Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 1 week ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Of 'Legal Tender' the COED [Concise Oxford English Dictionary (c.1934)] says (under "tender"): 'currency that cannot be refused in payment of debt.'" That is correct. However, so is this, "There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.". "This statute [31 USC 5103] means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." (Source: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender...) This definition from A Law Dictionary, [Black's] Second Edition (c.1910), page 1143 will make the necessary distinction clearer. —Legal tender. That kind of coin, money, or circulating medium which the law compels a creditor to accept in payment of his debt, when tendered by the debtor in the right amount.— That statute [31 USC 5103] "compels [only] a creditor", it does not compel a "private business, a person or an organization...[to accept them] for payment for goods and/or services". So, Paul Bonneau, I believe you are free to create A Dual-Currency Community, if you want to...unless, of course, you are a voluntary member of a subsidiary STATE, that has a law which says otherwise.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    This matter is settled by reference to the Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative source of the meaning of words and phrases in the English language. Mine is the 1934 Concise Edition, whose virtues even include a correct definition of inflation ("abnormal increase of the currency, eg by the issue of inconvertible legal-tender notes") in the nick of time before Keynes wrote his pernicious _General Theory_ and fully eight years after he put out his highly premature _The End of Laissez Faire_ - see http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Machan/Keynes_and_his_Ideology_of_Pl... Of "Legal Tender" the COED says (under "tender"): "currency that cannot be refused in payment of debt." So what the lie-fabricator at his desk in Mendacity Central (Treasury Division) did was to craft a particularly cunning one: it may be quite true that there's no statute to require acceptance of tendered pennies or $100 bills, or even, in so many words, "dollars" (ie, Federal Reserve Notes) in general; all it needs is the statute that declares those things to be "legal tender." The law compelling their acceptance (in some form) is then achieved by reference to outside sources which define the meaning of the term "legal tender." That statute is 31 USC 5103. Wikipedia, unfortunately, then picked up his lie and repeated it, and Paul reasonably relied on that normally reliable source. Anyone who knows how to correct Wikipedia entries now has a chance to get to work.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Hi Suverans2, thanks for highlighting the article (welcome back old friend)... Is America the World’s Largest Sponsor of Terrorism? Posted on August 6, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog American Officials Admit that the U.S. Is a Huge Sponsor of Terrorism The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – *Lt. General William Odom* - noted: Because the United States itself has a *long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world* [where does one's oath make any difference here? I'll get to that!]. Odom also said: By any measure the US has long used terrorism. **In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation**. (audio here). The Washington Post reported in 2010: The United States has long been an exporter of terrorism, according to a secret CIA analysis released Wednesday by the Web site WikiLeaks.... Read on dear reader: http://lewrockwell.com/spl4/us-largest-sponsor-of-terrorism.html And http://georgewashington2.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/governments-have-admitte... carrying out false flag operations.... But more to the point: --"And, so, to the woman who says, "My husband [and or friend] is a good man!" and words [ OATHS to back that up] to that effect I must reluctantly answer, *"It does not matter." Other than DO NOT support or join the institution in the first place* [emphasis added]-- Joining the equivalent of the Crips (gang) in order to change it--via an OATH (amendments) AND CONSTITUTIONS--is INDEED (as evidenced by history) a hopeless/futile task... ---It's Not Personal; It's Institutional---Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5439/Its-Not-Personal-Its-Institutional "Thoreau wrote, Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?… The mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.…In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men (sociopath behavior) can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well... --*Many consider service to "their country" to be an automatic virtue*, but it is a dehumanizing vice whenever it involves the abandonment of conscience. The **military demands this abandonment**[emphasis added]. And few activities can be as dehumanizing as patrolling foreign streets in the role of an occupying force".... Grappling with the Banality of Evil Mises Daily: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5491/Grappling-with-the-Banality-of-Evil What if nobody turned up? [Many don't because of personal oaths]. However, too many do succumb to the Siren's Song [The priests and the soldiers] August 6, 2012 Robert Higgs on 'Warfare, Welfare, and the State' Posted by Lew Rockwell on August 6, 2012 06:14 PM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/117408.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Perhaps an oath similar to the one below is what every member of your government should be required to make. "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Life, Liberty and Justly Acquired Property of the Citizens of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "Free individuals", are those not affiliated with, (connected to), any governments, as a result we do not "rely" on members of the U.S. military, period.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Heh. This story made my day. He's gonna go to jail any way so what the hell?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Very Special People
