Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    Suverans2, you bring up some good points and timely quotes in both of the above comments. I'm pleased to see your quotation by tzo from his 2010 essay where he refers to the parasites (my term) who "...assume authority, but also of all the 'citizens' who support the imaginary enterprise..." Because that is what government ("our country", "our-great-nation", et al.) amounts to: an imaginary enterprise -- a religion (from which any of us can become free if we so choose). Due to the narcissistic ego and the bumblefungling [my new word] that accompany all sociopaths who seek election and who collectively have become by far the most gigantic employer(s) on earth (for the most pervasive religion on earth), we can work our way out from under the pestilential scab that is government. I use as an analogy the spectrum of a large Catholic community (or other religious settlement) the likes of which you often find hidden in the hills of almost any part of the earth -- particularly U.S. and most of Europe. You can see the steeple for miles, and if you settle for whatever reason into the community you'll discover abruptly that you are definitely a minority -- especially if you are Israelite. The lives of the entire community center around the church, the parochial school, the priest(s) and nuns, and the general ambience of religiosity. In that situation you quickly recognize that it will be to your distinct advantage to respect the people, their families, their clergy, their way of life. You may even discover means to leverage on their religiosity at times. You will definitely have no respect for their pope or church echelon, but you'll know enough to keep mum about that under most circumstances. Never disrupt the bees without your sting suit on; but better yet leave 'em alone whenever possible. There will be no necessity for you to become a Catholic to enjoy your neighbors and friends. And if it turns out you "are" a Catholic (by birth or youth), once you discover your disunion you can fade away gracefully from religion without antagonizing the troops. A good many of them are half-assed Catholics under the surface anyhow, so it will become you to let them simply assume you're a "backslidden Cat-lik". There is no need to create a scene -- or a target upon your back -- by resigning or "turning in your card" (or burning it at some alter or on the church steps). "Consent-of-the-governed" is an egregious assumption, not a binding principle. By your own example a good many of them may come to want something of what you have. But you will never influence freemen through antagonism. Let them become free of their own will at their own pace. Whenever, wherever you encounter someone seeking liberty, all you can do is present the hand of freedom for them to grasp hold of. They will have to set themselves free -- in their own time. Paul made good points about theft by agents of state. I used the Catholic community analogy, but we all face a much more threatening community of folks next door and up and down the street who have been inundated from infancy into believing in the sanctity of state. Because they can't find it in themselves to recognize state agents -- all state agents -- as thieves. Most of them genuinely believe it is their civic duty to vote -- and in the process they are complicit in the thievery. My only stock in trade is the example I set. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    G'day JD, "All governments must have citizens in order to exist," not employees in the Prosecutor's Office. ″Power [i.e. authority] rests on nothing other than people's consent to submit, and each person who refuses to submit to tyranny reduces it by one two-hundred-and-fifty-millionth, whereas each who compromises [with it] only increases it,″ not employees in the Prosecutor's Office. Now you know who it is that you must get to "resign". Every time you point a finger at someone else there are three fingers pointed back at YOU. "YOU must be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi [Emphasis added] We cannot rightfully ask anyone else to sacrifice, if we, [individually], are not willing to sacrifice.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    G'day Paul Hein, A rhetorical question[1], are you a card-carrying member of the "group calling themselves, not a gang, but a government", in other words, are you a "citizen", i.e. "someone who has the right to ...the legal and social benefits of that country [government] as well as legal obligations toward it[2]"? "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." ~ A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo ″Power [i.e. authority] rests on nothing other than people's consent to submit[3], and each person who refuses to submit to tyranny reduces it by one two-hundred-and-fifty-millionth, whereas each who compromises [with it] only increases it.″ ~ Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky _____________________________________________________________ [1] "A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply." [2] Macmillan Dictionary Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Maxim of Law, Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "legal and social benefits = legal obligations [3] "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their collective capacity, have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d 101, 109 Submission. A yielding to authority; e.g. a citizen is bound to submit to the law... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1426
