Recent comments

  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    JH: "What would happen if all of the government operations...that regulate peaceful behavior were abolished?" Then we wouldn't have agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) We wouldn't have the big-government Land enTITLEment program that creates artificial borders to restrict the free movement of Non-State society families "gamboling about plain and forest" (Manning, 2004) to forage for food. We wouldn't have psychopathic city-Statists like Ayn Rand bloviating at a US Military Academy how it's ok to commit genocide on a whole continent of Non-State families living without political leaders and hierarchy and bosses. We wouldn't have illegitimate privation property "rights" that rely on city-Statist violence. We wouldn't have "libertarians" and oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalists" meticulously whitewashing how much violence is necessary to enforce totalitarian agriculture's privation property. We wouldn't have babies born in industrialized institutions bonding to material objects (e.g., a "security blanket"), instead of bonding to people, who then become greedy mercenaries who are never satisfied by even "unlimited wealth." We would no longer feel that "Encounters with people are causes of severe, unbroken, unrelenting stress, and that stress finds its only reduction through contact with material objects." (Pearce, 1980) We wouldn't find life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," either. That is a city-Statist apology for the benevolence of the glorious city-State. The last several decades of anthropology and archeology have debunked that city-Statist lie. It would be the "Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972) "The life of an Indian is a continual holiday." ~Thomas Paine It would be party time.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Many are coming around... Ron Dominates the Debate Posted on December 16, 2011 by Lew Rockwell http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/12/ron-dominates-the-de...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value --- zero." Voltaire (1694-1778) And so...The Best Bitcoin radio ad yet-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV9ptoCMyc&feature=player_embedded So too will follow economic solutions to other pollutions..
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Here's what an economic miracle looks like: October 14, 2009, the 30th annual awards ceremony of the W. Eugene Smith Memorial Fund took place at the Asia Society in New York City. Lu Guang (卢广) from People’s Republic of China won the $30,000 W. Eugene Smith Grant in Humanistic Photography for his documentary project “Pollution in China"... Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China October 21st, 2009 http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    That is a misreading of the text - the government has the power to exercise exclusive legislation etc ONLY IN the District of Columbia.... as is made clear by the phrase immediately following: "over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States" I'm no fan of either the Constitution or the US government (and I want Hamilton's body exhumed and burned, and the ashes mixed with piss and ochre and used to daub graffiti on Lincoln's memorial), but we do not advance the ball my mischaracterising elements of the now-dead Constitution. As with a lot of countries with codified constitutions, it is the COMMERCE power that is used as the 'catch all' to expand tyranny. And that's certainly the case in the US: so much so that recent decisions have hinged on the court's opinion that the state may penalise acts that do NOT cross interstate boundaries, if the activity can be seen to impinge INDIRECTLY on interstate commerce (although case law on indirect effects has been abundant prior to recent decisions). And for example, the Gonzales v Raich decision (about HOME GROWN marijuana in states with medical marijuana laws) makes it clear that in the opinions of the robed charlatans, the activity does not even have to be commercial in nature - the significant part of the ratio decidendi was that the output of home-grown pot MIGHT at SOME FUTURE DATE be used in (black) market activity. On that basis, they can legislate against home grown vegetables, even if you never sell a single one... because one day you MIGHT. At bottom, we are on the same page: Constitutions, as Spooner famously pointed out, are contracts entered into without the consent of the overwhelming majority of the contractees, and claim to bind in perpetuity those who are not yet born (much as Tom Paine complained about the Act declaring perpetual loyalty of the British people to William and Mary). They are always formulated in order to give a veneer of respectability to the rule of the masses by a narrow clique; from there the judiciary is populated with 'like minds' (be they Democractic or Republican, they still believe in the right of the State to wield its power expansively) and ANY rights asserted by the polity are parsed as narrowly as possible. We know this - and it serves little to make logical errors by mir-parsing one phrase (which specifically concerns the District of Columbia), except to the extent that I guess the robed charlatans may bring 'indirect; reasoning into the arsenal of tyranny. I would not put it past the likes of Scalia, Alito, Roberts and the rest of them... there is a track record of the court helping stretch the sphincter of liberty, going even farther back than that paragon of jurisprudence - Oliver Wendell "Sterilise the Feeble-Minded" Holmes and his 1927 decision in the Buck case.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    China’s Black Market City Welcome to Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and people are busy creating their own economic miracle. The Wenzhou Model Foreign businessmen, politicians, and journalists who fly into Beijing or Shanghai often get the impression that the Chinese government is the main driver behind the jaw-dropping development of what was until recently one of the worst large economies in the world. In Shanghai you fly to a state-built airport, ride on a state-built maglev train through the Pudong district, and behold a city of skyscrapers that appeared out of nowhere a little more than a decade ago with the help of generous government subsidies and investment from state-owned enterprises. Whatever local company you’re interested in, chances are the government is interested in it as well. In southern China, things look rather different. The Chinese say that in this region “the mountains are high and the emperor is far away”—in other words, the government isn’t paying much attention. Companies are mainly small or medium-sized enterprises, government services are slight, and laws are routinely ignored. According to official statistics, the three southern coastal