    Page Jim Davies
    Speaking of "government...demise"... "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. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. It is, after all, his innate human right to rule over everything within the lower realm of imaginary creations.   Isn't it amazing just how powerful we are as sovereign human beings?" ~ Excerpted from A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo [Emphasis added] I DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    "A very simple reason, it's too profitable politically and economically to legalize it." Correct, Glock27. It is "illegal", but not "unlawful". "...the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter [legal] goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former [lawful] usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 885 [Bracketed information added] It is "illegal", but not "unlawful", because there is more profit in keeping it "illegal". "And Judah said unto his brethren, 'What profit is it...'" There is nothing "immoral" or "unethical", i.e. bad, or wrong, about growing, selling, or using the herb called marijuana, therefor it is not "unlawful". One, or more, of these acts , however, may be "illegal" according to the "positive", private law of certain corporations, corporations like the "United States", for example. 28 USC § 3002 - Definitions (15) "United States" means — (A) a Federal corporation... (Source: http://tinyurl.com/2u23xv [Emphasis added]) So, if one consents to being a member (citizen) of one of these corporations, and thus "subject" to their positive, private law, growing, selling and/or using marijuana may be "legally prohibited" for that "person[1]". I DO NOT CONSENT AND WAIVE ALL MEMBER-ONLY BENEFITS. _____________________________________________________________________ [1] A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "...and the duties which it imposes"; "...and the duties which it imposes"; "...and the duties which it imposes"
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Very Special People
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry, calinb, but no. I will not ignore the title of Paul's essay, for he put it there on purpose and a title serves the purpose of characterizing what follows - in this case, quite accurately. Paul asserted that libertarians are fault-ridden. He did so in his title, and he did so in the text. My article offered a counterpoint to both. Of course it's possible to find fault with libertarians, and in his article he finds quite a lot. But like it or not, the single hope for liberty does rest with us, and fallible though we are, my perspective is one of optimism and pride and excitement that we have such a priceless opportunity. He's right about one thing: the need to accentuate the positive, not just to pour scorn on the follies of statism. I have done that more than most, I think, by writing _A Vision of Liberty_ (see http://TakeLifeBack.com/trilib ) and other glimpses of what the coming free society will be like, but I also think it necessary to demolish the mythology by which our statist neighbors imagine that the present world is as good as it can get. Falsehood needs to be identified and torn down, before a true and rational structure can be erected in its place. A particularly disappointing phrase comes in "Nothing Special", on which I didn't comment above: Paul shares his view that "I don’t think there will ever be a libertarian paradise, or some kind of utopia. Humans don’t have it in them..." Possibly that was just a slip of Paul's keyboard, but if it means what it seems to say - that freedom is incompatible with human nature - it reveals a gross, breathtaking misunderstanding of Para One, Lesson One of what the freedom philosophy is all about. I hope you don't share it.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    The war on Mary Jane or Doobie is not going to come to a conclusion. It will always be illegal, why? A very simple reason, it's too profitable politically and economically to legalize it. Christian organizations will be outraged and stampeed the effort, but what little good that will do since there is a sincere effort on the governments part to stamp out the christian religion because it has been such a thorn it its side for over 250 years. Due to the expensive blackmarket rate for the stuff, I choose to cultivate my own and even if I have to say so it was rather nice stuff and I even had some anecdotal responses from friends who agreed with me. I don't cultivate anymore because there is such a hard hitting drug enforcement in my area with aircraft fly overs and helocopters searching for even just one or two plants. The consequences if caught were simply too high. My wife would have been caught up in it even though she never knew and we would loose the house through confiscation. My state rolled over for the medical use of it and you can get a permit to raise no more than 12 plants a season. Hell. You have to raise more than that to assure you can get 12 good plants. The theme for this site is liberty and freedom. Just see how much liberty and freedom you have and go out an plant a dozen or so plants of Mary Jane and see what it gets you. Freedom and liberty is bullshit. Every last one of us are slaves or surfs to this tyranny. It is rather ironic I think. I can buy all the liquor I want and it's perfectly legal. The only reason I don't like it is because of the hang over the next day. Mary Jane dosen't treat you that way, or at least not in my experiannces. The only thing I hate about Mary Jane (I use Mary Jane because I can spell the other word) is that it contributes heavily to my heavyness No. The herb will never get released. The political usefulness of it is too strong of a motive for legislators to consider legalizing it. They are simply too stupid to recognize that they could make a boat load of money of taxes on it. A prime example of pure, unadultrated stupidity. I am buzzing now and am too lazy to go back and review what I have written so please forgive my random gramatical structure and crappy spelling.