Recent comments

"NYPD brass docked Chu's pay and ordered him into sensitivity training..." ROFLMAO "Apparently, the sensitivity training didn't work." ~ Queens Councilman Daniel Halloran ROFLMAO "I'm absolutely outraged that the police department could consider keeping this man in a uniform at any location. He belongs riding a desk somewhere." ~ Queens Councilman Daniel Halloran I think Daniel Chu would make a great Queens Councilman. ROFLMAO

Original comment removed by author because the modern definitions of anarchist are apparently as follows. Main Entry: an·ar·chist Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kist, -ˌnär-\ Function: noun Date: 1678 1 : a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power 2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order ~ Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchist

yes, the torture angle was hard to swallow, both in the book and the film. something that wasn't mentioned in the article is the fact that alan moore himself is an anarchist. he's also a wizard.

A very good exposition of the problem, if not the solution (the author seems stuck in the partisan paradigm, while acknowledging it's obvious shortcomings). He seems ripe for an anarchist conversion...

Paul, you may want to read some of the comments that Glen Allport has left on some other articles, concerning what may be legitimate reasons for voting. It can be a very persuasive argument.

Are we going to WAR with Mexico? Is THAT the "October Surprise" this year?

You might be interested in my essay "Public Goods Fallacies" http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/public_goods_fallacies.html

"Government's own most foundational document, governments are instituted among men to secure to them their inalienable rights, i.e. their natural rights, the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property." No government was ever instituted for that purpose. Oh, potential governments certainly claim that purpose, and we peons might be placated by that bit of propaganda. But that was never the purpose of any government. Anyway, there are no such things as rights - which makes the claim even more preposterous.

Once upon a time, this is how commerce worked. It could and should be that simple.

I had no idea that Illinois residents lived under such tax sucking rules at the level of town government! I am surprised that Illinois still has a population. Did they close down the highways and bridges leading out of the State of Ill Repute? A little more work by the politicians and Illinois will look like Michigan--depopulated.

It’s now official – there’s no actual shortage of Holocaust Survivors: Quote from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso in the year 2000: 'The Israeli Prime Minister's office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million.' (page 83) At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)). As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero. According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144): ‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’ Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed? Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc. Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31). Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’ Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5). Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).

I like the posts on this blog a whole heck of a lot. However, this stuck out from the rest of the text: "Yes, Cromwell did kill thousands of people in Ireland, but he was a man of his times and should not be judged by modern standards." So in spite of the fact that Cromwell undoubtedly spent every Sunday at church, and in spite of the fact that a great many of those Sundays were spent studying passages like "[W]hatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12); "[L]ove one another, as I have loved you" (John 5:12); "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44); and so on, and so on, and so on, he should not be judged by what, exactly? Even the one example that the author brings up of Cromwell's "kindness" toward the Jews, according to the author himself, was not done "out of the kindness of his heart." So how are Cromwell's murders justified in that they occurred in the 17th century? In theory, you could say the same thing about Truman. Someday, someone may very well say that about George W. Bush or Barack Obama. The sad truth is that all four men read from the same book, that has said the same thing, for almost two thousand years, and all four men chose to ignore the most powerful parts of the book. Neither modern nor ancient men have any excuse. What was Cromwell's excuse for massacring men who tried to surrender? Were they not his enemies, as Jesus said, and did Cromwell not confess Jesus every day of his "Christian" life?

I'm a baptist and I don't support any prohibition. . . if anything.

If one has the option of voting, or not voting, one is a "citizen". "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist.   If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization." ~ http://www.strike-the-root.com/theory-of-natural-hierarchy-and-government by tzo If you were a member of a gang and you found out that your gang was involved in criminal activities, would you simply abstain from voting or would you "withdraw from membership" in the gang? NL.1.3.3 Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate. ~ Lysander Spooner Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991)

Avnery says, "Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: parliament, the highest expression of democracy, is itself now posing a dire threat to Israeli democracy." What he is truly witnessing, but fails to see, is that current parliamentary action is exactly what "democracy" is. This is its nature and its ultimate goal. In the Holy Trinity of wolves and sheep, there is now one more wolf and one less sheep. Government is death.