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I predict a big increase in cussing in that town.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Samuel Adams is said to have called it "...the animating contest of freedom..." AN'IMATING, ppr. Giving life; infusing spirit; enlivening. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language I agree, Sam.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Looks like there is inevitably a heavy price to be paid for personal secession. You should one day write up your whole story and post it here, perhaps as exclusive STR article. I'm sure it would be instructive to many of us.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Suffice to say I do not have an identity number or taxpayer identification number. I pay all taxes that I lawfully owe, or freely choose to pay. I work, but I am not "employed". I have never traveled outside the 'COUNTRY', since seceding, but I have flown to Hawaii, and back, once. I have gone to jail, a few times, for not having the STATE's permission (license) to use my own car and truck, I have lost one car to them, and had truck towed and impounded twice, but have managed to get it back. I will answer your questions in more depth privately, if you like. "They can, and have, utterly destroyed [their own] people"; as have virtually all governments, to the best of my knowledge; but some are admittedly far worse than others.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    So let me get this straight: you have no identity number or social security number, and you do not pay taxes to any state? What kind of job do you do? How do you go about traveling to other countries if you wish to do so? What do you produce as driver's license if you get pulled over on the highway? As for the gang of thugs and robber barons in charge of South Africa, our one saving grace is their utter incompetence. But I wouldn't go out of my way to mess with them. They can, and have, utterly destroyed people.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    And people will *still* be agitating for NHS-style healthcare in the US. . . (I'm sorry, you smoke cigarettes, I can't treat your completely unrelated illness)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day eugenedw, Yes, I have "successfully seceded individually". I am not associated with any man-made government at this time. In answer to your second question, "how did you go about it?"; how did the colonists here on the North American continent go about seceding from their government? They didn't ask permission, they simply served notice[1] of withdrawal from membership in the government. And, since I am here on the North American continent I use their notice of secession, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, more commonly called as Declaration of Independence, as my template. Here is my introduction to Individual Secession. And, here is my Notice of Secession. I would warn you, however, that just because one withdraws from membership in a gang, it does not mean that gang members cannot, or will not, murder that individual. Not having knowledge of what the government of South Africa is like, I give no recommendation for you to secede from that government; that is up to YOU, and you alone, to decide. In some cases expatriation may be a safer 'first step'. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT - NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." ~ A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, I'm sure that is what all of us here already do. But if the Mafia has enough power so that without their paperwork, I cannot get a job or open a bank account or travel, then I have no choice but to go apply for the paperwork. Or become a hunter-gatherer, an option I did seriously consider in my youth.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Is that the Hippocratic Oath or the hypocritic oath? The decline of Western Civilization continues.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Pseudo science--the appearance or pretense of science is based on the quick sand of wish and whim instead of the hard rock of reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition Apparently some are attempting to ride on the coat tails of those that have been successful using science. The credibility of science is based on reason not wishes based on superstition (not in contact with reality). Logic is based on the non-contradictory identification of reality using reason. The following may be of value to others who are still mentally wrestling with the deliberate misdirections (i.e. lies) that the culture surrounding us has pounded into each of us since our birth. http://tinyurl.com/First-Cause-article Objectivist Newsletter-Vol 1, No 5, May 1962, page 19--The "First Cause" article Since everything in the universe requires a cause, must not the universe itself have a cause, which is God? ...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    To quit an organization, you say "I quit." Does it matter if the organization does not accept your resignation? If they insist you are a weevil, do you believe them? If the mafia controls the blocks around your house, does that make you part of the mafia if you don't want to join? Even if you make your payments under threat of violence? Even though you travel across "their" territory because you have paid the requisite extortion and have their permission? Would you really worry about asking the mafia for the proper paperwork so they could officially recognize you as a non-member? Simply tell yourself you're done, stop voluntarily participating with the organization, interact with it only when it is prudent to do so for your own safety, and do your best to live outside of its influence. When enough people actually make that simple little mental shift, things will change.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I don't know much about Britain, but I am going to assume that just as here in South Africa, cigarettes are heavily taxed, ostensibly to help pay for the costs of treating patients with smoking-related diseases. Can we assume that if such patients will no longer receive treatment, that the state will also cease the taxation of tobacco? Yes, it's a rhetorical question... :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    From the article: "The Taliban said it was in response to Obama's visit and to the strategic partnership deal he signed with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a pact that sets out a long-term U.S. role after most foreign combat troops leave by the end of 2014." --It is rather unlikely that Karzai will manage to hang on to power after the American troops leave. Surely Obama knows this? Then what is all this blather about signing long-term deals? A bit of early electioneering perhaps?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Yes there are in Michigan, and the laws are so screwed up. Any pocket knife with a blade over 3 inches can get one a term up to fifteen years if the prosecutor can prove intent to harm, also the same for a steletto, dirk, or dager or any double edged knife. Fortunately at this time there is a bill in the House of Representatives to gut this 1927 law, but there will still be stipulations I am sure. When my son was arrested he had no idea the knife was in the car. There is a whole whorle of information surrounding this event I'll not get into, but my son still had to plead guilt to the charge and got probation for 6 months and loss of hunting privilages for 3 years. This was when he was 17. The prosecutor according to the attorney we hired said he wanted him for the full 15 years, but with the information I was able to provide proof he knew nothing about the knife and the rational behind it, the judge informed the prosecutor that he was being overly zelous in his attempt at 15 years. Thanks for your concern, Glock 27
