Vox Dei?

Column by Jim Davies.

Exclusive to STR

Michael Kleen's Conversation with Vox Day was an unusual article for Strike The Root, but gave a valuable insight into why theists may become good branch-trimming libertarians, but seldom ax-wielding, anarchist root-strikers. I had noticed Mr. Day at the masthead of that highly Statist, conservative publication World Net Daily, with its 24-point headlines shouting for DADT not to be repealed, or START not to be ratified, laws to be Constitutional, etc. But until this appeared, I hadn't noticed he was a libertarian.
 
Clearly, he's bright; and anyone who declares that his favorite book was written by Marcus Aurelius has to be widely-read. Aurelius was a Roman Emperor, a warrior and head of State reigning at the end of the second century AD and the author of Meditations - a collection of bons mots quite perceptive but "revered as a literary monument to a government of service and duty" according to Wikipedia. Yuck. Aurelius forced back foreign challenges to his imperial authority and wrote the meditations while on a military campaign. No doubt there are worse examples in history of dictators at the head of a vast empire, but there can't be very many; and this is the author Mr. Day, alleged libertarian, most admires. There's Red Flag #1.
 
Flag #2 is waved by his name. Of course, he may well have been given it when a babe in arms, but he chooses now to use both forename and last name and must surely know that they form a play on the Latin phrase "Vox Dei"--the voice of God. That choice no doubt involves some pleasant whimsy, but it may also suggest a whiff of megalomania. Delusion of grandeur, as in the case of ex-President Bush, is frequently unaccompanied by membership in MENSA--but there are exceptions, and perhaps Day is one of them. So I checked the origin of that phrase, and found it in some 10th Century advice by the theologian Alcuin, who urged Charlemagne: "And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness." Now comes Mr. Day, with a name suggesting the authentic Voice of God, to correct the madness of mere mortals; as he actually says to Kleen, "Most People Are Idiots."
 
So much for the superficial clues. Let's now get down to the heart of Day's philosophy.
 
In exactly the manner found on every page of the Bible, Vox Day asserts without a shred of objective proof that "Jesus Christ is the King of Kings"--there is no reasoning, no debate, no weighing of evidence, just raw dogma, take it or leave it, as in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1.) His breathtaking next suggestion is that God is "somewhat of a libertarian" and it's a good example of the intellectual gymnastics that theists are obliged to perform, when trying to make the real world fit their premise. They invented an idea to explain why a perfect creator is not responsible for an imperfect creation: free will. Gosh golly, the impeccable creator gave mankind some free will, and just look how badly he's used it. Who would have guessed?
 
Notice that this is not just likening mankind to a dog on a leash, controlled by a kindly owner so that we can practice making our own excursions but not get into really deep trouble under the wheels of a truck. This rather is the kind of cynical, authoritarian deception practiced by the IRS: its alleged income tax is a "voluntary system" (they really do say that) but if you don't volunteer, you may be put in a government cage. Thus God, allegedly, says Choose as you will--but if you choose wrong, you'll spend eternity in the agony and torture of Hell. Some "free will." Don Vito Corleone would use a different phrase.
 
The reality is that some do evil, and since allegedly God created everything, evil can have no other origin--so there is a fatal contradiction; either God isn't good, or else He isn't the creator. Since theists insist on having both, their belief is irrational. The premise on which Mr. Day constructs his philosophy is a false premise.
 
That's by no means an unique error. There are some very smart people in government too; their premise, like Thomas Paine's, is that government is necessary. Based upon that premise, their reasoning may be elegant and flawless; but it will still, normally, lead to conclusions disastrously wrong and frequently soaked in blood.
 
Consider another gem from the interview: "The prospects for libertarianism are generally poor." W-r-o-n-g! They are excellent, as I've often written here for stated reasons and on stated, credible assumptions; but on the authoritarian premise Day uses, I can understand how he'd reach such a pessimistic conclusion. God has set the world spinning, man has screwed it up, He is not planning to intervene, or not until the final Rapture when it will be too late, so we can all stew in our own juice. This is exactly the way Christians think; the "world" is a lost cause, the only thing to do is to come out of it, get saved for eternity, and when it passes away, enjoy Heaven forever. Pie in the sky when you die, but meanwhile don't waste time trying to perfect the imperfectible; this world is doomed. Its "prospects for libertarianism are generally poor." Vox dei.
 
Here's another: "free trade and the idea of rational markets... are ultimately nonsense in both theoretical and practical terms." Of course! Freedom is ultimately an illusion, we are all really just puppets on a divine string. This gives as clear a demonstration as any, that theism and liberty are irreconcilable--and again, it's a perfectly sound conclusion to reach, based on the premise that there is a God, an ultimate Authority; "self-ownership" is, on that premise, obviously illusory. So, one can be owned and governed by oneself, or be owned and governed by an alleged Maker who is invisible, inaudible, untouchable, undefinable, ineffable, for whose existence there is not a shred of proof, many of whose alleged major attributes (like the pair above) are mutually exclusive, and who cannot even be defined. The choice isn't hard.
 
Lastly, notice how Vox Day answers the question about the greatest danger facing "the United States" and "what is the most effective way for individual Americans to respond" to it (and I presume that was a slip of Michael's tongue; that he meant to ask not about the health of the Empire but about the greatest danger to individual liberty.) Day says it's "The global governance movement." This is a red herring. The difference between being governed by 51% of one's Town neighbors and being governed by some modern Marcus Aurelius in wherever the One World Government sets up its HQ is only one of degree; and the notion that any Pol will surrender his power to a world supra government underestimates the high he enjoys from power. The only thing needed is the dissolution of all political power, and that will take place rather soon and very simply, on the day that rational, self-owning and re-educated human beings stop volunteering to work for government.