provinces of Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Fujian have the first, second, and fourth wealthiest citizens, respectively, in the country. They are the center of China’s export sector and the primary destination for China’s millions of internal economic migrants. Here is where the real Chinese miracle is happening. The city and region of Wenzhou play an important role in this story. The Wenzhounese have a reputation for both an uncanny sense of business and an almost pathological disregard for the government. The mountains here are no metaphor: Seventy-eight percent of the Wenzhou prefecture is covered by mountains, a fact that proved pivotal to the area’s early development and the central government’s response to it. In 1978, when China’s economic reforms were just being launched, Wenzhou was extremely poor, about 90 percent rural, with smaller land allocations than other areas and poor connections to larger markets. Even today, the vast majority of local entrepreneurs have less than eight years of formal education, and the current population of foreigners is estimated at only a couple of hundred. The Wenzhounese government received directives from Beijing but found that without accompanying support they lacked resources to run the economy by diktat. Fortunately, a central government that wasn’t offering much support also wasn’t paying much attention. So private citizens quietly took over many of the services that elsewhere are either provided or heavily regulated by the state. Local authorities, lacking other options, didn’t try to stop them. The most important development in those early days was the city’s flourishing underground financial system, which according to the local branch of the People’s Bank of China (China’s central bank) currently is used by 89 percent of Wenzhounese private citizens and 57 percent of local companies. More dramatically, private citizens were the first to connect Wenzhou to neighboring regions by building roads, bridges, and highways, as well as the city’s airports and substantial portions of the dock. Even today the city is scattered with infrastructure investment firms through which groups of businessmen pool money to build the transport routes they all need to get their goods from factory to the point of sale. The result is not pretty. Aside from the confusion faced even by residents driving into the city, it is not uncommon to see sidewalks torn up to insert piping, with seemingly no intention of replacing the concrete. Nevertheless, the system is crudely efficient, merchants can all easily access factories, and the factories in this geographically isolated city now have sales networks that span the globe. The government’s indifference didn’t last forever. But when the authorities got around to paying attention, they decided not to mess with a good thing. http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/15/chinas-black-market-city
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    As tzo's breathing becomes regular and the rapid eye movement phase of sleep sets in, the falling green glyphs of his dreams begin to coalesce into a stunningly beautiful panorama. Without having to be told, tzo automatically recognizes the world he sees as being the politico-philosophical landscape. From his vantage point atop a glorious citadel on the fair continent of market anarchism, he can see across the ocean to the savage continent of primitivist anarchism, where pale natives frolic freely in the lush forests and trolls gambol across the endless plains. Suddenly, tzo's attention is directed to a small island floating in the seas between the two landmasses. This island, (a seastead actually, though the forest gardens growing on it make it seem like a natural island,) tzo intuitively recognizes as being the island of eco-agorism, (part of the broader archipelago of green libertarianism,) and from it he hears a faint song. The song seems to grow louder, and the music vibrates tzo's energy body, starting with 132 hertz at his root chakra, and moving slowly up his spine through sacral, solar plexus, heart, throat, third-eye, and finally crown, accumulating higher frequencies in layers as the cosmic strings play their soulful melody. As the song reaches its climax, and every quantum wavicle that constitutes tzo's energy body is vibrating in harmony with the sacred geometry of the universe, right at the peak where the metaphorical air is almost too thin to breathe, and tzo's consciousness blinks in and out of existence, between unity and void, beyond the 1s and 0s that make up the matrix, he suddenly awakens, perhaps enlightened, but in any case, prepared to face the white indian and continue their pow wow, now convinced of the terrible importance of such diplomacy.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "...the primal rights pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently to their recognition by positive law". ~ A Dictionary of Law (Henry Campbell Black's first edition, c.1891), page 1044 [Emphasis added] PRI'MAL, a. [See Prime.] First. [Not in use.] ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Man's "primal rights" are his "First" rights, i.e. his innate, or natural, rights. They are "Prime", that is to say, they are "paramount", they "take precedence or priority of", and they "outrank" all other "claims". PRIME. To stand first or paramount; to take precedence or priority of; to outrank. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1191 And, as we all should know, that which "stands first", is "best", in the law. Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Maxim of Law, Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary So, why do most (wo)men settle for the lesser man-made legal rights? Because they want the "carrot at the end of the stick" held by their self-proclaimed masters[1]; they want, what they perceive to be, the benefits and privileges offered in exchange for their natural liberty[2]; they want a "parent" (parens patriae) to feed, clothe, medicate and protect them, so that they don't have to take responsibility for their own life. Then, like the "spoiled brats" that they are, they have the audacity to complain because they don't like the food they're being forced to eat, they don't like the clothing they are forced to wear, they don't like the medications they're forced to take, and they don't like the protection that is forced upon them. Some children just aren't happy no matter how much their "parent" does for them. ____________________________________________________________ [1] "The kings of the earth set themselves..." ~ Psalm 2:2 (KJV) [2] Natural liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men. Buriamaqui, c. 3, § 15; 1 Bl. Comm. 125 ~ A Dictionary of the Law (c. 1891), pg. 716
