If Cops Can't Taze a Pregnant Woman, The Terrorists Will Win


Persona non grata's picture

Pain compliance is torture.

AtlasAikido's picture

Excellent identification Persona non grata: Ultimately it is about seeing the unseen and making it seen.

What is at the root of the issue? How is it possible that a mobile torture device called a Taser can be used to torture people in the open?

Thanks to Stefan Molyneux for bringing up the idea that the so-called "Black Bloc" ARE Not what they pretend to be and the history of such state instigated provocatuers and how that plays into people believing the Big Lie that people NEED statism and pain compliance (torture) to avoid so called chaos...

True News: The 'Violence' of the G20 Protests

The State Will Always Self-Justify
Posted by Darian Worden

More here: http://c4ss.org/?s=taser

The Comforting Lie

AtlasAikido's picture

'There was a time when those in positions of legal authority were literally regarded as beings of an inherently superior order, entitled to a special status exempt from ordinary moral rules. That doctrine was known as the divine right of kings. Nowadays we profess to have given up that doctrine; the Declaration of Independence boldly declares that “all men are created equal.” But *we* [too many] are still all too quick to treat the bearers of official power as a breed apart'. Excerpted from an article from Roderick Long in the search link above.

The Milgram experiment IS being played by agents using mobile torturing devices (tasers) and exercising the divine right of kings.

'For those familiar with Stanley Milgram’s psychological experiments, which I often reference, you may recall that Dr. Milgram found that the one thing most likely to make someone refuse to obey a nasty command from a perceived “authority” is the person seeing someone ELSE refusing to obey. For whatever strange psychological reason, hardly anyone wants to be the FIRST to disobey “authority,” but many don’t mind being the SECOND to do so. (After that, lots of otherwise obedient people seem perfectly willing to rebel against a malevolent “authority.”) I think the reason is that there is huge mental inertia against even the POSSIBILITY of disobeying ever occurring to most people. But once that barrier is broken, by someone suggesting that disobedience could even be an option, suddenly a lot of people are able to at least consider it'. Excerpted from http://www.libertarian.to/NewsDta/templates/news1.php?art=art1839

The Evils of Collectivism (We-ism)

The problem with misplaced power is not in the chain of command; it is in The Chain of Obedience.

Rand sets out to demonstrate through the novel’s action what happens when governments follow socialist ideas. She argues that when men are compelled, through collectivism’s forced moral code, to place the needs of their neighbors above their own rational self-interest, the result is chaos and evil. Incentive is destroyed, and corruption becomes inevitable. The story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company illustrates this brilliantly. After the plant adopted a method in which workers were paid according to perceived needs and ordered to work based on perceived ability, the workers became depraved and immoral, each seeking to show himself or herself as most needy and least skilled. The plant failed, and the community was destroyed by mistrust and greed. For Rand, any economic or political plan based on sacrifice of the individual for the group leads to chaos and destruction.

AtlasAikido's picture

Correction: "The Milgram experiment IS being played [out by agents of the state] using mobile torturing devices (tasers) and exercising the divine right of kings".

AtlasAikido's picture

The New American Order: Using Weapons of Compliance To Stamp Out Protest
by John W. Whitehead http://lewrockwell.com/whitehead/whitehead45.1.html

AtlasAikido's picture

...The heart of Castle Rock v. Gonzales is a police v. the people dispute. Do the police exist to protect you?

--The clear answer is no. From the 1856 US Supreme Court ruling on South v. Maryland through to Castle Rock, the courts have ruled that "there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen" (Bowers v. DeVito, 1982).

--At one time, a significant portion of what is now America was protected by private policemen who were paid by — and, so, responsible to — the community where they served. The Western sheriffs did protect people and property; they did rescue schoolmarms and punish cattle rustlers. Their mission was to keep the peace by preventing violence.--Modern policemen still bask in the glow of that legacy even as they betray it by taking state salaries and institutionalizing an indifference for the person and property of those they purport to serve.

--The modern policeman is, in fact, the antithesis of Marshal Dillon and an expression of the stereotypical British sheriff — a civil servant responsible ONLY to government and governmental policy.

---There is an extreme disconnect between the public and the police when it comes to preventing violence. The public cries, "That's your job!" The police reply, "Tell it to the judge." *And American judges have consistently ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you*.

---I wonder where that disconnect could come from? (SARC-INT). And who would spread such self-serving frauds and cheats? I shrug dear reader. Perhaps in part those that repeat (spread) discredited memes under the tyranny of good intentions and feel good do-goodism in opposition to the facts.

--"And, so, to the woman who says, "My husband [and or friend] is a good man!" and words to that effect I must reluctantly answer, *"It does not matter."* [emphasis added]

---It's Not Personal; It's Institutional---Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5439/Its-Not-Personal-Its-Institutional

"Thoreau wrote, Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?… The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.…In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men (sociopath behavior) can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well...