 

10
Your rating: None Average: 10 (3 votes)
Jim Davies's picture
Columns on STR: 243

Jim Davies is a retired businessman in New Hampshire who led the development of an on-line school of liberty in 2006, and who wrote A Vision of Liberty" , "Transition to Liberty" and, in 2010, "Denial of Liberty" and "To FREEDOM from Fascism, America!" He started The Zero Government Blog in the same year.
In 2012 Jim launched http://TinyURL.com/QuitGov , to help lead government workers to an honest life.
In 2013 he wrote his fifth book, a concise and rational introduction to the Christian religion called "Which Church (if any)?"

Comments

Suverans2's picture

Your and my solution may not be that far apart, in fact, they may be virtually identical.

Quit Government Employ. You'll have to do this eventually, if your job is involved with government at any level, directly or indirectly - so the sooner you exit, the easier it will be. ~ Jim Davies [Excerpted from Segment 18 of The Online Freedom Academy http://www.tolfa.us/L18.htm ]

Governments "employ" citizens. They "pay" them with benefits and privileges.

All governments must have citizens in order to exist”, therefore if enough individual citizens secede from it, i.e. "Quit Government Employ", it will die, just as any parasite will die if it does not have a host. It is the only peaceful way to “abolish it”.

"How bad do things have to get before you do something? Do they have to take away all your property? Do they have to license every activity that you want to engage in? Do they have to start throwing you on cattle cars before you say “now wait a minute, I don’t think this is a good idea.” How long is it going to be before you finally resist and say “No, I will not comply. Period!” Ask yourself now because sooner or later you are going to come to that line, and when they cross it, you’re going to say well now cross this line; ok now cross that line; ok now cross this line. Pretty soon you’re in a corner. Sooner or later YOU'VE GOT TO STAND YOUR GROUND WHETHER ANYBODY ELSE DOES OR NOT. That is what liberty is all about." ~ Michael Badnarik [Emphasis added]

P.S. Vox Day is the pseudonym used by Theodore Beale. "He describes the New Atheists as being "irrational" and "clowns of reason" and blames their non-belief in the existence of God on a "social autism" which he believes is the result of a mild form of Asperger's syndrome ."

MassOutrage's picture

The fish in the pond says, "It is not logically possible for any life to exist outside of this pond, and there isn't a shred of objective proof that it could. This universe consists only of this pond, and nothing more." Mr. Davies is making the same argument about God and about those who may have good reason to believe in God, while saying there is not a shred of evidence to support the opposite position.

Mr. Davies' logic does not get past the pond, but that does not mean he can prove there is no life outside of it, as he so blithely assumes to do.

Whether he agrees with the proof or not, there is objective, logical, reasoned evidence that God exists and that Jesus is who he says he is. It can't be proven with mathematics, but we don't require that for many things we know to be true. The question of whether God exists or not is, first, a presupposition, which is buttressed by reasonable proofs.

The other problem with Mr. Davies' solution is that some persons "do evil", as he points out. In fact, quite a lot of them do. We must have some mechanism for dealing with that evil. Large swaths of the citizens in every country and time have never subscribed to his aspiration to respect the property of others. They don't and could not care less if he does. They'll just take it. His no-state idea ignores that unfortunate reality.

A state is a terrible thing indeed, as it is so susceptible to theft, corruption, and misuse of power. But no state is even worse, since the hordes will usually not respect property.

tzo's picture

A common, yet baffling (to me) non-sequitur is the illogical leap made from the proposition that a society could exist without a government to the conclusion that there would be no justice system. Somehow, the bad guys cannot be dealt with without government. It is straight impossible. Inconceivable.

The writer seems to share in his god's all-knowingness in that he is quite certain what would result if a group of human beings actually decided to live together in a strictly voluntary manner. He is the fish who can only imagine the pond when there is more out there that his lack of imagination or knowledge cannot even begin to fathom.

Ouch. Shot right in the foot with his own fish pond.

And when I regain my breath from rotflmao, I will address the last line that claims that the state is a respecter of property in contrast to the unwashed hordes of individual barbarians.

MassOutrage's picture

I suppose that some people can theoretically live together in a strictly volunteer manner, but I can't think of a time when it has actually happened.

You are operating in theory, rather than in reality. Government is indeed a fearful and usually tyrannical entity. No argument there. But you must not live in an area like mine with hordes of fatherless, conscienceless young men, who kill and steal for fun. Even the police cannot bring them to heel.

That is just on the personal and city level. On the larger world level, where are you reading your history? Empire-mongers and barbarians have always abounded in every time and place, who have enlisted numberless fools to go off and fight wars for them, using simplistic arguments about patriotism, nationalism, the promise of loot, or even the fun of killing. (e.g. Rome, Greece, the U.S., the Soviet Union, the Nazis)

Even large-scale, well organized efforts have often failed to save people from death and destruction at their hands. Just Think of the Ottoman Turks, nearly destroying Europe, or the hordes who descended on Rome repeatedly during its decline. Violence is more the norm than the exception.

