Recent comments

  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Have the Spooner you are refering to, just haven't gotten around to reading it. I am currently ploding my way through Henry Browne's book "How I Found Freedom in an unfree world"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Regardless of your answer to that question, you may find reading this "Classic by Lysander Spooner" enlightening. "What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be." (Excerpted from the above mentioned treatise.)
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 40 weeks ago
    Home News
    Web link Guest
    Great news! Now I'll be able to delete my bookmark for that truly awful website he currently writes for.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Generally speaking, most (wo-)men who don't believe that there is such a thing as the natural law (of mankind), believe that only laws made by humans are "real". And, generally speaking, (wo-)men who are agents, or informants, of man-made governments, MUST "believe that only laws made by men are 'real'". "Man or woman using the screen name, Glock27, are you an agent, or informant, of any man-made government?" Allow me to ask that same question of myself, that you may know there is no maliciousness intended by that question. "Man or woman using the screen name, Suverans2, are you an agent, or informant, of any man-made government?" "No, absolutely, positively not!"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    "Did someone just make it up, or find it in a dream or the cards, or is it that a divine creator set it in motion?" ~ Glock27 Actually, it might be said that it was "found" using not much more than common sense. "Natural law is that body of rules which Man is able to discover by the use of his reason." ~ Hugo Grotius Perhaps reading Introduction to Natural Law, by Murray M. Rothbard, will help, Glock27. "The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious." (Excerpted from said treatise.)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    It really sounds as if we are really no different. I deeply empathize with you and your situation. You just can't seem to stamp out human stupidity. You may know this already, but many years back the Mayor of Washington went to prison on drug related charges, got out, camb back, ran for Mayor again and won. What's that tell you about human nature. Hope all goes well for you and you don't get caught up in a bloody mess. Respectfully Glock27U.S.A.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Scott. That was a firecracker piece, or cherry bomb of a piece loaded with historical and current event. It was an interesting read, but like most of the stuff I read here one point always seems to be missed, overlooked, forgotten or ignored. What is a real viable and operable solution? I have no disagreement with what you have said here. It's great but it fails to produce a solution. Freedom and Liberty at this point in time is a myth. I really like Samirami. He seems to have it boiled down for himself. How he does it I have no idea, but still, even he offers no wholistic solution either. The only solution I see is a collective effort to agendize A,B,C,D, and etc, but once you collectivize then you have screwed yourself into something you originally had no interest in becoming. Just an observation from an "unwashed mass member" not criticism, just looking for answers.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Where exactly did natural law come from? Did someone just make it up, or find it in a dream or the cards, or is it that a divine creator set it in motion? As I see it, the bible is a work of history, politics, culture and stories to get a point across fact or fiction seems to make no difference as the truth will always be the truth regardless of how it is twisted, so exactly where did natural law come from? Anyone got an answer? I would appreciate some different perspective if it is available.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    My solution is I don't fly anymore, so I guess anything off the U.S. continent is severely restricted, or prohibited, but given my age I don't believe I shall miss much. Alynski, in "Rules for Radicals" has a possible solution to most political problems, it's exactly what [p]resident [o]bama is using in conjunction with directions from George Sorous. Some how I believe Sorous really wants to be a part of bring the U.S. down since he has collapsed three other countries. Sorry about the gin, guess you should have had a sticky note somewhere lol.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Serenity
    "The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray M. Rothbard
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    My condolences. I stopped flying as soon as they started restricting liquids in carry-on baggage. Ill be damned if I'll sit in a hot stuffy plane waiting for a stewardess to condescend to pass out a tiny cup of water. Also, the latest "security" procedures would, I think, cause me to lose my temper completely, which would subject me to charges that could lead to years in prison. Your bottle of gin is symbolic of liberty in America: gone without a trace at the hands of sanctimonious assholes.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    News flash -- the gateway myth of marijuana bit the dust a long, long time ago.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    If they did, Mark Davis, we would still be free to "rebut the presumption" that we are members, just as we are now.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    G'day Sam, A "sovereign state"? If you have a STATE's "...permits [and] licensing...", as you have just admitted, doesn't that mean you have "testified" that you are a citizen/subject of [a "(prep.) Denoting relation...belonging to, or connected with; as, men of Athens"] that STATE, and did you not have to use an IRS chattel number to obtain them? Requirements There are a few minimum requirements for becoming a licensed commercial driver in XXXX: You must be 18 years old or older. You will need to apply at an XXXX Department of Transportation driver's license site and supply documents proving your date of birth, your full name, and your Social Security number. Fill out the Certification for Commercial Driver's License form testifying that you are eligible for a CDL. If all the above is true, how is it that you are a "sovereign state", which is a state that is "not...subject to any other (or paramount) state in any respect"? Oh, and Sam, you ARE "free to run barefoot in the woods", just as you are free to choose whether or not to subject yourself to the dominion a STATE, which, in turn, is "controlled by a paramount government", itself.