They were spelling out the reasons, for the world to see, why they had the lawful right to peacefully secede from the de facto government that was claiming rule over them, brother, because, in the history of the world, it had never been done before. They had finally come to the realization that they had voluntarily joined King George's organization, because if an individual doesn't secede, once he knows he rightfully can, it can be said that he voluntarily consents to be a member. And, because he voluntarily chooses to retain his membership, knowing full well that he will be a "taxpayer" if he does, then it can be rightfully deduced that the income tax is voluntary. Why? Because membership is voluntary! This is why no one here can show me a U.S. law criminalizing individual secession in particular. Oh, and, even if someone could, it would not be worth the paper it was written on, because it would not be in conformity with the Natural Law (of Man), so save that minuscule effort, (that virtually no one was going to expend anyway), for a more worthy cause. "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other[1]. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it." ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 The foregoing reasoning was spelled out two weeks and two days ago here http://www.strike-the-root.com/taxation-is-theft#comment-723 with the author knowing full well that he would most likely need a "fast horse...to escape on" for doing so. Why? because regardless of all their bitching and complaining, the vast majority of people love their government entitlements, benefits, privileges, their so-called civil rights, and will not voluntarily choose to give up the "ruler's dainties", their only real complaint seems to be that they must pay for them. Now it is I who must apologize for sounding so “trenchant”, brother. “Those who seek the truth are more than friends. They are brothers.” – Sir Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown [1] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouveir's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added]

Governments have always been funded by taxes, they therefore can never be funded any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!]
 Governments have always monopolized the protection market, therefore it can never be any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!] *** Sorry to sound so trenchant, but those are the defining characteristics of government. That and ruling over a land area that exceeds the just land claims of all its individual members. No other type of organization can get away with this, and if government didn't do this then they would be behaving like other organizations, which we do not label as government. Yes, organizations claim to have presidents and governors and other governmental labels, but this only serves to muddy the waters. Words are meant to communicate ideas, and if a word means seven different things depending upon who you talk to, then it is very difficult to exchange ideas in a coherent fashion. Dogs do not fly, and governments do not exist without coercion. *** "Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in." ~ tzo Maybe you didn't see this, brother, "What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”?" *** What you are defining is a voluntary organization whose jurisdiction does not extend beyond the private property of its participants. No organization of this type has ever claimed to be, or has ever been considered to be, a government. If you say a government could exist under these conditions, then every company, family, baseball team, and school can be called a government. You have just eliminated a concept by changing its definition to something else. How can one discuss the concept that is government if it can mean voluntary organizations? Defining dogs as cats makes it difficult to talk about either coherently. *** "The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes." ~ tzo Strange, I can't find that in the DOI. I can only find this reference to taxes in the DOI, "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent", as one of the several reasons for seceding. *** "...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." Every Independent State in existence before the DOI was written taxed its subjects. That last little clause states that the new nation would claim the right to tax, since that is one of the Acts and Things that all other Independent States had the right to do. *** "I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society..." ~ tzo And, I don't recall trying to "excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society...", my friend, so I certainly wouldn't ask you to. Perhaps you didn't see this, "Yes, they unarguably failed..." *** I understand your point, but I cannot get past using the word government to explain what you envision. What you are describing is anarchy, or voluntaryism.

Ah! More food for thought. From "Spiegel Online International": http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html Apparently, individual communities in Europe are experimenting with the elimination of coercive street signs. The result? "'The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,' says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. 'The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles.'" The "dwindling," or death, of personal responsibility. That would go under wealth.

Suverans2: "This does not mean that an individual will not be persecuted for choosing to secede from the political corporation." Yes, and that is the point I'm trying to make. That is the nature of government, whether or not it is the government Jefferson intended or believed in. That is what governments do. I can secede all I want, but if I completely secede in every way I wish to, they will come after me and ruin my life. I'm still getting census reminders, you know. Suverans2: "As for, 'that was never possible'? I am here to say that it was and is!! I strike the root by 'withdrawing from membership', I am an Individual Secessionist!!" Indeed, it is possible in the way you describe. In fact, you brought up one of my three criteria for a successful revolution, one of which applies to individual revolution. I was referring to the death-oriented government's view of secession.