--*Many consider service to "their country" to be an automatic virtue*, but it is a dehumanizing vice whenever it involves the abandonment of conscience. The military demands this abandonment. And few activities can be as dehumanizing as patrolling foreign streets in the role of an occupying force".... Grappling with the Banality of Evil Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5491/Grappling-with-the-Banality-of-Evil

AtlasAikido's picture

May 22, 2012 Never Forget: The Police Always Make Things Worse
Posted by William Grigg on May 22, 2012 01:26 PM

AtlasAikido's picture

May 23, 2012
What ‘Supporting Our Troops’ Gets You
Posted by Becky Akers on May 23, 2012 09:14 AM

AtlasAikido's picture

May 21, 2012
U.S. Military Defeated in Vietnam
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 21, 2012 11:37 AM

Sociologist Bill Gibson was recorded in 1987 talking about his book on the Vietnam War (The Perfect War: Techno-War in Vietnam). In this video on YouTube, he touches on many interesting aspects of the war, like the myths and delusions of the U.S. military, its leaders and those of the American people. I watched all 10 parts, which is unusual for me. In Part 10, he accurately foretold that, since the delusions had not yet been shattered, the U.S. would again make wars it could not win.

These delusions that are a contributing factor to causing folly after folly are culturally rooted and historically-conditioned. There are reasons why Americans over-estimate the importance of technical gadgets of war, look upon other governments as inferior, look upon other peoples as inferior, do not understand foreign systems, separate the world into good guys (Americans) and bad guys (whoever doesn't agree with Americans), refuse to face realities, think that wars can be run like production lines, focus on body counts, kills and statistics, view systems that are different as threats, and on and on.


AtlasAikido's picture

Recognizing the Amazing Ron
Posted on May 22, 2012 by Lew Rockwell

AtlasAikido's picture

May 23, 2012
The 'Demon'-Haunted Mind of a Law Enforcer
Posted by William Grigg on May 23, 2012 11:16 AM

AtlasAikido's picture

Regarding: Lew Rockwell to Ron Paul Delegates: Consider Skipping the Convention

279. What To Expect at the GOP Convention in Tampa [Tasering if wearing a Ron Paul button...]

AtlasAikido's picture

The Latest Science of Nature Versus Nurture
Research on the effects of environment and genetics on personality, brought to you by Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web -


At 10 and 15 minutes and 20 minute marks the podcast addresses:

How the mind is actually re-wired to be addicted to being extremely abusive--including torture/beatings/murder and political power--and as roughly as addictive as cocaine. One of the reasons why people seek to get it--that stimulation and continue to expand it. Attempts to act out and feel normal by raising and flooding the brain with dopamine (exhibiting behavior because they don't have the words to describe it and the ability (learned) to comfort, self-regulate and self-sooth stress and anxiety).

The flooding of dopamine causes lack of empathy, stupid behavior, poor judgement and poor risk assessment. All the things seen by those attracted to political power and fearful of so-called chaos...

Yep I would say law enforcers, soldiers and politicians have indeed not internalized the caring parent alter ego..

At 37:09 in the podcast

The Fascist High:

But too much power and hence too much dopamine-can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others. Power corrupts. Not just spiritually. It is a physical thing with the flooding of dopamine (that comes from too much political power)..

Most importantly this podcast gives some insights and understanding to the limits of changing minds as it pertains to deeply held beliefs, stress, low dopamine, low endorphins, and flooding of the brains with testosterone and dopamine...


AtlasAikido's picture

Anointed people who must have the authority to murder you for not wearing your seat belt. That is pretty psychotic. Whether it is legal or not means absolutely nothing it is just terms and a trick thieves use to try to get its victims to put up with it.
Libertopia 2011 Bill Buppert tete' a tete' w/Larken Rose

AtlasAikido's picture

Here are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely from a govt system of any sort..

Govt employees are legally protected from suffering personal consequences as a result of all but the most blatant acts of the aggressive acts which they perpetrate “in the line of duty”. Such functionaries as police officials, judges and revenue agents can initiate force with immunity by taking protection under such cliches as “I don’t write The Law; I just enforce it” or “that’s a matter for a jury to decide” or “this statute was passed by duly elected reps of the people”. But employees of a free market defense company would have no such legal immunity from retaliatory force; they would have to assume responsibility for their actions…

Personal conscience plays a huge role in justified defensive force absent the belief and immunity of “just doing my job” authoritarian protection rackets…

Without a belief in govt, communities would almost certainly develop rules which at first glance would resemble what are now called “laws’. But there would be a fundamental difference. It is still legitimate to write and publish for all to see statements about consequences of doing certain things.