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, let me ask you this: have YOU successfully seceded individually? If so, how did you go about it? Perhaps you should put an e-book about it online. As for The Matrix, it was indeed a wonderfully perceptive film, with stacks of highly quotable quotes. Pity about the two dreadful sequels. :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Spencer may well be right, but I see little in the way of practical advice there. I cannot go to the South African department of internal affairs and announce that I wish to renounce citizenship. At least, I don't think it would work. And if it did? I would then no longer be on the radar, to some extent. I'd still be required to pay taxes, as resident, though it may be easier to dodge them if my name is no longer on their records. However, I would also no longer be able to get a job, or open a bank account, or get a driver's license, or study at a university, or travel out of the country, etc. etc. etc. We regularly have such cases here: our department of internal affairs is one of the most corrupt and incompetent of the entire government, and simply through mess-ups with paper work, every now and then someone becomes a non-person who cannot get hold of an ID document or birth certificate. Such people have their entire lives destroyed, sometimes for months or years on end, as they struggle to get hold of the necessary documents. Some years ago, there was a big brouhaha over it when one man got so desperate that he threatened the bureaucrats with a gun. They then very quickly produced his papers, and he is now finally a legal citizen - in prison. I'm getting too cynical here; lemme stop. :-)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    What are you smoking, JD?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    G'day Glock27, "When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves." ~ Victor Frankl
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day eugenedw, I used to converse with a few men "down under", and they ignored the law and didn't go to the polls at all. It's not that people are stupid, i.e. mentally incapable of learning; they are, in every culture, subjected to indoctrination[1], virtually from the time of their nativity, that makes them appear unable to learn. "You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." ~ Morpheus (The Matrix) Truer words were never spoken[2]. This is indoctrination is so complete that when "individual secession" is brought up for discussion they immediately start denying that it is possible, (at least for them); it is their way of fighting to protect the system, and they don't even realize it. _____________________________________ [1] indoctrination▸ noun: teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically ~ WordNet [Emphasis added] [2] "You say Truer words were never spoken when you strongly agree with what the other person has just said."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day eugenedw, Giving up membership in the government (citizenship) is the easy part, giving up the benefits, privileges and protection is the difficult part. If you would like to know more, start by reading this by Herbert Spencer, because what Herbert wrote in 1851 is just as true today. Then contact me via private messenger here at strike the root.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    In contrast, Eugene, I do see a lot of hope of getting rid of government, rather soon. But you're right about its reaction to a shrinking work force: raise the pay. That's the first tactic. _Provided resignations increase exponentially_, it won't work; the race will be on. It may react next by prohibiting resignations (after which those thereby enslaved will go-slow and work to rule) and then perhaps by importing foreign labor... it's all in my "Transition to Liberty." The key, always, is that exponential growth.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I just remembered another thing about this voting business, that I read a year or two ago in some book that I can't remember the title of. It concerned a study that was done in Switzerland on voting patterns. They tried to encourage higher voter turnout by arranging a system whereby people could vote electronically, from the comfort of their own homes. They thought this would induce a larger voting percentage because they assumed that low voter turnout happens simply because going to vote is a bit of an inconvenience. To their surprise, the voter percentage in fact dropped significantly. A possible explanation for this is that people consider it something of a civic duty to vote. When voting happens completely invisibly, you are not under any peer pressure to vote, so you may decide not to bother. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned in that for us.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Paul: You may well be right. I have not read up on what percentage of Australian voters spoil the ballot; perhaps many do. The thing is, people tend to get used to a system and then begin to follow it somewhat mindlessly, and I am not just talking about the "sheeple." Virtually all of us do it that way - it takes a lot of energy to reinvent one's life every second week and is likely on average not a good survival strategy, hence I am going to guess that humans actually have an instinctive preference for stability and predictability. The result is that once a thing has been law for long enough, people accept it as the correct way to go about things. An instructive example is, for example, the death penalty in Germany. From what I read, when they created their new constitution after WWII, a large majority of Germans were in favour of the death penalty. It was nevertheless abolished. Nowadays, six decades later, the vast majority of Germans are opposed to the death penalty. And this happened quite possibly simply because absence of the death penalty is what most of them grew up with. If they now re-instituted it, it would be against the wishes of almost everyone, but I suspect in another fifty years most Germans would once again be in favour of it! Perhaps it works this way with compulsory voting? If you grow up in such a system, it is what you are used to so you don't question it as much as you should. It is almost always easier to go with the flow, and on average perhaps indeed even the most likely way to have moderate success too. You nevertheless make a very good point that we should not get too cynical and sneering about "sheeple." People are not always quite as stupid as one thinks.