The notion that insurance companies could organize adequate defenses to these perpetual threats from thugs and dictators, internal and external, is fantasy and wishful thinking. Here it comes over the hill - The Grand Army of the Gecko!

Finally, your idea of a justice system is also not realistic. I work in the court system, and see the insanity of it. Your premise is that a private one would be different, but why would it be. It is the same imperfect people, wherever you go. It will consist of the same venal, self-serving, power-mad fools whether public or private.

And that painful reality of human nature - which your theory fails to take into account - is at least a reasonable argument for why we need a savior. Man, left to his own, is usually violent, derisive (like you and Mr. Davies), or just self-serving. In a land bereft of Godliness, Hobbes was right, unfortunately.

tzo's picture

Hi MassOutrage,

I appreciate the detailed response. So much better not to deal with generalities [my comments in [brackets]:

I suppose that some people can theoretically live together in a strictly volunteer manner, but I can't think of a time when it has actually happened.

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html
http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=126
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_E...

You are operating in theory, rather than in reality. [see above] Government is indeed a fearful and usually tyrannical entity. No argument there. But you must not live in an area like mine with hordes of fatherless, conscienceless young men, who kill and steal for fun. Even the police cannot bring them to heel. [So the government is powerless to stop the problem that it created. Therefore we need government. Do you doubt that the primary reason these conditions exist is due to government? This is their preferred strategy: Create huge problems that could not occur without their influence and then propagandize the situation so that everyone thinks that government is the only solution to those problems. Does it get better, or worse? Then just give the government more power and money and they will solve it. Eventually. Just a little bit more time and money...]

That is just on the personal and city level. On the larger world level, where are you reading your history? Empire-mongers and barbarians have always abounded in every time and place, who have enlisted numberless fools to go off and fight wars for them, using simplistic arguments about patriotism, nationalism, the promise of loot, or even the fun of killing. (e.g. Rome, Greece, the U.S., the Soviet Union, the Nazis)

Even large-scale, well organized efforts have often failed to save people from death and destruction at their hands. Just Think of the Ottoman Turks, nearly destroying Europe, or the hordes who descended on Rome repeatedly during its decline. Violence is more the norm than the exception.

[Searching history for examples of successful voluntary societies may produce a very short list indeed. But this should not be used as proof that successful voluntary societies are impossible and government is necessary. There was a time when scouring the pages of history showed that slavery was necessary to a successful society. Steam engines and cars and airplanes were impossibilities until they in fact appeared. The Earth was most definitely the center of the universe until it wasn't. Searching history for precedent ignores progress. Humanity is not static, but dynamic. If something is possible, then we can figure out how to do it. That is the real lesson of human history. That and the fact that when some person or people decide to do something challenging, the mass of humanity ridicules the idea because it has never worked before. Then it works and everyone accepts it and moves on to ridicule the next new idea. Rinse, repeat.]

The notion that insurance companies could organize adequate defenses to these perpetual threats from thugs and dictators, internal and external, is fantasy and wishful thinking. Here it comes over the hill - The Grand Army of the Gecko!

Finally, your idea of a justice system is also not realistic. I work in the court system, and see the insanity of it. [I have no doubt that the governmental justice system is clinically insane.] Your premise is that a private one would be different, but why would it be. It is the same imperfect people, wherever you go. It will consist of the same venal, self-serving, power-mad fools whether public or private. [A private one would be different because it would have competition. The current monopoly system is not interested in justice because it doesn't have to be. It is concerned with preserving and growing itself, and nothing more. Private competition would wipe out such an inefficient beast. Who would pay for its services if there was a better alternative?]

[I would also suggest you consider the history of common law, the basis for our law, and its creation and implementation through private, not public, means. Law writ by human beings based on natural law and human rationality, enforced by private judges in a free market. That is history. Government expropriated this private system and now the world gives them credit for it because that is what the government schools teach. The merchant law is another large legal system developed by entirely private means that has been absorbed and distorted by government monopoly.]

http://libertariannation.org/a/f61l1.html
http://mises.org/daily/4147
http://mises.org/daily/2265

And that painful reality of human nature - which your theory fails to take into account - is at least a reasonable argument for why we need a savior. Man, left to his own, is usually violent, derisive (like you and Mr. Davies), or just self-serving. In a land bereft of Godliness, Hobbes was right, unfortunately. [The fact that humanity has lasted as long as it has points to the success of cooperation over that of violence. The current world situation, dominated by governments and their violence, is the real threat to humanity. We haven't gotten this far because of government, but in spite of it. No government ever invented a light bulb. The light bulb was invented because the government was kept out of the way. If a land is truly bereft of Godliness, it embraces government. And if humanity would perish without government, so be it. There can be no excuse in any just God's eyes to initiate violence, brother against brother, in order to achieve some preferred end. If humanity cannot live without coercive systems as a means of "preemptive defense" then it should indeed perish as it is not worthy of existence. I cannot see any rational justification for the combination of a just God and government.]

tzo's picture

Evolving to something new:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGUsq8GNKeY

tzo's picture

Another good research reference:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/mdewit/rationalistlaw.htm

Michael Kleen's picture

I've very glad to see my interview sparked a response! Truthfully, I was disappointed with Vox Day's reply to my question about the economic philosophies underlying "right-libertarian" thinking. I tried to press him on it, but he avoided saying anything concrete. I know he didn't want to send me an essay, but it seems that after writing so many columns about it over the years he could have effectively dealt with the question rather than just dismissing it with such broad strokes.