Here is one: instead of *We* hereby make the following illegal, the “warnings would fit into this template ” *I* believe that if you do this, I have the right to respond in this way”

The point is not that people will automatically think and behave properly if there are no rulers, but that such malicious tendencies in human beings would be LESS dangerous and destructive without the blind belief in just doing my job obeying authority to legitimize them.

Left to their own device people will not try to forcibly impose upon others but avoid violent conflicts. If there is a govt to coercively inflict their values on others they will gladly beg it to do so with no shame….

If every person who made a threat and attempted to enforce the rule had to take personal responsibility and assume the risk himself very few people would be willing to threaten their neighbors.

See Larken Rose expand on this and more in his book The Most Dangerous Superstition.

An introduction to Larken Rose - Free Your Mind Conference 2011

AtlasAikido's picture

Statists are often afraid of what some individuals will do if not restrained by govt. What they should fear is what those individuals will do if they become govt. The amount of damage which one hostile, malicious authority figure can do by himself is nothing compared to what one hostile, malicious authority figure can do by way of *obedient but otherwise good people*.

If evil was committed only by evil people the world would be a far better place than it is today–with basically good people constantly committing evil acts because a perceived authority told them to.

Here the statist does not trust his neighbors (others). But trusts them to have the power of a State to do the same things he seeks protection from. Ouch!

If a man must inherently be governed by an authority that initiates force, who will govern those who govern?

Perhaps the statist thinks he and others–his neighbors that he does not trust–govern his masters?


AtlasAikido's picture

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime
The Market for Liberty
Linda and Morris Tannehill http://mises.org/document/6058/The-Market-for-Liberty

The whole book deals with difference between govt and free market justice.

In fact a would be tyrant’s customers–in a free market–would be an obstacle to him.

He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all. A market relationship is a free relationship. If a customer does not like a company’s service–(including defensive), or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere or to start his own competitive service or to do without the service altogether and provide his own.

There is a difference between coercive monopolies (govt driven by initiating force and ratcheting fear and power) and free market monopolies (profit motive, supply demand, attracting customers).

AtlasAikido's picture

It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which crime bosses are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels. From the $50 payoff to the local cop to the $10,000 contribution to a senator’s campaign fund organized crime regularly protects itself by buying off govt opposition.

In a laissez-faire society aggressors would not only be scattered but weak and unorganized they would find it next to impossible to buy off free market protection and arbitration agencies. Customers of a defense company don’t have to keep patronizing it if they find out its employees have been accepting payoffs from aggressors.. They are free to do what citizens can never do–find some other agency to protect them. A free market agency could not afford to have under- world connections even with the small and unimportant underworld of a free market…When the news media revealed its shady dealings its customers would desert it…

Furthermore customers of a free market defense company are not imbued with a citizen’s patriotic fervor and obedience and thus are much harder to lure into foolish collectivist endeavors (such as national unity). Free men don’t leap like fools and sheep to defend a flag or sacrifice themselves for the cause of politicians. These are some of the ways a free market system differs fundamentally and completely form a govt system of any sort…

Warring Defense Agencies and Organized Crime p111, 114 p115
The Market for Liberty
Linda and Morris Tannehill

Samarami's picture
    "...It is also worth noting that much of the success of organized crime in our present society is due to alliances which crime bosses are able to make with govt officials in nearly all levels...."

As the Tannehill's outlined (and we all know -- I'm preachin' to the choir again), there could be no such thing as "organized crime" without privileges imbued and contributed by a central state apparatus. It would be interesting to speculate how crime itself would virtually disappear in a totally free society after all central states were to have collapsed and dissipated.

Will I see that in my remaining 30 or so years? Come forth, Jim Davies.

Prohibition of products and services demanded by consenting persons is what brings about "organized crime". As a matter of practical fact you can define "government" as "organized crime" and be done with it.


AtlasAikido's picture

Hi Sam, Apparently many Russians did come forth:

...“We must give our citizens a chance at survival,” Torshin told the Interfax news agency, insisting that widespread private gun ownership doesn’t lead to “a surge in killings,” but rather “the reduction in street crimes and the murder rate.”

What makes Torshin’s stance all the more remarkable is the fact that roughly half a year earlier he had expressed support for banning private possession of “non-lethal” handguns.

It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that Mr. Torshin knew which way the winds of *public outrage* are blowing, and aligned his sails accordingly. In any case, Torshin’s proposal is tangible evidence of a growing -- and thoroughly commendable -- Russian contempt for the very institution of government...

During the past decade, the crime rate in the United States has declined, terrorism has been all but nonexistent – and the country has been transformed into a fair approximation of a high-security prison, complete with full-spectrum surveillance of the population and undisguised militarization of “local” police departments. At the same time, the political elite in charge of the former Soviet Union is addressing a legitimate crime crisis by drawing down the police force and recognizing (however tentatively) the right of citizens to armed self-defense.