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I agree 100% with your statement: "The ruling class has been trying its best to dumb the rest of us down for the last hundred years ... we are all the victims of predation by the parasitic class." The anthropological term for them is "big men" in the early days of domestication, or "emergent elite."* Besides plants and animals, humans are too deliberately domesticated. In fact, just like what happens to other animals, human brain size gets smaller.** Domestication makes animals stupid. Why? Only the stupid are docile enough to live in a zoo cage and actually be able breed. The Wild is deliberately culled. Yet there are still some of us (often with ADHD) who feel like "hunters in a farmer's world." It's time to re-Wild. It's time to start being Wolves instead of Poodles. _________________________ * Thesis #10: Emergent elites led the Agricultural Revolution. by Jason Godesky | 11 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/ ** Wolves & Dogs by Jason Godesky | 13 November 2006 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2006/11/wolves-dogs/index.html
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Nope I dont understand those arguments, I understand what I write about and learn as I go regarding the other things. Much of my life is spent training, educating myself and pushing to be a better (blank blank) than others. AS a result I honestly do not often really delve into the minutia that is the argument between one form of something and another. :)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Agriculture does create lots of people, on purpose, because a large population is needed for cannon-fodder and a labor pool for the nobility and capitalists to use. The hierarchy-bribed cornucopian Julian Simon ironically called you "The Ultimate Resource." Smile and say "moo," human resource #6,981,526,096. Hope ya live close enough to the center of empire to not starve if they don't find you useful.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Gambol Lockdown already violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Privation property, or big-government Land enTITLEment from the Land Office (or county recorder these days,) is nothing more than a totalitarian regulatory program to restrict the free movement of Non-State societies and to violently disestablish Non-State people from their lifeways. It took an 8000 year long Trail of Tears to establish global Gambol Lockdown, and daily threats of violence to enforce Gambol Lockdown. Most libertarians whitewash such aggression and threats thereof by calling it their "right." As Dr. Ralph Borsodi states in his 1929 volume This Ugly Civilization: "Our system of private property in land FORCES landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not. wherever access to land is free, men work only to provide what they actually need or desire. Wherever the white man has come in contact with savage cultures this fact becomes apparent. There is for savages in their native state no such sharp distinction between "work" and "not working" as clocks and factory whistles have accustomed the white man to accept. They cannot be made to work regularly at repetitive tasks in which they have no direct interest except by some sort of duress. Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of DURESS. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are IN EFFECT STARVED into working for him and into working as he directs." Daniel Quinn notes too how people are forced by starvation into working for the system. "You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work?" And the funny thing is, divinely-derived Lockesian property rights (have you read his On Property?) are about as valid as the divine right of kings. They rely on the following make-believe hierarchy, even if modern day libertarianism waters it down to a more secular version, and attenuated the sexism: GOD ("...those grants God made of the world to Adam..." ~John Locke) MAN (everything else below is property) WOMAN (submits to husband) ANIMALS (submit to husbandry) NATURE (valuable only if used-up by the hierarchy) I suppose now you're going to give me the "mixed labor" and "homestead" arguments, but before the plow came the sword (they're both closely related tools of domination.) Every time agriculture invades and occupies, there is another trail of tears and a mountain of skulls. And the taking is still today enforced by the sword, no matter if you call it a property right, and intone all kinds of Austrian word magic to whitewash the aggression.
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    I guess I dont understand what this has to do with now? Unless we violate the NAP how would we ever get back to our aboriginal ancestry, and besides, why would anyone willingly or gladly embrace that idea? Its not easy living completely off the land, having done it in small portions over much of my life thanks to a paranoid prepper father and other influences I can say that if I can avoid it I will. Ridding ourselves of the false notions encompassed and espoused by the supporters of the Constitution and our current Government does not automatically mean we will go back to pre-speaking society, in fact I would expect that we would have a relatively small "hitch" in our progress forward, which would increase rapidly. Regardless thanks for the comments, though again I have no idea what they have to do with the article.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    That book of Gatto's I quoted from, his "Underground History...", (available there online) is one of the most important books I've read. This brings up another thought about this meme. The ruling class has been trying its best to dumb the rest of us down for the last hundred years, very similar to the previous practice of keeping books out of the hands of slaves. In other words, we are all the victims of predation by the parasitic class. Looking down on such victims is a bit like sneering at someone confined to a wheelchair.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    "Agriculture creates government." Maybe so, maybe so. At any rate, agriculture creates lots of people, and concentrations of people appear to result in government. At least so far. I'm just wondering what WhiteIndian proposes to do with all the extra people who can't be supported by his pre-agricultural society. And with all the people who don't want to wear animal skins and live in 6x6 foot huts with dirt floors.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Have fun your "act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment." (from John Galt's speech) The only rationally-integrated, non-contradictory, evidence-based Non-State voluntaryist is a primitivist, or anarcho-primitivist. "Voluntary City-Statism (civilization,") is an oxymoron (Rand was correct on that, even if many of her premises are debunked.) Keep hoping though, it'll happen right after we have power to cheap to meter. Libertarianism is a socio-political manifestation of Cargo-Cult techno-salvationist hubris.