  • tomcat's picture
    tomcat 5 years 40 weeks ago
    Lily-Pad Empire
    Web link Don Stacy
    "...For China and Russia in particular, ever more U.S. bases near their borders threaten to set off new cold wars..." For the Military-industrial complex this is not a threat, but the hope for a dream to come true. A Glazier walking around at night and throwing stones thru windows then going to bed and have a good sleep resting assured that the very next day his business will be booming.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    All true Suverans2, but the fact remains that churches do not act that way (at least until they too become theocratic states). That is churches make no such claims, presumptions or threats.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    OK, Suverans2, I think I get your picture -- and I suspect this ties in with Jim's thread questioning Tolstoy with anarchy. I am a sovereign state. That declaration is made sincerely, although facetiously at times to arouse the do-it-by-the-book types who seem to think one must make formal declarations of secession (in a state-prescribed manner) to in fact withdraw "citizenship" inflicted by the beast and become truly a sovereign individual. Anybody knows I avoid rules, protocol, policy, regulation, and terms defined by others. I manage to run a small truck business with its ancillary and aggravating permits, licensing, fuel tax reports, weight certifications, and endless inspections (all done by the girls in the office) that must be accomplished to satisfy the white man who claims to "own" and have authority over the highways and byways. And I don't plan to stop trucking just because said white man is a pernicious pain in the ass. Any more than I plan to stop walking in the woods because rattlers and ticks are pains in the ass. A doc in San Antonio once told me I'm now immune after surviving a grievous bite a long ways from help and the venom ran its course through me. But I still wear snake boots to the woods and look carefully before reaching. So in that sense you might accuse me of not being free -- I'm not free to run barefoot in the woods, and I have to take care of embedded ticks soon as possible. And the white man in all his vainglory will always be about -- for my own good, of course. Be free. This might be one of my last posts for quite a time. My internet connection severs today and I'm not replacing it on this old computer. If I buy a new one my kids will have to train me on how to get back online successfully. You've been my trainer on HTML, for which I thank you. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    G'day Sam, Sorry to take so long answering, but I just now read your reply. You asked, "Are you advocating a specific act of "filing" using those buzzards' forms or formats? At one of their bureaucratic compounds?" Not just, no, Sam, but, HELL NO!!! Here is what I wrote, in context. The STATE may claim, (i.e. those calling themselves "the STATE"), may presume, that one is a citizen, but only until the presumption is rebutted – according to their own law. Stabit praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium. A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved. Hob. 297. ~ Maxim of law from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1403 I was simply validating that even in their own law the presumption is destroyed when the contrary is proven. And, if the law provides no peaceful remedy, Sam, we are all wasting our time here; "pass the ammunition".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    G'day BHK, I agree with this, "...natural law...is a prescription for the individual to be truly joyful in any society, but thrive the most in a post-political one." The natural law (of the human world) is THE "cornerstone" for a "truly joyful...society". The cornerstone (or foundation stone) concept is derived from the first stone set in the construction of a masonry foundation, important since all other stones will be set in reference to this stone, thus determining the position of the entire structure. ~ WikiepediA
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Probably I'm a poor choice as a defender of the faith (where are all those earnest theologs when needed?) but with respect I think you're mistaken to say that one can "whittle down Jesus' word to the core message of loving your neighbor as yourself." That's a part of it, but (while I reject and disagree with the Christian religion) that would be a serious oversimplification, a misrepresentation. Let it be seen for what it is, by its own claims, and then accepted, rejected or otherwise critiqued. One can invent one's own religion, and specify where heaven is etc, but if one wants to find out what the Christian one says, one must take it as one finds it - in the New Testament as a whole, with context. As far as I'm familiar with it, I'd say the Nicene Creed is a fair summary of what one finds there. All of it, not just bits here and there; though a scrutiny of its text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed doesn't reveal any words about natural law and the kingdom of heaven being within one, etc. It speaks of a God who created everything, who became incarnate for the salvation of mankind, was killed but resurrected, and who will come again as a judge. These are all crisp and specific doctrines, which one must either accept (to be a Christian) or, like me, reject. Treating it as something different is not fair.