For all of its problems, Russia clearly is no longer the land of Lenin. For all of our advantages, it’s just as clear that the United States of America is no longer the Land of the Free. ...

Sunday, September 18, 2011
Abolish the Police, Arm the Citizens: The "Sagra Model" of Privatized Security

PS There are more gems in this article (I only touched on a few)...

PPS I use this site's threads to post on other sites (info in different order and different excerpts but similar contexts to refute anti-freedom posts). Cheers!

AtlasAikido's picture

Here is a gem: "The trend toward privatization of security in Russia is likely to grow as a result of President Medvedev’s recent initiative to reform the country’s militia – *that is, its police force* – by purging about 200,000 officers from the ranks. Sociologist Mikhail Vinogradov, who estimates that *one-third* of Russia’s police force is *composed of alcoholics and psychopaths*, points out that in 1991, the militia was reduced by about thirty percent – and the result was a **sharp reduction in the crime rate**".

(Again holding context: It’s possible that this dramatic volte-face was the product of a sincere conversion. It’s likelier that President Medvedev knew which way the winds of *public outrage* are blowing, and aligned his sails accordingly).

AtlasAikido's picture

Supporting that context: In Russia, as elsewhere, the role of the police “is to control situations and to control the people rather than help them,” observes Leonid Kosals, a professor of economics at Moscow’s National Research University. As a result, people “turn to their neighbors and to relatives and local networks to solve their problems by themselves…. [I]n Russia we have thousands of such cases.”

AtlasAikido's picture

Meanwhile in America and England and Japan (not Argentina) even a person with a normally calibrated moral compass (a non-sociopath) often *cannot see through clouds of propaganda that have been spewed over police officers and politicians and soldiers*. The answer is, quite simply, that the defense of people’s lives and property is a job just like any other, and it ought to be provided on the free market just like every other good and service by people who are held to exactly the same moral standards as the rest of the civilized world. The uneasiness that the *normal person* feels when confronted with the existence of a group of fat blue-polyester-clad thugs who are not bound by normal moral standards is completely understandable and justified. There is no need for these thugs at all, and there is definitely no justification for exempting them from the moral standards we hold every other person to!

--The provision of bread and chairs and computers does not require exempting anyone from moral standards, or empowering them to beat people up and order them around. All that is required is to open the door to competition, and people fall over backwards trying to please customers in their quest to make money. The same is just as true of defense services, which can and ought to be opened to competition between private providers so that consumers of these services can choose what kinds of defense services they want to purchase. In that case, the providers of the services can be held to exactly the same moral standards as everyone else. Their sole purpose would be to protect their customers’ lives and property – not to enforce arbitrary and unjust rules written by rich politicians on unwilling strangers. See: The Horrific Life of the Police Officer http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli58.1.html

Glock27's picture

I like your comment. I believe what you have expressed here is an accurate opinion. I am not a libertarian, but have felt compelled to figure it out a little more than what I know. I have read a few materials and they tend to make good sense but in our nation we have a government and a Constitution with a Bill of Rights. I recognize that these documents clearly mean nothing to the legislators and was stuned to learn there are some who do not know the three branches of government. Anyway, with today and todays Libertarians everyone seems to keep springing from the Constitution and at the same time keep knocking it down. It all seems so confusing. What do you believe in (Rhetorical).
Please do not take my comments as critical, but as inquire. i am not arguing or debating just learning.
Glock 27
Former Military and proud to have served,

AtlasAikido's picture

...Private security is already a greater bulwark against violent and property crime than many people realize. As of 1997, according to the Economist (as cited by Robert Higgs):

There are three times as many private policemen as public ones.... Americans also spend a lot more on private security (about $90 billion a year) than they do, through tax dollars, on the public police ($40 billion). Even the government itself spends more hiring private guards than it does paying for police forces.

For a decade and a half, we have had three times as many private guards as public ones, yet it is an oddity indeed to hear about their abuses, unlike those of the police that make the papers every day – and that’s just counting reported offenses. It should be no wonder. As market actors, private security guards are generally heroic defenders of property, commerce and life, and are liable for the wrong they do, unlike the state’s armed agents, who work for an institution of monopoly, theft, kidnapping, rape rooms and murder.

Can we really survive without government police? When we consider how much they do to disrupt civil society, it would seem obvious that we can. The police, on balance, are a force for decivilization and disorder. They commit massive violations of person and property. They enforce gun and drug laws that basically create organized crime and breed gang activity. Most of what they do encourages, rather than diminishes, violence. Despite all this, America remains a fairly civilized place. If we survived this long with the police, just imagine how much better off we’d be without them.