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, this was a tremendous, insightful look at something I am guilty of personally; viewing the world as full of idiots, loving the movie idiocracy as an example, writing as if too idiots. It has been only recently that I realized the truth, just because my worldview differs, does not by default mean those who either do not or cannot believe it, idiots! Thank you sir, and well written- I would like to communicate with you and possibly collaborate with you if you are ready.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    zzzzzzz Your posts put me to sleep. I place the blame squarely on my intellectual deficit and apologize beforehand for not responding anymore to these deep thoughts that affect me like Prozac. Have fun trolling with others.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Terrific article. As someone who spent half my adult (well, pretend-adult) life fulminating against 'idiots', it embarrasses me to say that it took me until my mid-40s to slough off the "people who think stupid things are fuckwits" meme. In fact I reckon I can attribute this epiphany to one person, and can pin it down to a very specific point in time. It was - and don't DARE laugh - a Joe Rogan podcast. Yep: Joe Rogan - stand up comic, drug liberalisation advocate and host of "Fear Factor"... and as I have said before, an example of everything that is RIGHT about the American system (as it used to be) - a guy from the shitty part of Boston who has known genuine hardship, but who persevered and made a good life for himself using nothing but his wits. Anyhow... In the middle of one of his podcasts, he developed this theme that people were NOT stupid - they were tired, they were stressed, they didn't have the tools necessary to do their own due diligence... and therefore 90% or more of their opinions were simply "shit they heard someone say". And given that tired, stressed people get most of what they hear from the TV... well, no surprise that their opinions reflect this. They outsourced their opinions to a system that was set up to steal from them. This counts as only my second genuine epiphany: the first epiphany was in an economics lecture given by Prof Ross Parish [RIP] in 1992, which was all about why engineers and others with no understanding of tradeoffs and feedback, will always miscalculate the effects of economic policy. In other words, it was an inoculation against the tendency of economists to become technocrats: engineers and technocrats think along the lines of the naive 'input output' Leontief-style model, rather than the dynamic CGE model of Leontief's PhD student Peter Dixon (who was later my PhD supervisor). Leontief got the Nobel prize in 1973 for his IO work; Dicko's CGE model was the basis of his PhD under Leontief at Harvard; my PhD was extending a dynamic CGE model to incorporate stochastic simulation; I never submitted my dissertation (more accurately: I haven't submitted YET... you never know, I might bother one day).
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Apologies my smart phone posted multiple times-
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Apologies my smart phone posted multiple times-
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    LOL!!! Trade chick-raising and child-rearing above. Such are the vagaries of writing and editing in a wee-little white box online while running a business and doing homeschool, all while stealing a little time to debate with ya'll.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    You're correct, there was a small amount of specialization: women generally were more the gatherers, men were more the hunters. That's because of body size and other considerations. However, it's not a stark contrast. Men gather and women hunt in forager societies. Anybody could do anything anyone else could do. And all share in chick-raising duties. Humans are egalitarian, and that includes between the two sexes. The biological evolutionary evidence is low sexual dimorphism -- on the level of penguins, who also share in child-rearing duties. Also, humans show zero sexual dichromaticism, like their evolutionary, and extremely hierarchical evolutionary cousins, the red ass baboons. Today we do make-believe sexual dichromaticism; power ties now make red ass baboons out of men. Also, specialization and hierarchy do go hand-in-hand. In fact, the term "specialization hierarchy" is used frequently in scholarly journal articles. You ask: "How are you going to stop them doing that?" I'm not stopping anybody from doing anything, even if what they're doing is wrong (even if it would be morally right to stop them, just like stopping a rape, as Derrick Jensen argues); agricultural civilization always stops itself. It's suicidal. Collapse is inevitable. Joseph Tainter, William Catton, and many others have documented how and why collapse happens with agricultural city-Statism. Besides, if the collapse happens too fast from actively helping it collapse, there's just that much more chance of it going to full-bore global thermonuclear war. Although the chances of that, I think, are near 100% anyway. Got a fallout shelter to protect you from the most advanced fruits of 8000 years of CULTure's "progress?"
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    - "..bit dogmatic with his insistence that agriculture = slavery..." I'm not dogmatic. I cite scholarly sources that have analyzed empirical data. - "...his citing of Mr. Whomever as the infallible and ultimate authority on the subject, subject closed." Empirical data directly refutes widely held libertarian's premises. You're having an emotional reaction against it, and falsely attribute to me some lame-ass anti-intellectual excuse so you don't have to study it yourself and think. You're being lazy, even intellectually evasive. Do I have to get my John Galt speech out and spank you with it, Mr. "Blank-Out?" - "...agricultural societies have been run by coercive governments which distorts the agriculture market's behavior..." LOL That is truly funny. Zombie religio-economics. I suppose that dead organs are distorting the behavior of corpses that should really be Zombies walking. Look, agriculture itself, all by itself, is coercive. You're taking a huge tract of Land and claiming: This is mine, and mine only, and nobody else can use it, and I'll kill ya even if you walk across it. And when the fertility gets "farmed out," I'll kill ya "savages" (savage means etymologically dwellers of the forest) so I can get more vast tracts of Land. Jean Jacques Rousseau was correct when he said in his Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1754), "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." We know who started agriculture. Manipulators. Power seekers. Those trying to be "Big Men." Know any of those in Congress today? "Big Men" is actually the term anthropologists use to describe the Emergent Elite. Volumes of archeology, anthropology, and other sciences show that domestication = greatly increased violence, human sacrifice, sacrifice religions, slavery, cannibalism, repression of women, etc. Agriculture is a 8000 year long Trail of Tears, cheered on and then the necessary genocide whitewashed by the capitalists. "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974 Agriculture is the demon engine of city-STATISM. Agriculture: Demon Engine of Civilization by John Zerzan http://rewild.info/anthropik/library/zerzan/demon-engine-of-civilization/