  • BHK's picture
    BHK 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Jim, I have never been a Christian, but I have studied alternative Christian doctrines among other doctrines because I grew up in a tradition where the spiritual and the intellectual are the same. I believe that when Jesus' word is whittled down to the core message of loving your neighbor as yourself, it is fully in line with natural law and is a prescription for the individual to be truly joyful in any society, but thrive the most in a post-political one. Tolstoy recognizes this in the Kingdom of God is Within You. Even the title alludes to heaven being a place that you already are, if you would just awake to it. In this sense, the teachings of Jesus are similar to that of Lao Tzu and Buddha. I don't know if Tolstoy dispensed with the parts of the gospels that didn't conform to his particular view of Jesus' teaching, but Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible that takes out much of the teachings of Jesus that contradict the core message of love and forgiveness. I think it's fair for us to do the same. It's the church that insists that we take it all as it was assembled, and calls it heresy when we call out the contradiction. Tolstoy also writes a great deal on the subject of collusion between church and state. Don't write him off just yet. He did, after all, inspire Gandhi to make his movement non-violent.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "...When you go into the voting booth, the only meaningful significance that your action will have is to show that one more person supports the state..." ~Mark Davis From Be Free, by Mark Davis July 10, 2005. http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html I'll stand with Mark and Wendy on this one. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    G'day Glock27, Write your comments out on MSWord, or OpenOfficeWriter (what I use), and when you are satisfied that you have it the way you want it, copy and paste it in the comment/reply box and "Publish comment". After it is posted it can be edited by clicking on the Edit tag at the bottom of your posted comment. Hope that helped.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Two times I have fucked this up and I aint going to go a third try. Fuck it!
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Homosapiens seek "government actions because they don't approve of what other people choose to do with their lives. They want to over rule the decisions others have made concerning the use of their own time and money" (How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, 'Speeding Up History", H.Browne, Kindle Edition 2012). Its a trap Harris has found himself in along with every other "don't", "won't", "will nots" and etc. Something for nothing is easier than having to exert effort to acquire what one desires, and as long as there are individuals who want to suck the nation dry, there is little chance of change occuring unless it is encouraged with violence, but there may be other ways if it can be discovered. I have a 35 year old son who refused to look for work until his extended unemployment benefits were concluded. You can't argue with his reasoning. "If they want to be stupid enough to pay me for not working then I won't. I'll screw them for every penny I can get". Mr. Harris will change Paul. He will change when this buearau of adjustment catches up with him, like when he seeks a doctor who will take medicare or medicade patients. Many are now refusing to either take on anymore or are dropping those they have plus there is an estimated 50,000 doctors closing up shop. Ouch! Even if you utilize another health care insurance you are still going to be hard pressed to find a doctor because they will be far and few between. Yes. The Give Me's will soon discover that their free lunch went out to lunch and won't be coming back anytime soon.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 40 weeks ago
    The Voting Franchise
    Web link Serenity
    So many people have an emotional attachment to voting because it provides a placebo effect that allow the voter to believe that they are "doing something"; full of good intentions, of course. At best, voting is a waste of time, but soothing emotional needs seems to be more important to many whom like to fashion themsleves as anarchists than remaining true to basic principles. Anybody that "does the math" and calculates how meaningless any vote is in the outcome of any election would realize that their particpation in this quasi-religious ritual is completely self-serving. The "gigantic Stockholm Syndrome" is an excellent analogy Sam.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    I commented there as follows: -------------------- This is one question I have real trouble with, and am still not sure what side I come down on. One thing though, I wish people would ease up on straw men. I see no arguments here for voting for run-of-the-mill politicians. This is not a discussion over the “choice” between Romney and Obama. The only dispute is over voting defensively. If you’ve admitted that voting against a tax hike is permissible, then you’ve admitted that voting for certain politicians is permissible. For example, say an anarchist runs for county sheriff. He promises never to do anything when in office. He is known as a man of his word. He writes up a contract for anyone who asks, allowing that person to sue him for damages if he ever acts as sheriff or arrests anyone. And just assume his opponent is Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Really, is the “legitimizing” argument so strong that this anarchist should not be voted for? The thing I worry about is that this position appears to cut off one of the most viable routes to liberty: the election of figureheads. A town full of anarchists may exist in a statist state if only the figureheads are there. Imagine Hardyville, or one of L. Neil Smith’s scenarios (where a gorilla was president). I am not talking about putting someone in power over others, or “hiring a hit man”; I am talking about preventing that from happening by voting for the figurehead. I know human beings prefer hard and fast rules like “don’t vote” at least in part because it frees them from having to exercise judgement. However, human interactions are not a matter of mathematics, of ones and zeros. The question of “legitimizing the state” – is that an absolute, or just one of several factors bearing on voting? It reminds me a bit of the arguments by some feminists that firearms should not be utilized because they are the “tools of the master.” I still don’t know where I come down on this, but thanks Wendy for bringing the subject up. It really needs discussion.