May 26, 2011
Abolish the Police
by Anthony Gregory

AtlasAikido's picture

I am actually a political atheist (apolitical) and freedom producer not a fighter. There is nothing to fight. Only light will provide the way. Natural laws are objective and compulsory. The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). ~ Paraphrased from Linda and Morris Tannehill

Man's nature to avoid unpleasant things gives him a natural incentive to not associate with anyone who harms him. This gives everyone a natural disincentive to harm others (if they wish to be a functional member of society- if not then let them run to the forest for all I care). If a natural social structure wherein no one is compelled to associate with anyone else, only those who treat each other ethically will gain access to all the benefits that society has to offer. If an offender wishes to regain his good standing in society, he will have a natural incentive to make restitution for his crimes. Otherwise, he faces social ostracism and a significantly lower quality of life or possible starvation. No enforcement is necessary, this is natural to man's tendency to only contract and associate with individuals he trusts. Paraphrased from Vahram G. Diehl.

*And this happened here on this journal thread without interference by moral busy bodies and the nanny state*. That is already the world I live in and the one I have set up. I am UNinterested in the rat race matrix or politics. I trade in the division of labor society (now remnant).

AtlasAikido's picture

Seeing Into the Future. And seeing the present from there. A short prequel: Libertopia - Larken Rose 10-22-11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnfH8ttsd58

And apparently it is defacto happening in Russia. Who would have guessed....

AtlasAikido's picture

To those enthralled with statism: (Apparently the above posts--nor my prior posts--are welcome at Paul Craig Roberts).

The lead in to why MORE freedom NOT more regulations is the answer to "Recovery or Collapse? Bet on Collapse" was provided on page 2 of Paul Craig Robert's comment thread. It addressed the Williams Act…and other legislation against so-called hostile take overs as being basically the CEO Protection Act of 1986. The Repeal of Glass Stegall Banking Act (1933) as a red herring as was the failure to *pro-actively regulate*. Red herrings put out there by those Gaming the System. That lead in addresses why gaming the system would not occur in a truly laissez-faire society (in banking, defense, and security etc) with a refutation to a poster enthralled with statism.

The lead in:

Freedom works. Apparently it is happening in Russia and would have in America but for government--but not for Paul Craig Roberts. Who would have guessed....

AtlasAikido's picture

How to be free in an UNfree world has not been rooted out.

Whether it's "Iranian sailors helping scare off armed pirates who attacked an American cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman..." http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread843897/pg1

Or ICELAND - No news from Iceland?… why? How come we hear everything that happens in Egypt but no news about what’s happening in Iceland?

In Iceland, *the people have made the government resign*...it was decided to not pay the debt that the banks created with Great Britain and Holland due to their bad financial [government] politics and a public assembly has been created to rewrite the constitution.

*And all of this in a peaceful way. A whole revolution against the powers that have created the current global crisis*. This is why there hasn’t been any publicity during the last two years: What would happen if the rest of the EU citizens took this as an example? What would happen if the US citizens took this as an example?

Have we been informed of this through the media? Has any political program in radio or TV commented on this? No! The Icelandic people have been able to show that there is a way to beat the system and has given a democracy lesson to the world! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread842279/pg1

And the government of Iceland is STILL consigned to the ashcan of history...

AtlasAikido's picture

One has to wonder where was the US Navy and its drone and troll squadrons? Where were its legions of agent provocateurs and quislings and the long arm of its master banksters and economic hitmen? Quantum of Suffering: Economic Hitmen Target Main Street http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w152.html

How could the Russians be allowed to think let alone act out [SARC Intended] that the role of the police “is to control situations and to control the people rather than help them,” As a result, people “turn to their neighbors and to relatives and local networks to solve their problems by themselves…. [I]n Russia we have thousands of such cases.” Not only have they adopted direct alternatives but the state has been forced to concede de facto and de jure that local private security is far superior.

A possible difference between Russia and America begins to emerge...

Totalitarianism is based on the assumption that human nature can be permanently altered through the systematic application of state terrorism. Lenin described his regime as a “scientific dictatorship” exercising “power without limit, resting directly on force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules.” Within a generation or two, Lenin believed, his dictatorship would beget a new creature – homo sovieticus, the selfless, state-focused New Soviet Man. The gulag state would act as an alembic, refining troublesome individualism out of the species, even if this meant pitilessly liquidating millions of specimens regarded as unsuitable for the collectivist future.

Things didn’t quite work out that way. Communism wasn’t a scientific doctrine for the perfection of the human species; it was, in R.J.Rummel’s phrase, a “plague of power.” After the Hammer and Sickle was furled in 1991, the plague of ideological Communism mutated into form of state gangsterism [supposedly] *incapable* of reproducing itself beyond Russia’s borders. The Party Nomenklatura abandoned the conceit that they were History’s infallible vanguard, and settled into a very comfortable new role as Russia’s crony capitalist oligarchy.