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Might be more accurate to say I aspire to be patient. :-) "Claire's example of the women at the door who asked her husband what "we" think is mind boggling" Well, maybe less than it first seems. Maybe this woman said it ironically, and young Claire didn't pick up on that. Maybe she was rattled about something else when she came to the door, and the question temporarily discombobulated her, so she passed it on to her spouse (a tactic I myself am fond of). Maybe she is one of those people so connected to her spouse that she likes to put everything in terms of "we". Maybe they didn't have a TV and didn't pay attention to what commentators and government boobs were saying about the war. And yes, maybe she was just dumb. But these things are just anecdotal. Anyway this woman (perhaps) not having an opinion about the war is not the same thing as saying she's an idiot. She might also have been an expert cook and mother. One never knows. It's not people's job to keep up on politics. It's their job to live their life as they see fit. In an anarchist world, few would care about politics above the level of what gossip happens over the backyard fence.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I suspect even in tribal societies, there was some specialization. Anyway, we have to deal with what is, not with what was. Also, I don't buy your argument that specialization implies hierarchy. One can over-specialize, that's true. And one can also live in nature and make one's own clothing, weapons and shelter. Most people would probably prefer to stay somewhere between the two extremes, and who's to say they are wrong? How are you going to stop them doing that?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    I don't disagree for a moment that land property and agriculture is one of, if not the most important problems to consider. Anyone who wishes to discuss the pluses and minuses of how land should best be dealt with in a voluntary society will find plenty of people to discuss the issue with here, I believe. It seems to me that WI is being a bit dogmatic with his insistence that agriculture = slavery, and his citing of Mr. Whomever as the infallible and ultimate authority on the subject, subject closed. That's not much of a discussion. As a starting point, I believe that in a voluntary society wherein the agriculturist is truly dependent upon his land for his profession, he will quickly discover the best methods to preserve the soil, which is in his best individual interest. This seems like common sense to me. The reason why this hasn't happened very often is that sure enough, in agreement with WIs observations, agricultural societies have been run by coercive governments which distorts the agriculture market's behavior to the point of it being self-destructive to the land. Modern government is all about short-term benefits to temporary office-holders and long-term who really cares?. A free agricultural society would probably blow the doors off of the bounty that is currently being produced.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, Why not look to the justice system as observed in existent non-state societies? Max Gluckman referred to the complex system observed amongst African and South American tribal groups as "Peace in the Feud" -http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/1/1.extract The concept is similar to von Notten's observations of contemporary rural Somalia in "Law of the Somali's". This system also doubtless predates the written system of Wer and Bot in early Anglo-saxon England-where, by the way, redress of grievance through feud was acceptable, even officially despite a rudimentary government. I believe that I've read examples of this sort of organization in rural India, and certainly Pakistan, as well-though at the moment I can't recall the source. I would suggest in your example that this man "who was respected by all for his wisdom and fairness." is such in part at least because he is part of the Raj. Also, while Corbet certainly has a point about red-tape bleeding all involved white(by intent, by the way if we look to history), I wonder if he saw, or was aware of cases where that "fairness and wisdom" failed and the parties involved disagreed with the outcome? 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. At least officially. Without that central authority, everything becomes much more fluid, and much more interesting. Without a central adjudicator able to muster such force, then it is the balance of force between the two parties and their protective groups(families, friends, and potentially others depending upon local custom) to ensure that the matter is resolved-depending of course on local custom as well, there is little predictability in this system. I recommend Gluckman's work highly, along with Sahlins(referenced frequently by someone else here) if you want to really explore the interaction of humans without "red-tape". I enjoyed the article, thanks!
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    While I'm not in complete agreement with everything White Indian has said, his mention of the tilling of the soil as being a problem is something that I think deserves some analysis by thoughtful readers of this fine journal. In particular, agorists, (conscious participants in the underground economy,) may do well to recognize another kind of underground economy, (in the sense that practitioners of permaculture mean it, the underground economy is literally the underground networks of plant roots, fungi, bacteria, micro-organisms, and systems for retaining, transferring, and releasing nutrients, minerals, and moisture that naturally develops in undisturbed soil.) In the same way that heavy-handed top-down intervention in the human economy is disruptive and results in long-term inefficiencies, heavy-handed top-down intervention in the soil ecology is also disruptive and results in long-term inefficiencies. Agorists who wish to increase their ability to sustain themselves efficiently with as little effort as possible may do well to incorporate insights from permaculture, an approach to designing human settlements and agricultural systems that is modeled on the relationships found in nature. Check out this excellent piece on the underground economy in the permaculture sense: http://southwoodsforestgardens.blogspot.com/2011/05/underground-economy.... As a self-proclaimed eco-agorist, I'd like to think of myself as internally reconciling the apparent dichotomy between market anarchism and certain elements of the anti-civilization philosophy White Indian appears to be promoting, and regardless of whatever derision this will earn me from either side of this ongoing debate, I, for one, welcome the "TROLL"'s criticism. Carry on. :)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Playing Soviet Political Officer? Da, comrade, Suverans doesn't like the information presented.