ ~ Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) Footnote: [1] Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327. (Ibid.)

In "Hombre", the sheriff (who you are depending on for protecting your rights) turned out to be a member of Boone's gang.

"All evidence throughout history points in the opposite direction--that government is here to prey on us, and that if there is anything we need protection from, it is our own governments." What a great way to put it! Paul's got a talent for seeing the important point in a situation and conveying that point without a single wasted word. Nice job.

Yeah, you could have pretty much stopped after the first word of your first post. : >

What surprises me the most about this article isn't the expansion of the police state. Hardly anything surprises me about that anymore, but I am surprised that a mainstream magazine like Time would be so critical of it.

I haven't "suffered at the hands of this ideology(Islam)." Not in the least. I have indeed suffered, and so has the Middle East, from endless intrusion at the hands of the United States government. Now innocent American Muslims, who number in the millions, are suffering at the hands of bigoted Americans, including a few "Objectivists," who cling to their favored system of coercion. The idea that I refuse "to allow ANY dissenting opinion" is completely unfounded. I simply give no place for bigoted conclusions. Feel free to spout this nonsense if you wish. Just don't expect me to take it seriously. And do prepare yourself in the future to be contradicted by other commenters at this site if you continue to paint entire groups of people, who are categorized by your subjective thoughts alone, with such a broad brush. Read into my "countenance" whatever you wish. It concerns me not at all.

That's too bad, you'd do well to watch you character, as your countenance seems to imply more of your hatred of dissenting opinion than outright conformity.