Suverans2's picture

“This rather is the kind of cynical, authoritarian deception practiced by the IRS: its alleged income tax is a "voluntary system" (they really do say that) but if you don't volunteer, you may be put in a government cage.” ~ Jim Davies

As I have stated until I am virtually blue in the face, you “VOLUNTARILY” identify yourself as a TAXPAYER[1] by “VOLUNTARILY” using one of their “Taxpayer Identification Numbers”. Quit using a fricken chattel number, (to receive some kind of benefit(s) or privilege(s)), and the I.R.S. will never have you "put in a government cage" for income tax violation(s) again.

[1] Taxpayer. One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14) ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1462

tzo's picture

"Quit using a fricken chattel number, (to receive some kind of benefit(s) or privilege(s)), and the I.R.S. will never have you "put in a government cage" for income tax violation(s) again."

***

Agreed, but.

In this country, given that a person has a set of work skills, he may have the option of earning $10/hour "underground" or $20/hour minus taxes with a T.I.N. Humans respond to incentives. Starving oneself and one's family on principle is not everyone's cup of tea.

I believe you give too much credibility to the criminal organization when you say that you are contracting with them and so you have to accept their terms. There is no contract. They have a virtual monopoly on employment through the criminal T.I.N. system, and if I use that system it is because I can benefit from it. I will take everything I can from the criminal organization and there is nothing I can do that rightfully binds me to their system. By accepting whatever they hand out, I do not make a contract with them. No contract exists within a coercive relationship. It is a war.

So one can use the T.I.N. and still complain about the system, because without that system he should be able to contract for $20/hour (or its equivalent in a freed job market) without paying taxes.

If the government took complete control over food distribution, and it's getting close, should everyone forego food in order to avoid making contract with them?

Don't use a T.I.N and you don't have to worry about the IRS. Don't drink raw milk and you don't have to worry about the FDA. Don't own a gun and you don't have to worry about the ATF. Do exactly what the police officer tells you and you don't have to worry about going to jail. Don't buy property and you don't have to worry about paying local government property tax. Don't buy food or gas and you don't have to worry about sales taxes. Don't live in the US if you don't want to follow the rules. Yick.

People are going to do what they think is the best for themselves and their families depending upon the current situation in which they find themselves. One can wish that all would take a principled stand against aggression, but that seems implausible. Only when the boot heel presses down with enough force does the mass reaction occur, and that reaction is not so much principled as it is the desperate act of cornered animals.

This response has now spiraled out of control. fin.

Suverans2's picture

"Quit using a fricken chattel number, (to receive some kind of benefit(s) or privilege(s)), and the I.R.S. will never have you "put in a government cage" for income tax violation(s) again."
***
Agreed, but.
In this country, given that a person has a set of work skills, he may have the option of earning $10/hour "underground" or $20/hour minus taxes with a T.I.N. Humans respond to incentives.

Just because you believe it to be more lucrative to be a member of the gang doesn't make it involuntary. And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who has subjected himself to the dominion of the government is free to bitch and complain about having to pay his dues (income tax), but what he may not rightfully do is claim that his membership is not voluntary, and that, my friend, is my whole point.

Starving oneself and one's family on principle is not everyone's cup of tea.

For the record, my woman and I are far from starving and I would be willing to bet that we eat better quality food than do the vast majority of individuals who voluntarily choose to be or remain under the dominion of the government.

I believe you give too much credibility to the criminal organization when you say that you are contracting with them and so you have to accept their terms. There is no contract.

A contract is “an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing”. I say applying for and/or using a T.I.N. to obtain benefits IS a contract; and I say applying for and/or using a government license, of any kind, IS a contract. I do not apply for or use a chattel number, I do not apply for or use any of their licenses, because I DO NOT ACCEPT THE TERMS attached to them, (I prefer to be free), I, therefore, am NOT contracting with them.

They have a virtual monopoly on employment through the criminal T.I.N. system...

Yes, they do, but that's because there is not one individual in ten thousand who is willing to “just say no” to the ruler's “dainties”.

...and if I use that system it is because I can benefit from it.

Of course, that is what I have been saying all along; individuals VOLUNTARILY remain part of that system because they "can benefit from it".

I will take everything I can from the criminal organization and there is nothing I can do that rightfully binds me to their system. By accepting whatever they hand out, I do not make a contract with them.

I understand, but I assure you, if you read the “fine print” on all the benefits and privileges you're “taking” and “accepting” you will find there ARE binding obligations attached.

No contract exists within a coercive relationship.

Agreed, but...is it really “coercive”, or is it just “very inconvenient” to leave the pond.

It is a war.

If that it true, and I'm not saying it isn't, what good does it do us to sit around bitchin' and complainin' about it? The "Jim Davies" of the world are, (IMO), living a pipe dream if they believe that they can “re-educate” enough people to empty any substantial number of government offices, particularly the office of "citizen". "You must be the change you want to see in the world."

So one can use the T.I.N. and still complain about the system, because without that system he should be able to contract for $20/hour (or its equivalent in a freed job market) without paying taxes.

Well, of course he can complain, my friend, and you're right, life outside the pond can be a “bit more difficult”. Freedom has a price tag, that's for sure; just ask that pregnant nanny I found a few years back who had chosen to leave the pond; those who thought they “owned” her chased her for many days, but last I checked, she and her two kids were doin' just fine...and still free!