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    I would recommend "Gandhi An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth" to you, I suspect that it might be illuminating. The power of words is quite astonishing. As is simply ignoring the beast.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link mhstahl
    This is only one of many points that convinces me that it is totally useless to chat about freedom and liberty. When people live under these conditions you cannot convince me that we are free. This merely proves that those whom are libertarian, anarchist, or voluntarist are and have become slaves to a governmental agency and a judicial branch, both of which are gradually evolving into a tyrannical group of sub-human aliens. Why it is so important for a government to need to subject its subjects to such a tyranny is beyoned my limited reasoning ability. It makes as much sense to me as a nut bag putting a puppy in a microwave and turning it on high. The ideas and philosophies presented on this site are Utopic and reflects the kind of society I would love to see evolve, but I fear it has only reach the chat phase and become nothing more. Action speaks louder than words, but what kind of action needs to be taken? I hear so much about non-aggression until you are aggressed upon. This group has been aggressed upon, maybe not individually, but collectively, the ideology each holds dearly has, is and will be continually aggressed upon by the feebel guberment, and kangaroo court. What are you willing to do to stop the aggression that is occuring because all this talk is not going to achieve anything. Can this delimmia be answered? I denegrate my humanity by writing to my legislators, unleashing the nicest kind or wrath over their idiotic actions, but I an a lone wolf baying at the full moon. Futile. My efforts fall on deaf ears and I know it, but I also know if thousands of voices were to speak up they would listen and maybe do the right thing. Look at what occurred with "Chick-fil-a". Respectfully Glock27
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Guest
    Because he is a decent, respectable man. Limiting ones view to one author severely limites ones broadest possible scope of getting a gestalte picture.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Hmm...The “central bank” is not a real bank. Everything about it is permeated with government power. At the heart of the financial and monetary system of a nation that is supposed to be an exemplar of free markets is a *government money-bureau*. http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/central-banks-aren%E2%80%99t-banks/ Some context: "We Must Have Parallel Currencies"... http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul817.html Makes sense, but not the collectivist "We" part; AND BITCOIN as Paul Bonneau points out ALREADY solves the above points (and more) by providing a Direct Alternative trading platform---*WITHOUT the need to get caught up convincing and/or waiting for We-ists to get The Following Message*. *A Message to the Voting Cattle* Posted by Travis Holte on August 1, 2012 07:57 AM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/116939.html
  • willchpr's picture
    willchpr 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Guest
    I wonder why any serious libertarian wastes time talking about monetarist Milton Friedman when there has been such a brilliant, prolific writer and free market economist, Murray Rothbard
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Anarcho-Statists
    Page tzo
    Good point and article. Sorting out legitimate land claims after thousands of years of conquest and subsequent, on-going transfers of "legal" land titles does seem an impossible task. This does not, however, change the fundamental problems associated with collective ownership. I also prefer the rational approach of trying to work out what individuals have legitimate claims on land than the irrational method of setting up collective ownership of all land.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "The answer is more decent, armed people in theaters so the rare Holmes can be taken out if need be, just as happened with other incipient massacres in the past." Exactly Paul. I just can't understand how gun control nuts don't see that if somebody else in that theater had been armed, then this tragedy would have ended differently. Ms. Wolf's diatribe listing how many people die and get hurt annually in gun related events (including accidents) was just stupid. If this nut had taken his car and run through a line of people waiting to get tickets or even crashing into the lobby killing dozens, do you think she would have gone into a diatribe listing how many people get killed and hurt by automobiles (way more than by guns including 50,000 deaths) annually? Or would be calling for car-control and lamenting the American cultural infatuation with cars? I agree Paul, Ms. Wolf can be so good challenging tyranny and then puts out this overly emotional, irrational screed. Thanks for calling her on it.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Dear Naomi...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I don't vote, Paul, but this was a good one.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Anarcho-Statists