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Agricultural civilization is the sociopolitical typology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopolitical_typology , one of only four, in which we live. You don't live in an egalitarian Non-State band society. You don't live in a egalitarian Non-State tribal society. You don't live in a hierarchical Cheifdom (proto-state) society. You do live in a hierarchical agricultural city-State (civilization) mass society.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    I'd just like to say that I'm thoroughly enjoying watching these epic debates between proponents of anarcho-primitivism and market anarchism, and I hope they continue indefinitely. I think such dialogue is particularly appropriate for a site with Thoreau in the masthead.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL seems in order here.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    "...you're well part of it too, whether you want to be or not..." ~ WhiteIndian Why because you say I am? Who the f**k are you to say what I am a "part of"? I am no more a "part of" your "agricultural city-Statism" than is a man who happens to be caught in the middle of riot is a "part of" that riot. Yes, the riot very likely will affect him, but the fact that it affects him in no way makes him a "part of" the riot; and anyone who accuses him of being a "part of" that riot, without a shred of evidence, is a false accuser, i.e. a goddamned liar.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good article Paul. It made me think ;>). It's a good read and you make some excellent points. However, I think Claire was speaking to the phenomenon of people who don't think for themselves, not simply stupid or ignorant, but lacking intellectual curiosity. Claire's example of the women at the door who asked her husband what "we" think is mind boggling to people accustomed to open minded consideration or even those seeking confirmation bias. Although there is likely a high correlation between lower intelligence and low intellectual curiosity, they don't necessarily go hand in hand. The deference to experts, politicians, ministers, books and other sources of knowledge in lieu of thinking for oneself is a frustrating experience at all levels. Even on this board, how often has someone asked a simple question of someone else who is obviously intelligent only to get a long list of quotes and links to articles written by other people, yet no real answer or apparent comprehension? I also admire your patience Paul; something I should work on.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    There is no voluntaryist agriculture. It's well-established in the field of anthropology and archeology that domestication (proto-agriculture) greatly increases violence. Richard Manning sums it up accurately: "Agriculture creates government." The very first sentence in anthropologists Stanley Diamond's book In search of the primitive: a critique of civilization is: "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home." A voluntaryist agricultural civilization is as realistic as a voluntaryist Soviet communism. In fact, much of what you believe is rather like the Marxists, as is noted in Marxism of the Right by Robert Locke. I think you're as capable of inventing a voluntary civilization as the communists, who promised much the same, and ignored much of the same evidence against such ever happening. - "...not really having to worry about starving, freezing, or being eaten by a tiger..." Still parroting the Hobbesian mythology that is an apology for Statism? Really, that makes you a blatant liar. It's untrue. It's been debunked by the empirical data gleaned from anthropology, ethnology, evolutionary biology, archeology. The agricultural revolution shortened man's life by half. Now there are a multitude of Diseases of Civilization never seen before agricutural city-Statism. I'd say there is something to be said for not really having to worry about being sick or dying from famine. (Yeah, foragers rarely have famine, agriculturalists frequently so.) The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race Jared Diamond, UCLA School of Medicine Discover Magazine, May 1, 1987. Pages 64-66. http://www.mnforsustain.org/food_ag_worst_mistake_diamond_j.htm - "...live together in large societies without government..." So unlikely, I say Impossible. Never has been done, and it's as likely as conjuring an animated corpse. You know why too: span-of-control and Dunbar's Number, as covered in attorney Jeff Well's book "A Theory of Power." http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html - "...their lack of existence, present or past, is irrelevant." Sure. Just like the absence of animated corpses is irrelevant in your Wishing for a Zombie. Maybe you can do it with enough Cargo-Cult techno-fetishism! Right after power too cheap to meter. - "Elevating non-humans to human status..." You can congratulate yourself for sounding exactly like a Freeper Fundamentalist. (or an Austrian economist; the differences in agricultural city-Statist political flavors is greatly exaggerated amongst them.) You still swallow, at least in part, the monotheistic hierarchy myth civilization invented (even if a secularized version) as an apologetic for domination. GOD MAN WOMAN (submits to husband) ANIMALS (submits to husbandry) NATURE (valuable only if used by the hierarchy) Fact: humans are animals. Fact: other animals also demonstrate morality. See "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" by Frans B. M. de Waal, Harvard University Press.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I LOVE JOHN TAYLOR GATTO! And after reading Claire Wolfe's article compared to Bonneau's, I'd have to say that I agree with Gatto and Bonneau. Hell, I've thought plenty of "stupid" thoughts. Sometimes "stupidity" leads to greater wisdom, if you leave individuals alone long enough in their supposed willful ignorance. (And how much of it is truly willful is relative and subjective.) Anarchy would never work if people weren't -- by an large -- decent, thinking souls.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    "Egalitarianism simply means equal socio-political power. No government, no bosses, no "lording-over." Only in egalitarian Non-State societies can one be a sovereign individual." Such a simple truth you state here. But then you complicate things by insisting that I, along with dozens or hundreds or thousands of others cannot implement this simple idea in WHATEVER MANNER we wish. Even if we choose to plant seeds in the ground and keep animals for food and labor. And build houses. And learn particular trades. And develop a trading system based on exchanging commodities. And any of a great number of VOLUNTARY means of organizing society. You criticize voluntary behavior and interactions, which makes your arguments opinion and nothing more. Opinions noted. The sentence I quoted above is my foundational premise, and I parrot no other agriculturist city-Statist errors. I attach zero baggage to the statement, as it stands quite nicely all by itself. You insist on stapling on caveats and criticizing the efforts of people who simply want to live according to this premise. I am not Mises, Rothbard, or Rand, so critiquing their flaws and attributing them to me is unwarranted. You seem to fall into the trap of believing that a city of 1,000,000 people is really a single coherent entity. There's that old statist-speak and ideology leaking in. Let me assure you that I interact