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Spectator sports is a safe house for political left and political right. I abstain. Totally. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    ‘Electoral anarchist’ is oxymoronic, like "free country". Can't happen. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago
    The Voting Franchise
    Web link Serenity
    "...Another by-product of this development is the popular idea that somehow ‘states’ exist to serve ‘the people’..." I don't know exactly what "Force" it might be that allows one person to see a thing when thousands -- yea, millions -- around him or her simply cannot focus upon the obvious. But you and I have the "privilege" of living within a gigantic Stockholm Syndrome that we can't manage or control, but of which we can write and speak in such a manner that a few -- just a few at a time -- will turn around and grasp it. Some of them will indeed break free. "Democracy" is the genius that holds it together and creates the illusion of a "mandate" that the predators use to work their magic -- the fleecing of the flock. "...I believe everybody must pay his or her fair share..." Good work, Entito. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    There are, evidently, two kinds of anarchists, "An advocate of', [i.e. one who speaks, pleads, or argues against all forms of coercive control and authority, (i.e. government)] 'or a participant in anarchism"[1], [i.e. one who rejects of all forms of coercive control and authority, (i.e. government)]. The couch potato anarchists, the ones who only speak, plead or argue against government, but choose to remain citizen/subjects, still possess their membership right to vote; while those who are true anarchists, the ones who reject, [i.e. "refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of" (government)], are no longer members, i.e. citizen/subjects, and therefor no longer have the political right to vote. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added]
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "The chance of convincing someone like Harris to embrace libertarianism is nil." This is true. However that does not imply that convincing Harris to leave others alone is impossible.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Bumper, bless his heart, insists upon the use of the hazardous "we" word. ("Bless-his-heart" is a patronizing term from an old girl friend -- I couldn't resist using it in Hornberger's case). He might be "up against" this problem, you might be also. But increasingly, I'm not. If I were to encounter Brandon Harris I might politely encourage him to try using his own grit to abstain from excessive soda if that's a problem for him. And if the opening avails itself I'll explain that advocating the use of force towards everybody in the county or state is an act of violence. I don't know if I'll ever master the diplomacy or verbal skills of Mr. Davies, but I'm willing to give it a whirl. Hornberger: "This is the battle that we libertarians face in restoring a free society to our land". I'll agree it's a challenge. No doubt about that. I often feel privileged to be living my life through an era that I'm convinced will produce an end to the all pervasive statist attitude that has become a huge, cancerous barnacle -- and to know that I have perhaps a small part in bringing that end into fruition. But if you are free it is because you want to be free. I enjoy being friends with people who love liberty and freedom -- nonconformists all. I know better, however, than to think I (or "we") can restore freedom to society. I'm all we got, folks. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Perhaps it's age (I'm old). Maybe it's that I see things that nobody else on earth sees (I'm vain). Possibly it's that I simply cannot comprehend what's going around around me (I'm dense). But there are mornings I log into places like STR, shake my head in amazement. I've gotten to where I don't even go to the Lew Rockwell page any more, and that used to be my first stop (sometimes taking all morning). What's all this whining and hand-wringing? Thomas Pynchon is obviously correct as you've quoted, Dennis: "...If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers..." My observation is that even hard-crusted libertarians fall victim to granting legitimacy to state -- if "those in charge... (often it will be stated in the statist mindset: "TPTB = the-powers-that-be") ...would just straighten their acts out!" Lysander Spooner had the U.S. "Constitution" pegged over 150 years ago for pity sake! Our friend Jim Davies summed the situation up succinctly several years ago (I can't at this moment find a workable link to the original essay, but here's Jim's observation): "...No government anywhere, at any time, has ever brought net benefit to any society, and there is no desirable function that any government performs that could not be performed better, or less expensively, by free people operating on a voluntary basis for profit or for charity..." In my dotage I tend to want to jump urgently to the bottom line and skip all the wailing and gnashing of teeth: ABSTAIN FROM BEANS! Seems at times this is our only viable message. Sam