    Page tzo
    I agree with you on the importance of a sound theory of real property. Walter Block has probably done more than anyone else that I have read about addressing some of the tough problems that arise related to real estate. I'm sure you're already aware of some of his articles in this area, but just in case, here is one example about water rights: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf - Greg
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    At last, someone has stated it correctly, "...the coercive power of the state violates rights...", instead of all the ridiculous, nonsensical and endless versions of "the state has a monopoly on violence" diatribes. And, this article can be summed up with this lovely little quote, reportedly from Benjamin Franklin. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Anarcho-Statists
    Page tzo
    "Extracting a rational theory from the complex issues that very quickly arise when digging into this question ["...as to how any individual can come to own or control land..."] is not easy..." You've got that right, tzo! Good to see you posting again.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Some quotes you might want to remember. "The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushes its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks. . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. . . the issuing power should be taken from the banks, and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States "History records that the money-changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent plans possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money, and its issuance." ~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency, and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government, and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principals, the taxpayers will be saving immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master, and become the servant of humanity." ~ Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States November 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins); about five months later on April 14th 1865, he was assassinated. "If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." ~ Andrew Jackson, 7th president of the United States "Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." ~ James Garfield, 20th president of the United States "The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astonishing piece of slight of hand ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity, and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear. And, they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be the slaves of the bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money, and control credit." ~ Sir John Stamp (former governor of the Bank of England) United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993 Vol. 33, page H-1303 Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House: "Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. government."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Paul, your revelation that the US Treasury says nobody is compelled to accept government money in settlement of debts is surprising, to say the least." ~ Jim Davies First, evidence seems to indicate that Federal Reserve Notes are not "government money", but rather a "private corporation's money". A private corporation The first thing that must be understood is that the Federal Reserve Corporation is not a government agency, as most people think. It is a private corporation controlled by the Bankers, and therefore it is operated for the financial gain of the Bankers over the people, rather than for the good of the people. Excerpted from The corrupt Federal Reserve Corporation by Melvin Sickler Second, from the horse's ass, er-r-r-r mouth... "The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." (Source: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender...)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, your revelation that the US Treasury says nobody is compelled to accept government money in settlement of debts is surprising, to say the least. My understanding is that "legal tender" does indeed compel acceptance, not merely permit it. A quick look shows that Wikipedia's definition of the term seems to support your view. On the other hand some others contradict it: http://www.investorwords.com/2762/legal_tender.html "A country's currency that must be accepted as payment for a debt." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/legal+tender "Legally valid currency that may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor must accept." http://www.safehaven.com/article/14877/forgotten-anniversary-one-hundred... "Notice the underhanded change in the meaning as a result of the legal tender laws of 1909. A public convenience was replaced by public coercion. Two governments with the greatest war-making power in the world introduced coercion forcing their subjects to accept and use debt as money. This was a 'first' in history. In particular, the governments were forcing the military, as well as civil servants, to take paper promises as ultimate payment for services rendered." The last named points to a legal change made in 1909. More surfing required. A possible resolution may be that Treasury is answering a question about whether creditors are compelled to accept specific units of government money; for example is a vendor of small items compelled to accept a $100 bill, or is one of high-price items forced to accept payment in pennies. (A scene in the movie "The People vs Larry Flint" comes to mind; Flint paid a court-ordered penalty with a sack of $1 bills :-)) That would not imply that a creditor is presently free, as he should be, to specify that he will not accept government fiat money in any form at all.