If the government took complete control over food distribution, and it's getting close, should everyone forego food in order to avoid making contract with them?

Oh, tzo, I expected so much more from you, my friend. First of all as I have previously, (and no doubt generously), guessed, there's not one in ten thousand that will forgo anything, they will continue to “take everything [they] can from the criminal organization” and continue “accepting whatever they hand out” 'til the bitter end. And, secondly, you needn't concern yourself too much about those few individual secessionists who have chosen to leave the pond, there's plenty of good food on this earth for us. (Last night we had tasty meat balls, made from deer meat, buried in a most deliciously seasoned tomato sauce, with a side of cabbage and homemade whole wheat bread. Is your mouth watering yet? [wink])

Don't use a T.I.N and you don't have to worry about the IRS.

That is correct.

Don't drink raw milk and you don't have to worry about the FDA.

Because I'm not a member of your body politic, I can "legally" drink whatever the frick I like, because the FDA rules do not apply to me, they only apply to those who have “subjected themselves to the dominion of [the] government”, which only makes "raw milk" more difficult for us to acquire.

Don't own a gun and you don't have to worry about the ATF.

I never worry about the ATF, (as though it's some kind of living being to be afraid of), or the men and women who belong to it, because their rules do not apply to me; their rules only apply to their voluntary members, individuals who have “subjected themselves to the dominion of [the] government”.

Do exactly what the police officer tells you and you don't have to worry about going to jail.

I can honestly tell you that I NEVER do “exactly what the police officer tells [me] to do”, (because, thus far, I've not harmed anyone), and I rarely go to jail. Furthermore, what few times I have gone to jail they've held me the appropriate three days to check out my status to see if I'm one of theirs, and when they can find no nexus (connection), they have released me. I have never accepted, (let alone “signed”), a ticket, I have never been fined or beaten, and I've only had a gun pulled on me once, and that was at my own request, so I could truthfully claim my car was taken viet armis, “with force and arms. See Trespass.” (Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1568)

Don't buy property and you don't have to worry about paying local government property tax.

Do not submit yourself to the dominion of the government, don't use a fricken T.I.N., and don't register your LAND with the local government taxing agency. Will the “bully in the schoolyard” still come after your “lunch money”? Quite likely, because “right does not make might”, which is why it is “dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”.

Don't buy food or gas and you don't have to worry about sales taxes.

Agreed. Or, don't buy food from a “taxpayer” who is obligated to pay a sales tax.

Don't live in the US if you don't want to follow the rules. Yick.

I don't "live in the US”, I live on the Earth, the “US” is a fiction. If “you don't want to follow the rules” of the corporation, then don't be a member of the corporation.

People are going to do what they think is the best for themselves and their families depending upon the current situation in which they find themselves.

For what it is worth, I totally agree with you. And I am not for one minute telling anyone they have to follow in my footsteps; I just want them to know that there is another choice, and that there is at least one who has opted for it, nothing more. What really was an eye-opener, for us, was to find out that Individual Secessionists are pretty much ostracized even in so-called "freedom loving" groups like this. So be it.

One can wish that all would take a principled stand against aggression, but that seems implausible.

My friend, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get “all” doing what you wish they would do, (my Daddy says, "Sh*t in one hand and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first", but in order to be honest with myself, I had to admit that it is POSSIBLE for ME to “take a principled stand against aggression”.

Only when the boot heel presses down with enough force does the mass reaction occur, and that reaction is not so much principled as it is the desperate act of cornered animals.

And the “desperate act of cornered animals” is seldom a wise one, and almost always an ugly one.

This response has now spiraled out of control. Fin.

So, my friend, tell me, what is yourplausible” solution to the problem of out of control government?

B.R. Merrick's picture

I have to credit WorldNetDaily and Vox Day with turning me further away from government, but it isn't nearly far enough. Maybe Mr. Day will continue to move away from systems of coercion over the next few decades of his life. Whether he does or doesn't, I know that for my own freedom revolution to be won, the God concept had to die, and it has. It's a shame to see such an intelligent writer disparage the free market, when everything good about his life most assuredly comes from it. There is too much belief still in systems of coercion among those who have affiliation or belief in anything coming from the right.

Suverans2's picture

...or the LEFT.

B.R. Merrick's picture

Yeah, them too.

COUNTERTHESPIANAGE.COM's picture

As a former Xtian, I actually took time to read the manual (RTFM) and see the questions that were preposterous in their possible answers. Anyone accepting Xtianity at face value, is no different from anyone accepting that a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is money... (Vox included)

Genius only goes so far.

Thanks Jim, for the article!

Darkcrusade's picture

Rev 18:4
Come forth, my people, out of her that ye have no fellowship with 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,

This passage is generally perceived as being a conclusion based upon the previous passages where Paul discusses the difference btween wicked and evil people,or of the righteous and the unrighteous.However,this is a partial quote from Isaiah which states:

Isa 52:11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean [thing]; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.

Isaiah wrote this in 712b.c.,after the captivity of the northern kingdom (house of Israel)which was deported into Assyria during the years 745-721 b.c. (2 kings17). eight years latter,in 713-714 b.c. (2kings18:13),Assyria also captured the majority of the southern kingdom (two tribes) and also deported them into Assyria to the north.Than about 100 years latter,after Assyria had fallen,Babylon invaded the city of Jerusalem,and took the inhabitants to the city to Babylon.

This means that Isaiah would be writing to the Israelites in Assyria telling them to flee,or he could be writing prophetically to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,who were latter taken into captivity.

