Recent comments

Geez, I guess I'd better start throwing my pop cans away. I sure don't want to be evil! Heh. One can go overboard with this anti-recycling stuff. Yeah, the ruling class twists recycling and other versions of "living lightly" to their own ends, just like they twist everything else. That does not mean all people who want to be less wasteful are idiots or tyrants. The fact is, if people want to recycle, there is nothing freedom lovers can do to stop them (without using violence). It's not recycling per se that is bad, but forced recycling. Let's keep focused on the evil here. Sometimes I think libertarians like to talk tough, just like conservatives, so they do it by bashing harmless behavior. Pretty funny, I think.

"The problem with having only local governments is it leaves our whole country open to being conquered by another." By what other, exactly? Keeping in mind that it is one thing to conquer another country, another thing entirely to hold it? Will Canada invade us? Mexico? The latter is already invading (their own former territories) in a way the federal government is powerless to prevent (assuming they wanted to, which I doubt): by human reproduction. But who cares? I don't care where anyone comes from - only whether or not they believe in freedom. Let my neighbors be freedom-loving Chinese, Russians and Iranians. The very government you depend on to keep invaders out is the same one going around the world in our name and making life miserable for everyone. Ever hear of "blowback"? If we are invaded it will be *because* of the federal government's actions. Anyway, if the federal government disappears, the tanks, missiles, and heavily armed populace does not. Who would invade? Just after Obama's election, more weapons and ammunition were purchased by Americans than most militaries possess. We are already an occupied country. The occupier *is* the federal government. Only, it is worse than if some foreigners were here, because so many people still support the federal government, or grant it some legitimacy. "The only proper use of force for a de jure "Federal government", is the same as that of a de jure "local government", to protect individual rights..." This is a weird element of libertarian dogma, that I am amazed people still believe. Governments aren't for that purpose, never were for that purpose. They were always for gathering power and wealth at the expense of the productive class. Ours is not somehow special and different; it is exactly the same as all the rest, differing only in the propaganda it uses to keep us subservient. Only believers in the government religion would think that governments are for protecting our rights. There is no such thing as rights. And governments - the most rapacious institutions humans have ever invented - certainly are not for protecting these phantasms. Time to move beyond the government propaganda, and see the world as it is. See Stefan Molyneux' take on this, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY

"The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent [secede] from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis." – Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties

Listen to journalist Charles Bowden talk about the organized killing going on in Mexico, especially Juarez: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125427225 He says that most of it is out of the news because the police and the drug gangs have a common interest in keeping the body count down. The gangs maintain "death houses" throughout Juarez, where the torture and kill people, and then dispose of the bodies in lime pits.

Andrew, I don't have anything to add to what Suverans said, but I'm curious about something. You're not also known as muddy waters, the poker player, are you? - Greg

The drug war has not failed. Oh, it certainly has failed, consistently, to reach its STATED objectives, which are to reduce drug use. But the reality is that the stated objectives, like everything else about this dirty, ugly war, are a lie. Prohibition is, and always has been, a tool of oppression. And you don't wage war on people to help them, or protect them, or save them. You wage war on people to take what they have or destroy it. Well, it's working. Thousands of Americans die every year in drugwar violence. Countless families have suffered the reckless destruction of drug raids. Millions of harmless people have been imprisoned, and each one of those is a life damaged or destroyed, not by drugs, but by drug laws. Let's face it, no government campaign would continue at such a hideous price if it was a "failure." The so-called "war on drugs" continues because those who make the decisions are the ones who benefit from it. And in their eyes, their dirty, ugly war is an unqualified success.

"..according to Israel"? According to the fox he was definitely acting in self defense. Once he entered the hen house, the chickens attacked him and he just fought back to defend himself. This act can result in more troubles and disputes in the near future.

The Turkish ship last week where nine individuals have been killed may have been on a diverse mission. The boat was said to be taking supplies into Gaza, even so rumors are rising the aim in the ship, Gaza Freedom Flotilla, was to break the blockade down, not bring aid to Gaza. Not only that but, according to Israel they were definitely acting in self defense. Once they boarded the ship, passengers attacked them and they just fought back to defend themselves. This act can result in more troubles and disputes in the near future.

The police have taken up arms against the American people. And don't blame the "drug war." The so-called "war on drugs" was just a political metaphor until the police, themselves, made it a reality. And the police have the power to end it; right now. Notice I didn't say "end prohibition." I said "end the war." Politicians make the laws, but police wage the war; in doing so they violate more laws than most of us do in lifetime. And unlike our crimes, ALL of theirs have victims. And the victims are us. Not drugs. Us. All of us. People say that cops can't "pick and choose" what laws to enforce; that they're just "doing their jobs." Obviously the law ALLOWS them to invade our homes in the middle of the night, beat up our grandmas and shoot our children, no law requires them to do so. And no one will ever convince me that cops are stupid enough to believe they're protecting the public by attacking us while we sleep. No, they do it for one reason, and one reason only: They do it because they can.

most excellent article.

Do you want "civil rights"? Civil rights...the local rights of a corporation or any member of it. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs." "When you join any political community, you become subject to the rules thereof."

Yeah, Dennis, especially in the PRC (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA). Just a few million more rules, regulations and statutes and they will have a completely idiot-proof STATE, or so they appear to believe.