...What the neocon logic comes down to is this: The US has a moral responsibility to run the world. But the citizens are too stupid to understand this. That's why we can't use democratic institutions like Congress in this ambition. We must use the executive power of the presidency. It must have total control over foreign affairs, and never bow to Congressional carping. Once this point is conceded, the game is over. The demands of a centralized and all-powerful presidency and its interventionist foreign policy are ideologically reinforcing. One needs the other. If the presidency is supreme in global affairs, it will be supreme in domestic affairs. If it is supreme at home, there will be no states' rights, no absolute property rights, no true liberty from government oppression. The continued centralization of government in the presidency represents the end of America and its civilization.

A key part of the theory of presidential supremacy in foreign affairs is the idea that politics stops at the water's edge. If you believe that, you have given up everything. It means that foreign affairs will continue to be the last refuge of an omnipotent scoundrel. If a president can count on the fact that he won't be criticized so long as he is running a war, he will run more of them. So long as he is running wars, government at home cannot be cut. As Felix Morley said, "Politics can stop at the water's edge only when policies stop at the water's edge."


AtlasAikido's picture

Regarding the concern of two individuals fighting it out. Individuals have fights. We have had government for centuries and it still has not prevented this. The government only pretends to solve the problem. Governments have wars. Without government there would be no wars. Wars only happen between governments. Government solve problems using violence. It is their only tool.

1. I do not subscribe to the The Tyranny of the Obligation. http://zerogov.com/?p=2575 I need no excuse for my claim of an obligation, because my obligation is not backed by aggression, it is backed by reason. And so I have to respectfully disagree with those who believe that this is merely a difference of opinion or difference in a Point Of View.

2. The "central bank" is not a real bank. Everything about it is permeated with government power. At the heart of the financial and monetary system of a nation that is supposed to be an exemplar of free markets is a government money-bureau. If one reads the post I made starting with an *asterisk See http://www.strike-the-root.com/if-cops-cant-taze-pregnant-woman-terroris... I address this issue without requiring anything Utopian-- such as attempting to force people or even Oligarchs to be good via a coercive monopoly. 'Central Banks' Are Not Banks http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff364.html

3. As for speaking "personally" I *Ask as an individual--what a person would do*? " without roping me into his solution as an involuntary slave. And the Russians and Icelanders and Iranians have answered WITHOUT roping each other or me into being involuntary slaves !!

Without a belief in govt, communities would [have been and are] almost certainly develop[ing] rules which at first glance would resemble what are now called “laws’. But there would be a fundamental difference.


AtlasAikido's picture

Americans who show such strong support for America's *foreign wars [and the implications of such] see above* are living under a moral code that endorses States over rights, obedience of men to whatever States happen to control the territories they inhabit, decision-making control over war-making and indeed all public affairs by these States, and the precedence of duties to the State over other moral obligations.

The antimony between those Americans who believe in these ideas and those who do not cannot be resolved with one government over all. Majority rule, voting, democracy and all that these mean can't resolve such basic and irreconcilable differences.

Those who support America's wars almost unconditionally as morally right are making at least 4 assumptions each of which is to a very high degree, and some (including me) would say altogether, questionable.

May 28, 2012
Memorial Day: A Reminder of Failed Moral Principles
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on May 28, 2012 02:21 PM

And furthermore:
The Stateless Society Fights Back
Life without a state? Really? Answers to common questions.

And yet what is going on NOW in Russia and Iceland and such Iranian fishermen as stated above is summed up at the root by Marvin: "How could we have a war if no one showed up to fight? If we are to strike the root then simply soldiers are the root. Hitler and Stalin are not the most evil people in the world what about the people who followed them. We all have to take responsibility for our actions there are no innocent grunts. Misguided, blinded, tricked maybe but we all have to put off our foolishness and misconceived notions at some point if not then we are perpetually children who do things just because our parents(Government) told us so. For example the Christmas Truce in WW1, why couldn't men realize that everyday is as precious as Christmas and decided never to fight again? They had a glimmer of insight to see the enemy("dirty terrorists" [dirty terrorcrats] ) as men themselves".

Way before my time, but listen to and read the lyrics of "Universal Soldier". As even us, those who are not in the military are to blame for not doing more for peace.

Indeed there is as evidenced a vanguard who remain *UNcommon* in regard to Goering Was Right
Posted by Lew Rockwell on May 29, 2012 09:57 AM


AtlasAikido's picture

The notion that *foreign wars* and entanglements are wrong still emanates from a sparsely populated philosophical quarter that has no majority presence in the academy or the government–media complex. It is a true voice in the wilderness. That voice has one signature message: you cannot thank a veteran for your freedom because they have actively done nothing more than endanger its very existence. In fact, American military power abroad (and increasingly, at home) has made civilians more unsafe than they have ever been. The threat not only emerges from aggrieved victims of American brutality abroad but a government desperate in bad times to ensure that not one dollar of military expenditures is reduced. America is now a national security garrison state. Think about that the next time you take a flight.