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 2 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "The biggest question, it seems to me, in evaluating a system of redressing grievance is who has the ability to bring overwhelming force to the table-in this case, as in "red tape" justice, it is the Raj without question." Sorry, that's not so. I did not paint the picture correctly for you to understand. This really is backwater India. There are NO ROADS. There are merely footpaths from one village to the next. It takes days of walking just to get back there. Do you think the Raj was going to dispatch a squadron of helmeted goons because a couple with a marital dispute do not take Ramsay's advice? No. They were barely able to keep the railroads functioning at all, down in the lowlands (in another story in that book, Corbett works on the railroad for a time under insane conditions). Ramsay is respected in part because his solutions are sensible, in part because he is an authority. But authority does not have to derive from violence; Einstein was an authority in physics. So the Raj is mostly beside the point in this picture. I don't deny there may be better examples out there. This just happens to be one I'm familiar with because I am a big fan of Corbett's books.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Serenity
    "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule." ~ Samuel Adams
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 2 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    I am going to catch flack for this...but...I have no disparity towards a persons sexual preference. I have known in my past a number of homosexuals, male and female. They have been decent, respectful, law abiding individuals and not a party to the freak gays who passionately want to force their sexuallity upon others who have absolutely no interest or desire to affiliate. It is the freak homosexual that I disapprove of; those whom prance down the street half naked, suck faced and etc. just to spite the anglo saxon white middle class value structure. They do more harm to the law abiding, decent and respectful gay individual or individuals. I know a number of gay persons whom are embarassed over the actions of the current status of what is happening with Chic-fil-a. This is rather anecdotal because I have to presume there are some gays who find this sort of behavior amusing and may even support it which would countermand my anecdotal experiances with gay people. I have also had a few bad experiances with homosexuals which, in part, colors my perspective of gay persons but fundamentally I do not disparage the law abiding, decent, and respectful gay person. It is my understanding that Chic-fil-a will serve gay persons, and I understand Chic-fil-a has no problem in hiring a gay person. Its just that the freak gays are upset that chic-fil-a supports financially one man one woman marrage. GLAD has an agenda also. So. What's wrong with that? Those of us here have an agenda!? Everyone has an agenda of some kind--it's the news media that wants to propogate this level of hatred and I guess they are doing a good job of it. I will stand with Chic-fil-a, and if a store were in my area I would go to spite the Freak radical gay population. Screw the Mayor of Chicago and Boston who are banning chic-fil-a within their city limits. Is this right? For me, no, and I will personally boycott Chicigo and Boston as a protest against Big Brothers infringment upon anyones freedom. That's it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Does a "sovereign state" seek permission (license), to do anything, (which is not a violation of the natural law), from any other STATE?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "Sounds good and reasonable to me. I would probably agree to such a document with the stipulation that at any time one goes afoul of it they would automatically be ejected from the agreement." ~ Glock27 More importantly, as Samarami pointed out, be certain that it contains a "secession clause" whereby any member may peacefully withdraw from membership in the group, at any time, for any reason. Glock27, have you seen this? "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession."~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University Oh, and would you want to be bound by a Constitution that said something like this, "...ALL TREATIES MADE or WHICH SHALL BE MADE, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND... Supremacy clause. ...all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the “supreme law of the land” and shall enjoy legal superiority over any conflicting provisions of a State constitution or law." ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 1005 Look closely at Article VI.2 of your Constitution, then take a look at this article about the Bricker Amendment. Here is the the Bricker Amendment in its entirety, if you'd like to read it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 2 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Perhaps it is. :^)
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 6 years 3 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    Thanks, Sam. It took two seconds to write; three and a half decades to compose. I hope it is never complete! Thank you so much for the link-I'd not read that before, fascinating, and very much the same line of thought.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Sounds creepily statist to me. Ugh. The last thing I need is my refrigerator telling me what to do.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I don't buy a lot of this. A lot of condemnation going on based on very shaky speculation of what happened. It wouldn't have made sense for Holmes to get close to the crowd so it's doubtful to me that he did. More Monday morning quarterbacking...