James has given us a note worthy definition of today's democratic government, "elective dictatorship". However, his choice of words in this statement, "The ultimate threat to democracy’s survival may be the fact that many people simply do not value their own freedom," leaves something to be desired, IMO; it should have read, again IMO, "The ultimate threat to individual liberty is the fact that many people simply do not value their own freedom". "Those who exchange liberty for security will soon find that they have neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin

I gave this article a 7. My comments, in order, "kill" was a mistranslation in "Thou shalt not kill". Jay P. Green Sr. got it right in his Literal Translation of the Holy Bible when he translated the Aramaic word ratsach, "murder". All murder is killing, but all killing is not murder. Since I am an individual secessionist the UNITED NATIONS is not my "proper authority", however, it presumably is the "proper authority" for the voluntary members of it, which, in my opinion, is another great reason to be an individual secessionist. Next, "Reasonable Hope for Success" has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether a war is "just", i.e. "upright; honest; having principles of rectitude". Lastly, I'm surprised that Jim made not so much as a casual mention of the controversy over whether Iraq even had anything to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers and/or the Pentagon. And, maybe someone here can help me, I forget when did Afghanistan attack America or Great Britain?

US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions (15) "United States" means — (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. ~ http://tinyurl.com/2u23xv If criminals do hide behind a corporation, consider this DRichards, your "government" is a corporation.

The Free State Project has two big annual events in New Hampshire, each of which is one of the biggest libertarian gatherings in the world. The summer event is the Porcupine Freedom Festival, this year 24-27 June: http://freestateproject.org/festival Each of these events is a great opportunity to socialize with like-minded activists who are actually *doing* something to move the liberty peanut forward. At the winter event, the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, I met one of the STR editors and David Friedman.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Paul. If I understand your response to me correctly, I must say, "No sir, that is not my assumption", my assumption is stated in the second sentence of my post immediately above and quoted here, "The only logical position for true lovers of liberty is that of individual secession." Individual autonomy, checked only by the Natural Law (of man), is my goal, Paul.

Excellent debunking of the irrational fear that so many people have of immigrants.

The only problem is, B.R., the mild-mannered members of the Christian right are state-worshipers, too. They're the ones who spout their perverted version of Romans XIII at us [individual secessionists]. Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

Another great article "striking at the root" of evil.

Declaration of Independence Notice of Secession Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 940 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for a man to dissolve the bands which have connected him with a body politic, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature and Nature’s God entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the cause(s) which impel him to the separation. ″We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights″[1], rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental[2], that among these are Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property, and that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the governed, – and whenever any Government becomes destructive of these Inalienable Rights, every man has the Lawful Authority to Withdraw his Consent, and to return to the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature[3] and Nature’s God entitles him. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be Seceded from for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by Withdrawing from the governments to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to Secede from such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of this Man; and such is now the necessity that constrains this Man to Secede from this Government. The history of the United States Government, rather than securing, has a record of repeated injuries to, and usurpation of, Man’s Inalienable Rights, all having as their direct objective the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over men. I, Given Name therefore, being a Lawful Man, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Creator of the heavens, the earth and the seas, and all that in them is, solemnly publish and declare, this Man is, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent, that he is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States, and any and all States under the authority of the United States, and that all political connection between him and the aforementioned States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Man, I have full Power to Arm and Protect Myself, my Loved Ones, and my justly acquired Possessions, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Trade, Possess Land, Travel Freely and to do all other Acts and Things which Free and Independent Men may of right do. Name in Upper and lower case: ________________________________________ Seal: First Witness: _____________________________________________ Second Witness: _____________________________________________ 1 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America [Declaration of Independence] 2 Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 1057 3 The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. - Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

Agreed, Tom, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America was not perfect, and may have even been designed to deceive, however, according to that document, "all men are created equal", in that they are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", means that the Divine Right of Kings doctrine applies to all men (and women), equally, which it apparently did mean, according to the KJV, before being perverted by those desiring power over other men. The declaration declared that we are all "sovereigns without subjects" and that our individual freedom is to be restricted only by the "Laws of Nature", that is to say the "Natural Law of Man". http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles [nations] exercise lordship [rule] over them; and they that exercise authority [control] upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so...

I have come to the conclusion that we can convert statists to voluntaryists, but not by talking. We have to form a community and teach by example. No statist can say: "It can't be done." if we are doing it. A free community will continually have statists joining and trying to change us. This is the way of the world and what is meant by:"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." The struggle is never over, but will be ongoing. Each new attempt will need to be answered by rational debate. Statists (usually) start with debate not guns. They try to sneak in their ideas when resistance is low. They may be well meaning attempts to solve a small problem using force. As long as we stick to our principles and carefully pass them on to our young we should be ready for the fight, even if it turns violent. However, I have yet to find that first voluntaryist community. I live in rural Wyoming. I am only freer because we are isolated, not by my neighbors intent. Where is that first group of 100+ voluntaryists willing to re-locate?

"If there were anywhere better to go on this planet I would make it my life's goal to get there." Look at the free state movements. New Hampshire, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, while not perfect, are much better than average places, and would turn very free if just a quarter of the libertarians and anarchists in the country moved there. That in turn would attract the rest. If people are not serious enough to do something so insignificant as moving, they don't really want freedom. Moving some place is a lot easier than fighting a revolution. As to secession, it will happen. Every empire dies. Every place on the planet has had its borders re-written over and over again. The US is not immune to that. Arguing that secession cannot happen is like arguing back in 1988 that the Soviet Union will last forever. At some point the Union will break up, or at least the states will gain more autonomy than they do now, and when it does the great homogenizing influence of Washington DC will be gone. Some of those states will become more free - IF freedom lovers move to them. Even the less free states will be acceptable if they allow local autonomy. In the meantime everyone can personally secede, to the extent possible. There is a large range of possible behaviors (e.g. full time RV living, or living in places without zoning and land use regulations like rural Wyoming) where you can get at least part way there. The intent of this article was to get people thinking about how we could live alongside statists, and to get them to stop despairing that we can't convert them to freedom-lovers. We don't have to.