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    The article centers around the question "What part of “illegal” do you not understand?" and as such is pretty good. I even have that question embodied in a CARTOON at - tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS What the article does NOT address is THIS ANSWER to that question...: "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional! That means that all those "laws" are ILLEGAL!" The ONLY things that are "illegal" about immigration and drugs are the Federal government "laws", rules, regulations and actions! tinyurl.com/ILLEGAL-LAWS [2007-06-10] "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" (And so is Drug control!) * REALLY! Its TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT authorize immigration control! * P.S., that goes for EXIT control & DRUG control also!! * "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." - U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    I'm aware this argument is going to come across as "mini-statish", but I'll try to rectify that on down the line. And I'm taking into consideration where you quote Badnarik's "stand your ground" mantra and appreciate the valor of one who will stand up against all odds. Your statement: "...And, using violence to enforce a claim does not validate, or sanction, the claim – again, not even in their own law..." Using a biker analogy: I hear bikers chant about "bikers' rights". I tell 'em it ain't gonna matter about laws or "rights" or city or state ordinances or anything else -- some of those dung-heads are not going to see you. So if you're not careful and out of their way and lit up like a firetruck, you're going to get hit, and if you get hit it's likely you will not survive, and a dead biker has no "rights". You know and I know that vultures claiming to be "state" are past-masters at circumventing "..their own law.." Beclouding, dissimulation, and obfuscation are their stocks-in-trade: assassinations, incarcerations without trial or habeus corpus, tax "fines" -- not a problem for predators of "government". And it ain't gettin' any better as time develops. "...The STATE may claim, (i.e. those calling themselves "the STATE"), may presume, that one is a citizen, but only until the presumption is rebutted – according to their own law..." (emphasis mine -sam) Are you advocating a specific act of "filing" using those buzzards' forms or formats? At one of their bureaucratic compounds? Sam
  • Moorlock's picture
    Moorlock 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    War & Peace was written before Tolstoy became an anarchist, I believe. It was written in the 60s, and his anarchist writing mostly dates from the 90s and 00s. You can see some hints of his emerging philosophy in War & Peace, but don't expect to see mature anarchism there -- see: http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index5.php?entry=25Sep10 "The Kingdom of God Is Within You" is probably his most completely thought-out (and most influential) work of Christian anarchism -- see http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index5.php?entry=13Sep10 But see also: * "Letter to the Liberals" http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=l2l * "Letter to Eugen Heinrich Schmitt" http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=ltehs * "'Carthago Delenda Est'" http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=cde * "Patriotism and Government" http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=pag * "'Thou Shalt Not Kill'" http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=tsnk * "The Only Means" http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=tom
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    “...he made an incestuous nomad the wellspring of the Master Race (Avram and Sarai were half-siblings)” ~ GeoffreyTransom A common misconception, particularly by those who desire to discredit the BIBLE. ;) Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife... For those who don't know it, Terah is Abram's (Abraham) father, but as you can see from that he is not Sari's (Sarah) father; he is her father-in-law. Genesis 12:11 And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13 Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister [lie for me]: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. 14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. And, wouldn't you just know it, the same exact thing happened to Isaac and Rebekah and Abimelech king of the Philistines. But here the ruse is made much clearer. Genesis 27:7 And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me...because she was fair to look upon. 29 And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest [for fear that] I die for her. Basically, both Abraham/Abram and Isaac lied, and threw their wives to the sharks, just to protect their own sorry asses, and for profit of course (See Genesis 12:16), we mustn't ever forget the profit motive with these so-called "chosen people". And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. Well, sort of. Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Thanks DarkCrusade. Seems I have some more Tolstoy to read! Meanwhile, a response to what you wrote. Any idea for terminating government is worth considering. This one, however, seems at first sight to have trouble with the whistle test. You say "Christianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it was understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that Christ was crucified." I'm an ex-Christian, and with due respect I'd say that that is simply not true. Jesus' crucifixion had no such cause. In Christian theology, he died to bear the sins of the world, as a sacrificial lamb. The "true sense" of Christianity is well summarized in the Nicene Creed, which I think is accepted by every denomination, albeit sometimes in slightly different words, and that's how the crucifixion is treated there. At its "very commencement" there was, as far as I remember, never any call for the State to be abolished, by Jesus or any of his disciples. At that highly critical moment when he stood before Pilate, the Governor reminded Jesus that he held his life in his hands, saying "Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?" (John 19:10, KJV) and his astonishing and courageous reply was "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." In those few words he turned Pilate's boast on its head by saying in effect that he had only to snap his fingers and the entire Roman empire would crash and burn. God, in other words, either created or permitted that government to exist, moment by moment; and so was responsible for all the evil it wrought. God/Jesus is King of Kings, and yet is an anarchist? - my contradiction-detector is red-lining. Subsidiary to that, I can think of a long history of willing cooperation and synergy between governments and the _followers_ of Jesus, over two thousand years; but not a single case in which any of them got together and made a significant dent in the myth that government is good and necessary. Can you? And lastly I have trouble, alas, with your suggestion to "destroy [government] and replac[e] it by Christianity." Amen to the first, but what exactly is this "replacement"? Who performs the transplant? What would he do with me, an atheist who wants no truck with either myth? Would I be strapped on an Inquisition-style rack and given some attitude adjustment?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Sir William, I'm flattered to have found favor in the eyes of a genuine K! Thank you. Good question. Always, that difficulty exists: if one speaks one's mind, will fewer people listen? Perhaps the best answer is to mull the matter over until the mind is really clear, then speak it out plainly; with luck it will then be so compelling that critics have to admit it's good. Ayn Rand did that, didn't she? (She wasn't always right, but that's another matter.) Eventually she got published, as an unknown author, because what she wrote was powerful - and radically unconventional. I got the same impression about Tolstoy. He said what he wanted to say; for example he ridiculed the Tsar by saying Alexander had NOT designed the successful withdrawal strategy in 1812, which mid-Century Russians would see as heroic. One doesn't make friends and influence people by belittling a popular monarch - not normally. But because his novel was so good, it succeeded anyway. Another example: as in my article, he reasoned that government power was a meaningless term; not quite right, but surely a very red flag to the publishers and censors. So if he had clearly conveyed the message that the problem is the State itself, not just some particular mistakes the Russian State was making, it seems arguable that he'd still have been published as a brilliant novelist. Thanks for recommending The Resurrection. There are some rainy days left still, so I'll download and read it.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Thatr's a very interesting excerpt, DarkCrusade - it's quite stunning to see a 'proper' intellectual writing "it was for that cause that [Yehoshuah ben Yusuf] was crucified." Folks like me have always understood that the rebellion advocated by the anti-Roman revolutionary that we now call 'Jesus' was a specifically political act, which is why it received the standard Roman punishment for anti-State activities (and why his follwers were referred to as "lestai"). If the 'cohort' required to apprehend him and his mates was a standard σπειραν ("speira" - the original word used in John 18, Mark 15 and Matthew 27), it was very specifically the tenth part of a legion, i.e., 600 legionnaires or 1000 auxiliaries - that represents a very large manpower requirement for a peacenik. I've written here and elsewhere that I have no truck with idiots who believe that there's an invisible wizard in the sky who can create 100 quintillion stars in one days, but must be propitiated with foreskin and blood and burnt offal... in exchange for which he made an incestuous nomad the wellspring of the Master Race (Avram and Sarai were half-siblings) . That said, I have little doubt that a whole bunch of would-be leaders got nailed to a big lump of wood for agitating against Rome and its quislings during their (failed, eventually) occupation of Judea. The propaganda that one or other of Rome's victims used to try to gain political traction is of marginal interest in that it resulted in 2 millennia of paedophiles living in palaces funded by superstition and greed... thankfully that's finished now. And as we threw off Church hegemony over the course of the last 300 years, so we will throw off State hegemony over the next 50.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 5 years 40 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    A pretty good piece, but I take exception to this: "...governments make plans, and calculate likely gains and losses, and make war only if the former greatly exceed the latter." Here's the thing: governments may well make these plans (effectively, undertaking a war on the basis of cost-benefit analysis) but the costs are borne by the tax base and the benefits accrue to the government (more power) and cronies (tax pelf, and prime claims over the resources of the vanquished in the event of victory: that is, extraction rights to captured resources accrued NOT to the 'victor nation', but to cronies of the State). It is this 'tax-subvention' of private (crony) profit that tilts the benefit-cost analysis in favour of war; even for small wars with clearly negative net-benefit on a 'like for like' basis (assuming captured territory was exploited by the taxpayers who funded the invasion), the cost-benefit analytics tilt due to the fact that those who reap the benefit are not the same as those who pay the costs (and those who reap the benefit have a much MUCH