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 6 years 3 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Nice piece, but I don't have any "God-given" rights. I just have rights whether or not there is some genocidal jerkwad sitting in the sky, pining for foreskins and blood-sacrifice and burning offal. Rights just are - they come from self-awareness (and in a broader sense, efficiency: it is trivial to show that in repeated games it is far more efficient to co-operate than to violate... in the same way that truth is 'right' because it's the only long-term strategy that can possibly work). Anyone who wears an official insignia is an enemy of humanity and should be treated as such. Full stop, end of story. Badges, Stars, pips, stripes... all are indicators of the preparedness to impose the whims of political parasites. Thoreau had it right in Civil Disobedience, Book 1 Chapter 5: "The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt."
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Suverans2: "...I presume that that is a typo, Sam, and what you meant was "canon law".. As we've discussed in the past, I'm a classic case of mixed-up schoolmaster: On the one hand I'm technologically challenged (thankfully you patiently showed me enough about html, for instance, to get me by on that score); on the other I'm technologically dependent. I've picked up the sloppy mental habit of depending totally upon "spellcheck", and 3rd grade words elude me -- especially double "L" 's and "N" 's, etc. Sometimes the culprit is typo (although one skill I've retained is that of being a somewhat talented typist); but most often it is abject carelessness. If my computer doesn't "redline" a word as I type along, it stays -- right or wrong. In this case you are right about the word usage, except instead of "typo" it will have to stand as "carelessness", and I thank you for the gentle correction. Wait! Cannon | Define Cannon at Dictionary.com /ˈkænən/ Show Spelled [kan-uhn] Show IPA noun, plural can·nons, (especially collectively) can·non, verb. noun. 1. a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles; Perhaps when we're on the topic of the white man, cannon law is appropriate! Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 3 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    This stuff only surprises if one assumes cops and military are supposed to protect us. If one assumes they never were for protection, and they are supposed to keep their boot on our necks because that is what the rulers want, then there is nothing to be surprised about. It's expected behavior. Of course then one is left with the question, why put up with some guy's boot on one's neck?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    As always, you are more than welcome, my friend.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I presume that that is a typo, Sam, and what you meant was "canon law". "Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members." Frédéric's "ideas" are definitely not "canon law", that's fer sure. "Once my sons or daughters inherited this property s/he would need to "sign on" for whatever "declaration" had been jointly agreed to, as would the successors of the other signers." ~ Samarami I totally agree! "In any case I would insist upon an 'exit' clause wherein any signer could at any time elect to leave the group without repercussion." ~ Samarami As would I, dear friend, as would I. Neighborhood "defense forces" could and probably would attract these vultures, so you might as well plan your own defense strategy and leave groups out of the equation. ~ Samarami I understand[1]. _________________________________________________________________________ [1] "...the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-)." ~ Online Etymology Dictionary
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    One more comment at the risk of overindulgence: In this context, I particularly enjoy and belatedly thank you, Suverans2, for your previous references to The Lawful and the Legal, by Frank van Dun. It's easy to get ourselves drawn into the complications of "legality", when the lawful is where we need to be. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    As further clarification, based upon Bastiat's ideas (and they are HIS ideas -- not cannon law) I and a number of my neighbors could (legitimately) form a common defense force to protect our joint properties. Once my sons or daughters inherited this property s/he would need to "sign on" for whatever "declaration" had been jointly agreed to, as would the successors of the other signers. There are two cautions I would advance to this "group defense force": 1) There is always the tendency for individuals in groups to form sociopathic "cliques" which could sully the original common goals of protection from outside incursions. That's why I tend to resist partnerships and corporate agreements whenever practicable. In any case I would insist upon an "exit" clause wherein any signer could at any time elect to leave the group without repercussion. 