Veterans don’t need gratitude but a self-realization on their part that the machine they worked for was never an engine for liberty but a device whose single purpose was aggrandizement of American political power at home and abroad. And that political hammer always extinguishes liberty and never expands it.

The Shame of Veteran’s and Memorial Day by Bill Buppert
May 28th, 2012

The Troops Don't Defend Our Freedoms
by Jacob G. Hornberger

AtlasAikido's picture

Smashing: Fail; Withdrawing/[Marginalization]: Epic Win.

Epic Win The Americans formed a continental government to overthrow Britain. It was mutated into the constitution which has authorised all the tyranny we now suffer, or was powerless to prevent any of it. (I think it is the former, and by design.)

If we are going to avoid the same mistakes, over and over and over and over, it is important to understand what has gone before. That's why it is so important to read works of literature, philosophy, and practical politics in their original. You can't understand things by reading some other person's interpretation of ideas—what was interpreted ten minutes ago for someone else isn't going to match your situation right now.

Raise up free markets. Raise up the spontaneous order of the market. Raise up the agora. Not to smash the state, but to obviate it. Not to make it the victim, and encourage its supporters to give it more power, but to show it as the bully it is. Show the surplus order of the state for what it is, so that people choose to abandon it.

What do I mean by surplus order? I mean exactly what Alvin and Heidi Toffler meant in 1990's Powershift: Wealth, Knowledge, and Violence on the edge of the 21st Century. They meant to distinguish between the order that ordinary people want (self rule)—to be able to walk down the street without being attacked by riot police, to cross a border without being beaten and arrested, to enter a shop without being raped, to operate a shop without endless shop lifting. That sort of basic order is the order of the free market, and widely available.

Surplus order imposes riot police wherever there are protesters, border police at every border crossing, a security camera in every place it can, a surveillance net for every cell phone call. Surplus order is when the state revokes passports, sets up a barricade at every airport and train station, kicks in doors at 3 a.m., and drags parents away from their screaming children. *Such surplus order does nothing for the people living in communities. It serves only those who control the state. [If one thinks/believes that it is not so and that there ARE no alternatives and no living proof of such then they take the serious risk of being considered trolls]*

Smashing: Fail; Withdrawing: Epic Win
by Jim Davidson

Glock27's picture

Enjoyed your comment. Will check th book out. I am not a Libertarian, probably couldn't be, but I believe in many of the principles presented by Libertarianism.

Glock27's picture

This seems great to me. I like all the concepts here, but how do you impliment such a construction. I think this is the dream most all Americans want.

AtlasAikido's picture

Thanks! The short answer. [It is already happening with Russia, Iceland, Wenchou province, Steve Wynn in Macau, the fashion industry, MIT, Khan Academy, Bitcoin etc]: I’ll tell you the reason I do not feel the need to have to explain how freedom might work. Look back at the last couple of hundred years. Look at the explosion in technology. Look at the advances in the medical field. Look at the marvels taking place in the computing world. My goodness, look at the Internet itself. Everywhere we look we see human genius at work. This boom started to happen right around the same time chattel slavery was abolished in many countries. Do you think this is a coincidence? When men could no longer own other humans, and force those humans to labor, they had to come up with alternatives. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when you own slaves, there is no need for invention or innovation. This is the reason why I consider myself a 21st century abolitionist, *I only have to look to the recent past to know that the abolition of slavery leads to amazing things. This is why I do not spend time explaining freedom, I spend my time explaining slavery*. Along with being an abolitionist, I am also a capitalist. I have been fond of saying, “I have my ideas, but they are mine.” If you need some advise on how to live your life without the use of slaves, I’ll start a business called the “Freedom Consulting Firm”, and then you can pay me for my ideas....

21st Century Abolitionists by Chris Dates

A huge breakthru in freedom and a lead in: In the comment section of his article Chris is replying to a poster: who assumes I [Chris] would want some kind of idea protection [such as using the coercive power of government] just because I [he's]..a capitalist. That sort of thinking has helped to breed the ignorance that surrounds capitalism.

[1. And here is Lessons from fashion's *free culture* [already existent]: Johanna Blakley on TED.com]

2. Watch Steve Wynn's (hotel/club) move to Macau (Direct Actions). Moving innovatively, spiritually and physically to spaces of freedom in an unfree world AND making innovation actually possible--(Direct Results). And that translates to waitresses making north of $100K in Macau working with Steve. Embracing the division of labor society (laissez faire capitalism) remnant

3. Anarchy and Agoras...Welcome to Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and people are busy creating their own economic miracle. ]

Etc....There is many more examples (I will post later)

Chris continues: *Everything the human race uses and has* was at one time the idea of some individual. The collective has benefited because the individual dared to dream and then acted on his idea, and yes it’s his. That’s capitalism, and ideas are the heart of capitalism.