Paul adds a little to what Isaiah had to say with the words : ''Be ye separate.'' Coming outof Babylon can be viewed as a physical departure from a place and a relocation to another place,or it can be viewed as simply being separate or different from those in Babylon.The bible and history confirms both as being true.
Those who were in Assyria generally fled out of that land and migrated to the north and west.,while those in Babylon were unable to flee but were admonished to remain separate,which they did to some extant.
Jeremiah also records:

Jer 50:8 Remove out of the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of the land of the Chaldean's, and be as the he goats before the flocks.

Jer 51:6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this [is] the time of the LORD'S vengeance; he will render unto her a recompense.

Jer 51:45 My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the LORD.

Jeremiah is writing in about 595 b.c which would be in the middle of the Babylonian captivity. A reading of the entire chapters reveals that Jeremiah is addressing BOTH the House of Israel and the house of Judah,as well as those taken captive to Babylon.

A reading of Ezra and Nehemiah reveals that the former inhabitants of Jerusalem left Babylon with the permission of the King. There was no fleeing from Babylon at this time as this was a planned and orderly return to the city of Jerusalem. THE fleeing from Babylon was left to those in Babylonian and Assyrian captivity who would escape or flee when those nations were being devoured by other nations.

"BABYLON DEFINED''

Strong's concordance defines ''Babylon'' as: confusion
1) to mix, mingle, confuse, confound

a) (Qal)

1) to mingle, confuse

2) to mix

Websters dictonary,1st. ed., 1828, Vol 1, p. defines Bablylonian as:
''2. Like the language of Babel; mixed ;confused.''

It is interesting that both Strong's and Webster's show in there definitions that Babylon is ''a type of tyranny,''therefore it can be concluded that any form of tyranny is a babylonian system. Certainly this would fit not only the Assyrian and Babylonian government,buy also the Egyptian government from which Israel had fled in an earlier day.It is to this period of Israel's history that we must turn to see how our people reacted to Babylonin type systems.

ISREAL IN EGYPT

Historically,the best example of satisfied slavery comes from the book of Exodus. Jacob (israel)had moved the clan to Egypt (their ''Babylon'') to be with Joseph,where they prospered:

Exd 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.

They were sojourners and strangers in a foreign land and things were going along real fine until a new king came upon the scene who didn't know joseph. This new king said:

Exd 1:9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we:

Therefore the king appointed taskmasters (bureaucrats) over them and set them to work building cities.The new king had them making bricks,worked them in the fields,and employed them as servants.In short they became slaves of Pharaoh (the state.) The interesting point of this story is that even though the Isrealites were ''more and mightier'' than the Egyptians, none of the Isrealites seemed upset enough to do anything about it.
The Isrealites were basically a people who were dependent upon the land. They worked the land to grow crops that fed the animals. They literally lived off the land. If the Isrealites became warlike and took over the government ,the king and his bureacrats would have to fight their own wars,go to work,and produce their own food.

FABRICATING SLAVERY

There had to be a soulution to the problem. The king understood that war wasn't a good solution when he stated they were more and ''mightier than we''. Any attempt to enforce out-and-out slavery would bring on a rebellion.Therefore Pharaoh said:

Exd 1:10 Come let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and in the event of war, they also join themselves to those that hate us,and fight against us,and depart out of the land.

Dealing ''wisely'' or ''cunningly'' with them would be a program of not imposing total tyranny immediatly,but rather to cunningly coerce them into voluntary servitude over a peroid of time. First of all he set up an educational system for the youth of Isreal. Than he hired some Isrealites to work in the palace and other government agencies in 9-5 jobs with weekends off and paid vacations. They would no longer have to work in the fields dirtying their hands from dawn to dark. He hired them as chariot (bus) drivers,construction workers(building cities) manufacturing plants (making bricks), vine growers(pressing grapes),etc. paying good wages.

Having that program well underway,Pharaoh started increaseing their burdens. He applied a tribute(tax)to all wages(income tax) and land (property tax),and than began slowly increasing the tax until many could not afford to pay it.These lands were foreclosed upon and placed under the management of the taskmasters (p.c.a, F.H.A.etc.) Now the king again owned the land and employed the Israelites to work on his farms and paid them a wage,which he also taxed,therby increasing their burdens and oppressing them.
A similar story is recorded in the book of Jasher, recording that Pharaoh told the elders how they would subdue the Isrealites by deceit. He ordered that cities be built and that they were to invite the Isrealites to assist in building the cities as fortifications to protct Egypt and the children of Isreal from attack. Perhaps this was the first treaty organisation- IETO (Isreal/Egypt Treaty Organisation)The bait was the protection of the country and the daily wages. The elders of Egypt then went to the children of Isreal and said;

''Whosoever of you from all Egypt and from the children of Israel will come to build with us, he shall have his daily wages given by the king, as his command is unto us.''the book of Jasher 65:19''

The Isrelites were not forced,they were invited to assist and were offered daily wages for thier services,and they were to be treated as equals with the Egyptians.The Isrealites swallowed the bait hook line and sinker,and voulantarily left the Land of Goshen to become wage earners.

''And all the servants of Pharaoh and his princes came at first with deceit to build with all Israel as daily hired laborers, and they gave to Israel their daily hire at the beginning.

And the servants of Pharaoh built with all Israel, and were employed in that work with Israel for a month.