Permissible? One does not need permission to secede from the governments of men any more than one needs permission to quit his job at Whole Foods. Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1351 Is secession unlawful, i.e. is it wrong? In a word, no, especially when those you have made a political compact or confederacy with are the first to breach the contract. According to the U.S. Government's own most foundational document, governments are instituted among men to secure to them their inalienable rights, i.e. their natural rights, the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. This is government's only lawful duty, and whenever it steps beyond this duty to secure to an individual or group one iota more than this, it must necessarily infringe on someone else's inalienable rights in order to do so. NL.1.3.3 Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate. ~ Lysander Spooner Does secession violate international law? Apparently not. “It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede.” – Thomas Franck, (one of the five international law experts), as quoted in Suzanne Lalonde, Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of UIT POSSIDETIS 209 (2002) [Emphasis added] Omnes licentiam habere his quae pro se indulta sunt, renunciare. [It is a rule of the ancient law that] all persons shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit. Cod. 1, 3, 51 ; Id. 2, 3, 29 ; Broom, Max 699. ~ (Maxim of Law) A Law Dictionary, (Black's 2nd c.1910), page 851 Is secession against the man-made laws of the U.S.? Again, it appears not. “The wisdom of secession, particularly from December of 1860 to February of 1861, can be criticized in the most vehement of terms, without substantive objection. The legality of that secession, however, is beyond dispute.” ~ A Brief Examination of the Legality of Secession in the United States, Did the Southern States Have the Right to Secede from the Union During the Antebellum Period? by Kenneth S. Imbriale [Emphasis added] I challenge anyone to show us a U.S. statute criminalizing secession, in general, and individual secession, in particular. This does not mean that an individual will not be persecuted for choosing to secede from the political corporation. As Voltaire noted, “It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”. Notwithstanding he certainly has the natural right to do so. As for, "that was never possible"? I am here to say that it was and is!! I strike the root by "withdrawing from membership", I am an Individual Secessionist!!

I mention four deaths in succession, and use the word "death" instead of "slavery" (although that's a good one), because death happens immediately with the death of volition. As volition is inseparable from individuality, paying a parking ticket is a minor death of volition (temporarily), any possible relationship with the ticket issuer (death of trust), and an obvious death of wealth. You are correct that physical death, the fourth death, only happens if coercion is taken to its end. I used the word "death" because these things are vital to our understanding of ourselves. When we are kept from understanding our true selves (like being subjected to government schooling), a part of us dies. We need our volition, relationships, and wealth not only to enjoy life, but to learn and grow. I know for certain that parts of me are permanently dead, not only from government schooling, but personal relationships where coercion was used. This is called scarring, because some of the deaths I mention are irreversible. To the other commenters, The Declaration of Independence, as radical and important a historical document that it is, essentially says that a government needs to initiate coercion on behalf of those whom it coerces. Theoretically, it may state that individuals can secede, but that was never possible nor permissible.

I guess the author thinks that the word 'capitalism' has been corrupted but the term 'free market' has not? Capitalism gets its meaning from the word capital. Pretty simple. Free market is pretty self explanatory. We're going to worry about all the people who misuse the English language now? Like the author, for example? What an annoying title.

"She must have had a purpose." No. She's senile. And good luck trying to get Jews out of Israel. Doesn't matter that the neighbors don't like it. What are you suggesting, they might nuke Tel Aviv? How long after that will Mecca and Medina exist? Will they nuke Jerusalem, their own holy city? There will be no nukes used in the Middle East.

Hmmm. This one might be stretching things a bit. I get that coercion is slavery, but not (usually) that it is death. Yes, many die as a result of government action; you can reasonably talk about government being death if the subject at hand is the invasion of Iraq, for example. But I wouldn't want to trivialize the significance of those deaths by saying paying a parking ticket is also death. One is death, the other is slavery. Is one's death the ultimate end of every coercion, if one resists? Yes. But the same is true for slaves who resist. So again, slavery seems a more reasonable description of what governments are about. Or maybe I just don't get the point.