larger weight in political-parasites' own private utility analysis). So here's the thing: if a war will (a) increase the penetration of state power in the 'belligerent' nation; (b) enable large wodges of taxes to be transferred to cronies; (c) result in little or no damage to "Das Vaterland' (i.e., little direct experiental cost from the war); and (d) can be 'spun' by a State-dominated (if not State-owned) media... Well, that war is going to happen ,bitchez! It is abundantly clear (at least, since the FRENCH experience in Viet Nam and/or Algeria) that it is not possible to run a war at a profit on a 'like for like' basis except if there is a "France v the Mamelukes" level of technological asymmetry: if your opponent has weaponry any greater than pointed sticks, you'll face a guerilla situation for a generation and leave with your tail between your legs. Perhaps a better example is Auckland's Folly in Afghanistan of 1839-42 (where the sejail and mounted riflemen were the modern equivalent of the Parthian light cavalry at Carrhae) - although the Maori Wars are possibly a better example, since initially the Maori had no advantage other than knowledge of terrain (but they acquired technological parity with the English very quickly). It's also not a satisfactory answer to say "the political class never learn" - that they simply keep repeating the 'mistakes' of their forebears. This is a 'rookie error' wherein the observer assumes that the objective was a decisive military victory... whereas the aim of war is always - **ALWAYS** - the transfer of massive amounts of public money to politically-connected vermin. A stalemate does a far better job of transferring money than a successful 'blitzkreig'. I tried to write down the actual optiminsation problem for the political class - maximise the value transferred to cronies, subject to ... subject to what? What is the constraint? It's not "the tax-base's capacity to pay" - plainly, since governments always use DEBT to fund war. Even "a debt/GDP ratio consistent with manageable debt-servicing" can't be the constraint... again, .gov has shown itself willing to bankrupt the public coffers in order to get the wealth-transfer done, driving debt/GDP to levels where 100bps uptick in debt servicing costs will cripple the public finances in perpetuity (e.g., Italy). As to the "meat and pertaters" of the piece, it seems obvious to me that since Tolstoy was already a public figure by the time War and Peace was written (being a minor scion of an aristocratic family, and 41 when W&P was published), he would have come under scrutiny by the Tsar's secret police had he been openly anarchistic; this (again, to my way of thinking) is the very obvious reason why he made his anti-State comments **in France** and not in his home country. As he aged, he was more and more supportive of anarchist works, taking significant personal risks to publish and circulate works by Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon - and his "Letter to a Hindoo" and "What Then Must We Do" are replete with anti-State themes.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Hi Rev, Great reply. Respecting Private property, life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. It would seem as if some "Skexes" in [Warshington] wants usens to move out and let some others more vulnerable come in to control seein as they kan't yet get full control of us. I think they are on their way with the U.N. and the Small Arms Trade Treaty. Once they got r guns we is finished. NOTE: This is merely an observation not an argument or debate.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 40 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    Hi Sam, Great remark "Slave-speak". When you are told something over and over and over, you soon begin to believe what is said about you. This could very well be the beginning of a true seperation, a step that could very well be the first step of a 10,000 mile journey. "Slave-Speak"! P.S. Still working on Harry Browne
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 41 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    G'day Mark Davis, The STATE may claim, (i.e. those calling themselves "the STATE"), may presume, that one is a citizen, but only until the presumption is rebutted – according to their own law. Stabit praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium. A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved. Hob. 297. ~ Maxim of law from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1403 And, using violence to enforce a claim does not validate, or sanction, the claim – again, not even in their own law. Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. ~ Maxim of law from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 36 Those would have been handy excuses for me to say, "I didn't choose to become a member of the STATE", but unfortunately the truth of the matter was that I could choose to "withdraw from membership" in the STATE, which is what I have done. But I am not an "anarchist", I am simply self-governing, and my law is the law of nature, the natural law of the human world. "Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account." ~ Walter Block Yes, Mark, the agents of the STATE may taze me, beat me, torture me, incarcerate me, and, perhaps, even murder me, but they cannot ever honestly say that I consented to be a member of their gang. "Sooner or later you’ve got to stand your ground whether anybody else does or not. That is what liberty is all about." ~ Michael Badnarik I DO NOT CONSENT!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 41 weeks ago Web link Serenity