with way fewer than Dunbar's number of human beings, as do most folks. All these little egalitarian groups overlap and interact with each other, and from the outside this set of clumps, numbering 1,000,000, seems to be an unwieldy large group of humans called a city. But it is not. Your insistence that each group of 150 people must be physically separated from each and every other such group in order to form a bunch of egalitarian societies doesn't compute with me. The fact that you ignore the thousands and thousands and thousands of very real benefits (aids to human comfort and survival) that are the result of the division of labor and voluntary hierarchical systems in large cooperative societies is also a bit strange. I get the "untroubled life of the free man in nature" thing, but there is something to be said for not really having to worry about starving, freezing, or being eaten by a tiger. I am perhaps naive enough to believe that human societies are in the process of evolving toward the time when we can actually live together in large societies without government, and arguments about their lack of existence, present or past, is irrelevant. And if most of the current ideas about land ownership are flawed or downright unjust—and I agree with you that this is probably the case—why do you insist that there is no possible solution? The moment a man decides to harvest seeds from a plant and place them into the Earth to create more plants, all is lost? Stop yourself. If you reject the idea of "enslaving" plants and animals and "raping" the Earth by purposely putting seeds in the ground in an orderly fashion instead of letting them fall naturally, then that's fine. Elevating non-humans to human status, as if they were moral agents, is not much of an argument IMO. Yer gonna eat 'em one way or another, so consistency cannot be part of your position here.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    - "They are particularly tasty..." You're mindlessly regurgitating Hobbesian mythology, reflected in Darwin's "red in tooth and claw" view of nature. A more accurate view of natural evolution, and how life really works, is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin. "Darwin saw his theory of natural selection arising from the incredible lethality and ruthlessness of the natural world. This narrative has remained in place, even while the evidence to support it has eroded completely away." ~In Praise of Laziness by Jason Godesky | 5 June 2007 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2007/06/in-praise-of-laziness/index.html - "...product-of-evil computer..." City-Statists like you consistently crow at how completely Non-State society has been wiped off the surface of the earth. So I'll ask you: "Did you drive on any publicly funded roads? Using that internet developed by the military for nuclear warfighting? How's that working out for you?" - "Everyone should be forced..." Incorrect. Egalitarian societies do not force anything. You don't even know what egalitarianism means, because you think it means "forced equal outcomes," which the city-Statist Austrian school of religio-economics has taught you. Egalitarianism simply means equal socio-political power. No government, no bosses, no "lording-over." Only in egalitarian Non-State societies can one be a sovereign individual. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with litde or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." ~Elman Service NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf - "...the nine things you keep repeating." The only reason I have to keep repeating is you keep parroting nine agricultural city-Statist errors.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Legalistic spell casting, "word magic," or legalistic spell casting. Membership in the zoo of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) isn't voluntary, you're well part of it too, whether you want to be or not; it's enforced by aggression. If you earn enough money, or travel enough public roads, I think you have a good chance of learning the hard way of how convincing your "withdrawal" is to law enforcement. "Officer, am I free to gambol*" isn't begging, it's a literary device for teaching libertarian types who say , "officer, am I free to go?" how Non-State foragers would view our Gambol Lockdown society. P.S. , If you haven't caught onto that yet, I'm against agriculturalism. Tilling the soil is THE primary problem. The Original Affluent Society didn't do back-breaking toil; work is a curse (as recognized in the Genesis mythology of the "Fall of Man," i.e., the "Agricultural Revolution.") __________________________ * Regarding the word "gambol:" Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today—civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors—is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories." In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. GAMBOLING ABOUT PLAIN AND FOREST, HUNTING AND LIVING OFF THE LAND IS FUN. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 24
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Yes, I know. Dolphins do not have specialization and hierarchy and are very happy. They are particularly tasty, as well. How's that product-of-evil computer of yours working out for you? "The people who support division of labor..." I certainly don't. Everyone should be forced to do exactly the same set of things. This is perfectly natural. Human history is replete with men and women all sharing the hunting/gathering/fighting/cooking/building/working/medicine equally, with no one specializing in anything. Also, a person just learning a skill should never defer to the knowledge of a more experienced person, because this is hierarchy, and is bad. Teaching is inherently evil and unnatural. I look forward to the next regurgitation permutation of the nine things you keep repeating. 9! is 362,880 (Dunbar's number times 2,419), so I'm sure we have many more to go. I might suggest writing a little program to generate the entire set and posting it to a website so we may all stop by and admire the full set in all its glory. Hey, it was kind of fun going back to junior high! But now I'm bored.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    It's difficult for you to stay on topic, isn't it? I made no mention of "fake bills, bogus property liens and bizarre court papers". There's no *word magic* in withdrawing from membership in your "agricultural city-Statism", unless you deem the American declaration of independence, *word magic*. And, the *just* right doesn't require "a pinch of shrew spleen"; it does require your being what you say you are, something, of course, that you can't do, because the evil "agricultural city-Statists" won't let you, no matter how much, or how often, you beg them with your own *word magic*, "Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?" Sheeeeesh! Get up off your knees, WhiteIndian, it doesn't become a man to act that way. Here's a definition for you. "Agriculturalism, also known as the School of Agrarianism, the School of Agronomists, the School of Tillers, and in Chinese as the Nongjia, was an early agrarian Chinese philosophy that advocated peasant utopian communalism and egalitarianism."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    What is Laissez-Faire?