2) Since the white man surrounding my properties (even though I live in what many deem a predominantly "black" neighborhood, for what that's worth) has naturally and predictably morphed into a militarized police state, I have no illusions they might and probably would descend upon me with swat-like forces beyond the capability of any neighborhood group defense force to hold at bay. They are known to shoot your dog and your kids if one of their "force" deems necessary -- without probable cause. Neighborhood "defense forces" could and probably would attract these vultures, so you might as well plan your own defense strategy and leave groups out of the equation. Just sayin' Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    From "What Is Law?" of Frédéric Bastiat's treatise: Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? I had no input to any "constitution", nor did I participate in a "declaration of independence", as put forth by any group, whether presuming to act in my behalf or for the benefit of others. Any statement or inference to the contrary is illusory. I can find no contradiction in Bastiat's above quoted text. I am a sovereign state. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Sounds good and reasonable to me. I would probably agree to such a document with the stipulation that at any time one goes afoul of it they would automatically be ejected from the agreement. I believe in the defense of myself, my wife, my children, grandchildren and others whos' lives are threatened with great bodily harm or the threat to kill.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    G'day Sam (and Glock27), Was Frédéric Bastiat correct when he made this statement? "If every man has the right [lawful authority] to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right [lawful authority] to organize [constitute] and support a common force to protect these rights [just claims] constantly. Thus the principle of collective right [lawful authority] - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right [lawful authority]. And the common force that protects this collective right [lawful authority] cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual [without just cause], then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups [without just cause]." ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat [Emphasis and bracketed information added] That would be called, I believe, a de jure government, a government of properly delegated authority. Would you say that such agreements are "illusory in nature"? What are your thoughts on this, Sam or Glock27?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Great. Thanks. The more I get the more I learn. I shall take this to heart as it seems to be founded upon sound logical principles. Just remember I am a new seed planted. If you use weed killer on me I shall die and never have the chance to bear fruit. Thanks!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Constitutions, declarations of "independence", Magna Carta type documents have been a dime a dozen in history all the way back to Attila the Hun and before. All are illusory in nature. They were in use long before a relatively recent bank robbery in Sweden gave rise to the term, "Stockholm Syndrome". which describes the conquerors' ability to lull the conquered into a state of servility and adulation toward "Our-Founding-Fathers" and the senators, legislators and presidents of the hour. Unlike earlier Barbaric hordes who raped and murdered all the inhabitants, later kings understood the value of keeping the conquered proletariat in place and producing -- a "tax base". Those kings became Our-Great-Leaders, and the serfs became Our-Great-Nation. Eventually the genius of "democracy" -- allowing certain of the conquered to join the ranks of the conquerors opened the door to vast empires. Then "elections" of sorts, sustaining the illusion of "participatory government". That's why, although a firm believer in "secession" -- or declaring oneself sovereign and free -- I'm not a proponent of emulating the white man's "documents". I don't need a formal declaration to be sovereign. I just need to quit whining and wringing my hands over "our leaders" and their proclivity to quash all the illusory "documents" to achieve their goals of robbing the conquered of all their production. I stay out of their line of fire whenever possible, and never voluntarily "file" any documents on their behalf. I may indeed live long enough to see vast numbers of my compatriots come to enlightenment in regards to their past slavery and to Abstain From Beans. That, my good friends, is "our" only hope. Meanwhile, I can be free. Yes, I can. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    mhstahl: "...a conceptual placeholder for incomprehensible behavior..." You did, in 5 or 6 words, what it took my friend Delmar England 24 pages of single-space small type to do. And I think your phrase sez it all! Sam
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 6 years 3 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    Yet, Sam, despite the apparent lack of human instinct, I'm often told that humans have an amorphous, yet universal, "nature". This "nature" is rhetorically used to explain wars, crime, government-and its supposed "need", economic forces, legal structure, alcoholism, flatulence, and possibly body odor; yet it is really nothing more than a conceptual placeholder for incomprehensible behavior. It is also a way of defraying blame for ugly acts-the species is at fault for war and violence, rather than individual actors. Perhaps, one day the mysticism will no longer be needed or wanted, rather like Zeus is no longer needed to explain lightening?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 3 weeks ago