    "...It was pointed out to me as an incremental improvement to progress to "Sovereign Individual". There REALLY is no "sovereign state", it is just a We-ism. Hah! I am explicitly working on removing ALL slave-speak from my communication and relationships..." I actually agree with your assessment that "sovereign state" is oxymoronic. As stated earlier, I often use the self-epithet to raise the ire of quasi-libertarians ("in theory only" types). And for some reason I perceive the use of "sovereign individual" (which, I'll readily agree, is what I'm saying truth-be-known) as sort-of kind-of aligning myself with some movement. I belong to no "movements". Movements get one singled out by statists and their followers, and are dangerous. Stay away from movements. "...I am explicitly working on removing ALL slave-speak from my communication and relationships..." You and I are together on this undertaking. It sometimes seems cumbersome, but I will always try to say, "agents of government" or "state parasites" in the place of "government" or "state". Delmar England insists that reification bestows upon abstract terms such as "country" the status in the speaker or writer's mind of living, breathing, godlike beings to which one must be subservient. I agree with Mr England on this. He uses as an example often-heard statements like, "...the state always initiates force..." as being slave-speak. The state is the initiation of force. It is governmentalists who believe they have the authority of "state" who will always initiate violence. I remain a sovereign state. But I initiate no violence by overt or covert action. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 41 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    http://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/resurrection/
  • Sir William Blackstone's picture
    Sir William Bla... 5 years 41 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Very nice Jim. I'm a bit of a fan of Tolstoy, mainly for his incredibly accurate interpretation human nature. Here's a question though, if War and Peace or Anna Karenina had been strongly anarchistic, would these books be popular or considered brilliant by the mainstream? It's exactly because they are less political and less extreme that they end up being so popular. He did however write a work which is today extremely obscure. It's called The Ressurection, and that deals mainly with government. That book is quite anarchistic, and explained the non-aggression principle long before any of us were born. It's one of my favorite books, and if you want to know Tolstoy's thoughts on government, that's the book to read.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 41 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Perhaps you were looking for this Jim> http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/mb?a=listis;c=1702272497 ''EVIL CANNOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF THE GOVERNMENT--THE MORAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY IS BROUGHT ABOUT NOT ONLY BY INDIVIDUAL RECOGNITION OF TRUTH, BUT ALSO THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC OPINION. Christianity in its true sense puts an end to government. So it was understood at its very commencement; it was for that cause that Christ was crucified. So it has always been understood by people who were not under the necessity of justifying a Christian government. Only from the time that the heads of government assumed an external and nominal Christianity, men began to invent all the impossible, cunningly devised theories by means of which Christianity can be reconciled with government. But no honest and serious-minded man of our day can help seeing the incompatibility of true Christianity--the doctrine of meekness, forgiveness of injuries, and love--with government, with its pomp, acts of violence, executions, and wars. The profession of true Christianity not only excludes the possibility of recognizing government, but even destroys its very foundations. But if it is so, and we are right in saying that Christianity is incompatible with government, then the question naturally presents itself: which is more necessary to the good of humanity, in which way is men's happiness best to be secured, by maintaining the organization of government or by destroying it and replacing it by Christianity? Some people maintain that government is more necessary for humanity, that the destruction of the state organization would involve the destruction of all that humanity has gained, that the state has been and still is the only form in which humanity can develop. The evil which we see among peoples living under a government organization they attribute not to that type of society, but to its abuses, which, they say, can be corrected without destroying it, and thus humanity, without discarding the state organization, can develop and attain a high degree of happiness. And men of this way of thinking bring forward in support of their views arguments which they think irrefutable drawn from history, philosophy, and even religion. But there are men who hold on the contrary that, as there was a time when humanity lived without government, such an organization is temporary, and that a time must come when men need a new organization, and that that time has come now. And men of this way of thinking also bring forward in support of their views arguments which they think irrefutable from philosophy, history, and religion. Volumes may be written in defense of the former view (and volumes indeed have long ago been written and more will still be written on that side), but much also can be written against it (and much also, and most brilliantly, has been written--though more recently --on this side). ''
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 41 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    That was an enjoyable read Jim, thanks. The difference, Suverans2, is that the state will claim a person in their "jurisdiction" is a citizen without asking the person and also use violence to enforce that claim. An atheist would not choose to become a member of a church nor would a church make a claim backed by violence to be a member on the person of anybody, much less an atheist. Unless, of course, the church has become a state.