And at the end of the month, all the servants of Pharaoh began to withdraw secretly from the people of Israel daily.

And Israel went on with the work at that time, but they then received their daily hire, because some of the men of Egypt were yet carrying on the work with Israel at that time; therefore the Egyptians gave Israel their hire in those days, in order that they, the Egyptians their fellow-workmen, might also take the pay for their labor.

And at the end of a year and four months all the Egyptians had withdrawn from the children of Israel, so that the children of Israel were left alone engaged in the work.

And after all the Egyptians had withdrawn from the children of Israel they returned and became oppressors and officers over them, and some of them stood over the children of Israel as task masters, to receive from them all that they gave them for the pay of their labor.

And the Egyptians did in this manner to the children of Israel day by day, in order to afflict in their work.''The book of Jasher 65:21-27

Darkcrusade's picture

The Egyptians were smart.Notice that the Egyptians paid the Israelites wages and than later took part of it back? Some of this was probably tribute and the rest in food and other necessities which had to be bought at the king's supermarkets. The situation is reminiscent of the song about a man who ''owed his soul to the company store''. All that he made in wages went back to the company as it was the only place he could buy food and supplies and obtain credit when he ran out of wages. Moses was later able to take the slave out of Egypt but he never could take Egypt out of the slave.

The Israelites finally arrived at the position of being completely dependant upon government. (It is historically proving fact that whenever you can create a dependency,you obtain control.)Over a period of time those who didn't cooperate were probably levied an additional tribute (tax penalty) and sometimes given a few lashes for good measure or put to death as an example to others.In the 20th century we are too civilized to punish by lashes and death for civil offenses,we simply put tax protesters in prison.

The relationship between the Israelites and Pharaoh's department of human Resources,Internal Revenue Service,Transportation,and Commerce was such that just to survive the people had to cooperate (obey all the laws) or else.However, they must have been satisfied with their condition to a great extant at best, or too dependant upon the state at worst ,as there is no recorded uprising of the Israelites who were still more in number,and mightier, then the Egyptians.

THE LEVITES-----FREEMEN OF ISREAL

It stands to reason that the Levites would have been the ones to warn the people of Israel and that they ,like our brethren today,WOULD NOT HEAR. Interstingly enough ,according to the book of Jasher ,the Levities saw through the Egyptians' scam from the beginning.

But the children of Levi were not employed in the work with their brethren of Israel, from the beginning unto the day of their going forth from Egypt.

For all the children of Levi knew that the Egyptians had spoken all these words with deceit to the Israelites, therefore the children of Levi refrained from approaching to the work with their brethren.

And the Egyptians did not direct their attention to make the children of Levi work afterward, since they had not been with their brethren at the beginning, therefore the Egyptians left them alone. Jasher 65:32-34

If this is true,than for some reason, since the levites never volunteered ,they were not forced to enter the system even though the Egyptians ,by than, apparently had the power to force them into the same conditions as the rest of the tribes. The levities would probably have rebelled because they had not been gradually introduced to voluntary servitude ,whereas in the words of past
Supreme Court Justice ,Wm O. Douglas;

"those (Israelites) who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm"

THE CONDITIONING TOTAL

Moses recognized that the Israelites had been conditioned unto slavery when two Israelites confronted him the day after he killed the Egyptian Taskmaster.The Israelites were as much afraid for themselves because of what Moses had done as Moses himself.So ingrained and accepted was their status of voluntary slavery that they not only feared retribution upon themselves for their own acts, but also feared retribution against themselves for the acts of others.

Forty years latter when Moses returned to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh,demandind that he release the Israelites,Pharaoh simply added to the Israelites' burdens by making them gather their own straw.The Israelites understood the message:They had better cooperate (obey all the laws) and be good slaves to the state or Pharaoh would increase their burdens. The Israelites confronted Moses saying:

Ex 5:21 And they said unto them, The LORD look upon you, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us.

The king increased the production quoteas and tribute to the p[point where no one could perform to the king's satisfaction,which gave the taskmasters the reason they needed to oppress the Israelites even unto death. So ingrained and accustomed to being good slaves (obeying the laws of Babylon) were the Israelites that when Moses tried to tell them what God said they wouldn't even listen to him.

Ex 6:9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

TAKING THE SLAVE OUT OF EGYPT

They were more afraid of not obeying the laws of Egypt (Babylon) and the administrative bureaucrats than they had faith in the word of God. What they told Moses was ''Go away and leave us alone. It is better to serve the Egyptians than to die." We know this to be true because the Scripture records that after they left Egypt Pharaoh followed and:

Ex 14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD.

Exd 14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because [there were] no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?

Exd 14:12 [Is] not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For [it had been] better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.

Suverans2's picture

The real trick was, for me, taking Egypt out of the slave.

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..."

WhiteIndian's picture

A "dupe and imposter" is what Jefferson wrote regarding the apostle Paul.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/dupes-and-impostors-quotation

Darkcrusade's picture

Remember this was a people who had ,by this time, witnessed the miseries and plagues which the LORD God had afflicted the nation of Egypt. Later on when the Lord paved a way across the Red sea and destroyed Pharaoh's army,the people supposedly:

the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses. Ex 14:31

EGYPT STILL IN THE SLAVE

That's what they said,but they didn't really believe him. Moses was able to take the slave out of Egypt,but he could not take Egypt out of the slave.They were only three days into the wilderness without water when:

Exd 15:24 And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?