I want *stateless capitalism, where the **only way my ideas can be guarded** is **by offering the best product at the lowest prices**. If you want what I [or others] have to offer bad enough, you will [voluntarily] pay for it, the *free market will see to it*.

AtlasAikido's picture

To see the military-industrial-police-state-prison-gmo-food-acadamia-intellectual-property-war-is-a-racket farm is to leave it. Apparently there is enough people who know this and more are finding more productive ways to live. Some things to consider at Lewrockwell, Mises, MIT and more: Cross Reference http://www.strike-the-root.com/how-dare-you-rob-me-of-my-time-on-earth

Gen. Smedley Butler wrote a book titled "War Is a Racket". Here is an excerpt:
Smedley defined a racket as "something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people." War, he goes on, "is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious" of rackets. Reference: Where Is Smedley When We Need Him? http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer42.html

AtlasAikido's picture

SOooo? Anarchy: It Can’t Work Here and There Are No Examples in History. [Nope!!]

Consider this query: where has anarchy worked? Those who defend anarchy have likely had this question thrown at them in every conversation. Those who believe anarchy equals chaos likely have thrown out this question in every conversation.

First, what does “worked” mean? Worked for whom? Worked how? The same can be asked about the state. When has the state (defined as the legal monopoly of force over a given geographic region) worked? Worked for whom? How?

For those who don’t want to be under the threat of coercion, inherently anarchy works. For those who prefer peaceful means of relationships, anarchy works. For those who believe the initiation of force is wrong, again anarchy works. For such people, in fact it is the only form of structuring society that “works.”

For those who believe it is right that man lords over man, anarchy does not work. For such people, the state certainly works. For those who believe that the same act could be either legal or illegal, depending on the employer of the actor, the state works. For those who believe that force and coercion is the proper means by which to order society, the state works.

But where has the state worked in regards to those areas of our lives the state says it is working on? The state has taken on many challenges, supposedly for the benefit of its subjects: managing the economy, peaceful coexistence with others in the world, elimination of poverty, teenage drinking, illicit drugs, health care, etc. Can any of these endeavors undertaken by the state be deemed successful? The list of state failures is exactly as long as the list of state-run programs. Should the burden of proof of the benefits of considering anarchy and opposing the state really be on the proponent of anarchy?

The following is addressed: Anarchy: The Historical Record...

The Fight for Control...

Anarchy is Uncivilized?

Creating Subjects...

State-Accessible Product...

Population Increases and Control via Slavery...

The Defense Benefits of Being a Non-State...

State-ordered Society is a Civilized Society?

[Indeed] The Art of NOT Being Governed - Anarchy: The Unknown Ideal

AtlasAikido's picture

To be free of the Matrix is to be free of statist propaganda: Arachno-Capitalism On Ice! Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio interviewed on Alaska Radio http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztzv_MyKB24&feature=youtube_gdata

And the importance of A Philosophy of Mental Health: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqu8s2WgKx0&feature=relmfu

AtlasAikido's picture

Slovaks, on the other hand are becoming increasingly free with their distance from communism and increasingly disrespectful of governmental authority.

Disrespect of the most prominent symbol of government authority could be seen three weeks ago in Bratislava – on Obchodna Street. I can't imagine a scene like this fifty years ago in Slovakia, nor even ten years ago in Slovakia. Slovakia is a rapidly changing society.

Excerpted from A Healthy Disrespect of the Police by Allan Stevo http://www.lewrockwell.com/stevo/stevo18.1.html

Reference Context: See posting May 27th regarding Police seen as Bullies and Sociopaths by Russian govt official admission de facto and de jure--following the tide of individuals/communities who refuse to sanction their own victim hood (consent) and who have taken the direct alternative of taking security matters into their own hands.

AtlasAikido's picture

Judicially Authorized Rape: The Newest Weapon in the Prohibitionist Arsenal by William Norman Grigg

AtlasAikido's picture

June 18, 2012 'Roid-raging Cop Shoots Up Neighborhood: Get Ready for more "Gun Control"
Posted by William Grigg on June 18, 2012 10:34 AM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/113799.html

If Roid "Klementovich" had snapped and committed an act of violence against an innocent person while on duty, he most likely would be on “administrative leave” – that is, paid vacation – while his police union provided him with expensive legal help and unqualified support. The fact that he was able to walk away from the standoff, rather than being killed in a full-force military onslaught, is itself an illustration of the privileged position Klementovich continues to occupy: If he had been a mere Mundane, he would almost certainly be dead.

AtlasAikido's picture

Now THIS is an excellent presentation....:

Eeeek, an Anarchist!