    Kermit v. Chick-fil-A
    Web link mhstahl
    As I see it, this whole "Chick-fil-A "controversy" falls under what Daily Bell has been calling "dominant social theme" -- but in this case I suspect the result is totally opposite of its intended purpose. Chick-fil-A will enjoy a marvelous expansion of business thanks to media coverage of all this falderal. I, for one, will bike out at least once for lunch; and if I like eating there (even tho it's hardly kosher) I'll patronize them often if they build closer to where I live. I would use the term "ultra covert dominant social theme" when it comes to the whole sexual "orientation" phenomenon -- the idea that a homosexual is no more responsible for his or her sexual "orientation" than I am for my skin color or my genetics (or my sex for that matter). So the white man must enact a bunch of his famous "laws" to make certain everyone within what he claims to be his jurisdiction accepts that ridiculous equality premise without question. As an educator I've watched The-Theory-Of-Evolution (and its equally bizarre "Creationism" counter thesis) used to legitimize agents claiming to be "state" supplant the family as the cogent governing unit. The sexual "orientation" meme has fit nicely (albeit clumsily for anybody with at least 1/3 of a brain) into that agenda. The idea: Your children are now OUR children. You can go back hundreds of years in history to see the development of government ("public" ha ha) schools designed to make that condition unassailable in the minds of the unwashed masses. "Free" education. Yip-eee! But the "theory" leaves out obvious questions: sexuality being a minor one. Human kind is to be portrayed as "the highest form of the animal kingdom". But the human being does not fit into the animal kingdom. The human newborn is unique among living beings in that it is entirely dependent upon adult supervision and care for a number of years. Therefore, human parentage is the only viable governing system. The human being is not born with what "science" has come to identify as "instinct". There are many attempts to attribute certain human reflexes to "instinct", but in the end only animals are shown to have instinct. All human knowledge has to come from learning -- some from education by others, some from empirical experience. Human sexuality also flies in the face of the "theory of evolution". I could go into detail. But other than the male being fitted with a penis and the female with a uterus, there is no direct comparison. And don't go to "public" educators for answers beyond HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy prevention -- they'll show you videos of doggies and horsies "doin' it", and claim to have given you a good sex education when all they've accomplished is the same as all other political action: obfuscation. But it's all for a good cause: to teach you to love your country and to understand that this is a nation of laws and not men. Email me and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    And, please allow me to introduce you to someone who evidently disagrees with this statement, "At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content." "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Gilmer (c.1816) Thomas apparently believed that with a de jure government, lawful freedoms remain unabridged. This is so because lawful authority is "delegated" by the author(s), not "ceded[1]". To understand this better, let us take it to a smaller level. If a man, acting as SHERIFF, delegates some of his authority, (which authority, by the way was delegated to him by those choosing to pay for his services), to his DEPUTIES, has he "lost" any of his freedom to act as a SHERIFF? ______________________________________________________ [1] ...2. To relinquish and grant; as, to cede all claims to a disputed right... Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 3 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Nothing to forgive, Glock27. "As you are, I once was..." We push with statements, we lead with questions. That being true, here is my first question. You wrote: "When two or more people come together for for a united purpose there will be a formal or informal declaration on purpose. This declaration of purpose will result in some form of common agreement either understood, or written down. At that moment it becomes binding and freedoms are lost in the content." Even assuming that a "formal declaration" is "some form of common agreement", whom does it become "binding" on, the signatories[1], or their posterity? If you would prefer to discuss this privately, that is fine with me. ______________________________________________________ [1] signatory noun (plural) -ries a person who has signed a document such as a treaty or contract or an organization, state, etc, on whose behalf such a document has been signed