    Web link Mike Powers
    If Jeffrey was honestly for leaving the world alone, then why does he support big-government Land enTITLEment, which is agricultural city-Statist regulations that creates artificial borders to restrict the free movement of Non-State societies to hunt and gather, as our ancestors did in the Original Affluent Society as sovereign individuals? (Sahlins, 1972) Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? Mr. Tucker just won't let it be.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    The People who support division of labor — specialization in violence was one of the first instances — and hierarchy (both are gushingly rhapsodized in Austrian religio-economic literature) are getting exactly what they asked for.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    G'day BrianDrake, What I wrote was: "Have you ever tried it? And, then refused to apply for, or willingly accept, any member-only benefits/privileges?" This was in reference to what Paul Hein had written: "Should I attempt to withdraw it [consent to be governed], I’d quickly find out the real difference: in a word, violence." Did you and/or your friends formally withdraw your consent to be governed, or formally rebut the presumption that you had consented to be governed, and "then refuse to apply for, or willingly accept, any member-only benefits/privileges?" Quite frankly, it sounds more like you and your friends may have been, or are, "tax protesters", or "tax resisters" and the usual route of tax protesters/tax resisters is that they use a membership number, i.e. a Taxpayer Identification Number (U.S.), to procure member-only benefits/privileges, but then refuse to pay for them, i.e. they refuse to pay their "dues[1]", their Federal Income Tax. You may be right that "Filing an income tax return is not consent", but if one is not a "taxpayer[2]", i.e. not a dues-paying member of the "country club", why on Earth would he perjure himself by filling out, (complete with a "membership number"), and signing, "under penalty of perjury", a document essentially demonstrating that he is one? There is a very big difference between "those who refuse to comply", and those who are not "subject to". It's as big as the difference between "dogs" and "men". ___________________________________________________________________________ [1] Dues. Certain payments, rates or taxes. As applied to clubs and other membership organizations, refers to sums paid toward support and maintenance of same and as a requisite to retain membership. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page [2] Taxpayer. One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14) ~ Ibid., page 1462
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Nobody can know everything there is to know in the world." Actually, people once knew by 13 or 14 everything they needed to know in the world to get along just fine; they were sovereign individuals. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." ~Elman Service * NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf "So, to compensate..." Being that there was nothing for which to compensate, this is city-Statist "just-so" make-believe story, promulgated by agricultural city-Statist worldwide, from Marx to Mises. "...we specialize. We have created a division of labor..." Indeed, we have. Specialization and division of labor is one of 5 defining primary characteristics of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) "...which is a good thing." A good thing if you're high on the hierarchy, because it benefits hierarchy. Libertarians should keep in mind that one of the first specializations after the plowboy was the soldier. In fact, sword and plowshare are both really the same -- catastrophic destruction of Mother Nature and her children. Division of labor means specialization in violence. Which suits the purposes of hierarchy just fine. Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil. by Jason Godesky | 21 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 31 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    The government has the right "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever." All the rest of the document is redundant. If they can legislate all cases, then everything that government may ever want to do can be declared legal. And if government can legislate anything, why go on and point out specific cases, like the post offices and the roads? Because that one sentence had to be surrounded by a flurry of fine-sounding respectability. For anyone who wants to point to the 1st Amendment, or any other little old Constitutional thing, the government points to its right "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever." The People who support the Constitution are getting exactly what they asked for.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Hocus pocus legalistic "word magic." You have to get it *just* right, with a pinch of shrew spleen and always, always Black's Law Dictionary. It always works -- until it doesn't. 'Paper terrorist' headed to prison Anti-government radical gets 5 years for filing bogus liens, paperwork By Adam Bosch, Middletown Times Herald-Record December 12, 2011 http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Paper-terrorist-headed-to-prison... The only sovereign individuals on the planet are those who live in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies, bands and tribes. If you live in a hierarchical chiefdom or agricultural city-Statism (civilization,) you're just another brick in the wall.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "Congress CANNOT Write Any Law It Wants" according to Judge Napolitano
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 2 years 31 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Filing an income tax return is not consent. You are threatened with violence if you do not, just as you are threatened with violence (under PENALTY of perjury) if you file it inaccurately. It is well established in law and reason that consent given under duress is non-binding; i.e., not consent. Really, this is so simple it's astounding to me that people make this claim. Read Spooner's "No Treason" for a thorough demolishing of this nonsense. "Have you ever tried it?" Yes, and my bank account was emptied by the IRS completely without my involvement. I have friends and know of people who are either currently languishing in a cage, or have in the past for the "crime" of saying "no thank you" to the demands of the IRS. This isn't some intellectual fantasy, real people have their lives ruined by the IRS all the time. Paul is completely correct. No, it is not always immediate. But eventually, those who refuse to comply come face to face with the iron fist, the violence, that is the State.