Moses appealed to the Lord and the Lord provided clean water.Again, two months and fifteen days into the wilderness the people murmured against Moses:

Exd 16:2 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness:

Exd 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, [and] when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.

Apparently the Egyptians,although hard nosed bureaucrats (taskmasters),they took good care of the Israelites. It appears that the Egyptians apparently understood the principal, ''feed them and you can herd them.'' But later on when the Lord fed them manna they couldn't follow His rules.He told them to gather bread for six days but not on the seventh. They went to gather bread on the seventh day,and:

Exd 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

It seems as though the Israelites were only contented when their bellies were full of what they wanted and when they had plenty to drink. They had more faith in the King's system (Babylon's) which provided for the basic necessities of life than they had faith in the Lord. Every time things started getting
little rough they murmured against Moses. Shortly after the bread was provided they again wanted for the water:
Exd 17:3 And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore [is] this [that] thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?

As a result God brought forth water from a Rock. It is interesting that all the Israelites witnessed the plagues upon Egypt ,the parting of the Red sea, the destruction of Pharaoh's army,and they had even been fed and watered directly from the hands of God. Yet even after witnessing God's power,all of the above murmurings happened within just three months of their departure from Egypt. They had been obeying the laws of Egypt for over two hundred years and they became tired of freedom (God's laws) in less than three months. It was much more convenient to be a good slave in Egypt obeying Pharaoh's laws than a freeman obeying God's laws in the wilderness. It is just like the mentality in this century that says welfare is good and it is better to be red than dead.

SEEKING A NEW MASTER

When the children of Isreal had been in the wilderness for three months they arrived at Mt. Sinai.
The people heard and accepted God's covenant,and when God spoke to the people,
"They trembled and stood afar off,"(Ex 20:18) and asked Moses to get the Lord to speak through him.
If God wouldn't let them have Pharaoh as a master perhaps God would allow them to have Moses
as a master.However,while Moses was on the mount the people became restless and said
unto Aron;

Ex 32:1 make us gods, which shall go before us;

Amazing! Only four months into the wilderness and they still could not accept the
greatness and power of the Lord,and they made and worshipped idols. The Egyptian
bureacrats had schooled the Isrealites very well. They most have known once a
slave always a slave.

Shortly after the first day of the second month of the second year after they
left Egypt they were still complaining:

Num 11:4-5 And the mixt multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting:
and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?
Num 11:5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely;
the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:

The mixed multitude that was among them was a negative influence upon
the Israelites,constantly reminding them of the customs and good foods
that were in Egypt.But God said if it is meat you want,it is meat you
you shall get.In fact he said they would eat it.

Num 11:20 until it come out at your nostrils,
and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised
the LORD which [is] among you, and have wept before him,
saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt?

They would not accept the perfect food from God.God's manna
had to be complete nourishment,and therefore a perfect food
source. When they rejected it,They rejected the LORD.

The LAST CHANCE

Later when spies were sent into the land of Canaan to report on the people and the fruit of the
land,they returned and many were afraid:

Num 13:32 And they gave the children of Israel an evil report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ........and all the people whom we saw in it [are] men of [great] stature.

Num 13:33...........'' and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

As a result of these reports the people wept and again murmured against Moses and Aaron ,
saying;

Num 14:2,4 ...... "If only we had died in the land of Egypt! Or if only we had died in this wilderness!
Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?"
So they said to one another, "Let us select a captain and return to Egypt."

This was the last straw as far as God was concerned. He told Moses:

Num 14:22 because all these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not heeded My voice,

It was than that God told Moses to turn back to the wilderness and that all (save two) who were twenty years of age or older would die in the wilderness during the next 40 years , and He would bring only the young back to the promised land. It bears repeating that Moses brought the slave out of Egypt but could not take Egypt out of the slave.

During the years to come God brought a plague against some,and some were consumed by fire and an earthquake,and still they did not harken unto the LORD.Another time they were again without water:

Num 20:5 And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us to this evil place? It [is] not a place of grain or figs or vines or pomegranates; nor [is] there any water to drink."

The problem was they were still good slaves of Pharaoh and not true servants of God .They remembered the flesh pots the leeks,onions,and coffins of Egypt and did not harken unto the LORD. and
continued to murmur against Moses and the LORD.

Num 21:5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses: "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For [there is] no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread."

This time God sent fiery serpents to bite them.Nothing God did satisfied them. The murmurings of the people continued,even into the promised land,until the future generations of those who died in the wilderness finally achieved what their forefathers could not do --- they finally became slave to a new
earthly master named Saul,who would make plenty of laws for them to obey. Even though they were warned what would happen to them if they had a king,they insisted.....God provided.

GOVERNMENTS ARE BABYLON

Throughout the centuries little has changed.Next came the great world empires mentioned in Daniel: the Babylonia empire, Medo-persia ,Greece, and the Roman empire. Than came the numerous small kingdoms of clay and iron which have plagued mankind into the 20th century.
Beasts are Kings ,Kingdoms, or governments. In the Exodus Pharaoh was a king or the head of the government and he had a bureaucracy to assist in the enforcement of the state's laws.The same was true for Alexander,for the Caesars ,and is true for the 20th century heads of government and their bureaucracies.The names and structures of government have changed and they have become more sophisticated but they still function as slave masters to their subjects.there are only degrees of slavery as there is no freedom in the world today.As long as government enforces it's will on the people,the people are slaves of the government.