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Jim: I fear you may well be right. But as you point out, the NOTA idea is indeed likely to remain nothing more than a thought experiment. I don't see any hope of getting rid of government any time soon. As they lose workers, they'll offer ever more attractive remuneration packages, and institute laws to ensure enough poverty that there will always be enough people willing to sell their souls. It's easy to take to the moral high ground when you are fairly well off; it's another thing when your kids are starving. But I'm sure you are well aware of all of this anyway; we just have to keep on trying. :-) In the meantime, lovers of liberty have proven to be very creative when it comes to finding ways to live below the government's radar.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "But of course, if voting became compulsory, most people would likely vote." I don't know about that... Americans tend to be a bit on the ornery side (witness all the buying of guns happening at the moment). It's likely they would simply deface their ballot. I suspect a popular write-in candidate would be "Fuck the Government". In fact I think they are ornery enough that it would actually be a plus for freedom if the government overreached with mandatory voting. How obvious can government illegitimacy get? We have to get over this sneering at "sheeple". It does not serve our ends.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    My question is "Do you really believe anyone will really care?", and "Do you honestly believe enough Americans will stay away from the polls to vote to make a difference?" I really do not like the selection we have this year and I was affraid that would happen. The Republicans can't seem to get their heads out of their butts long enough to see something more than s***. I also believe more people stay away from the polls because they believe that it is not going to make any difference at all who is elected in. They know democrats will go for more taxes and spending and that republicans will go for big business. Last month NRA-ILA reorted that it was the heaviest month for the sale of guns and ammunition and the Ruger manufacturing had to shut down taking orders so they could catch up with the current orders. This signifies that the American people are affraid of something and I will wager we will see more people at the polls this year than any other year before. People are looking for solutions now and many are becoming preper to get themselves ready for the collaps of the government and the economy; yet our divine elected officials are so f*&%ing blind as to what's hapening or they really don;t give a damned. Not going to vote dosen't prove much because that is already a fact that is well known. Why do you think they do this dumb stuff like "Get out the vote" Solutions that are workable are not being provided and if they are no one is listening because it is going against party philosophy. I will vote this year as my protest vote against Odumba while seriously doubting Mint Rummy can do anything to change things.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    I concur with your comments, however, what government employee is going to quit one of the highest paid positions? That is surely an Alice-in-wonderland-ideal. I certainly know if I had wife And kids and I had one of those jobs I wouldn't quit. I do not believe the human being is as moral as we would hope. Evil lurks in the heart of all men. Never in my life would I have believed a Catholic Priest would take advantage over young choir boys, never would I have believed all the sexual assaulats made against high school kids either,by heir teachers male and female, ergo I see the government no differently. It is a machine that grinds along and as you say voting only puts another zookeeper in, but my vote, each time, is in hope that we get a much better zookeeper than the one before. (the Glock 27 is a .40 caliber mid range pistol). In conclusion, I believe we all are merely spinning our wheels against to jolly green giant. The change has to come from the inside. I am in favor of a third party, that would create a mess. Good Luck!
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Eugen, your NOTA idea is very tempting, especially if it eventually led to a large majority in its favor. But don't you think that even to turn up in their voting booth and make a mark (or punching a chad) gives legitimacy to their system? Doesn't it imply "I don't like any of _these_ candidates, but if _better_ candidates were on offer, I might choose one to rule everybody"? Refusing to vote at all, on the other hand, repudiates that principle root and branch. In any case, it's not a big deal. There is no chance at all that government people will look at a large anarchist vote and say "Gosh, golly, it's time to dissolve ourselves." They will vanish when nobody will work for them; then, and no sooner.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    They can't really force you to vote: they can only force you to show up at the polling booth and accept a ballot. They cannot force you to make a mark on it. But of course, if voting became compulsory, most people would likely vote. It has occurred to me though that there is one vote that a voluntaryist can meaningfully cast. As I said in a comment on another article: if the option "none of the above" appears explicitly on the ballot, then perhaps voluntaryists can vote with a clear conscience? And if the government begins to make noises about making voting compulsory, then perhaps voluntaryists could organize some sort of pressure group with the one purpose of getting that NOTA option on the ballot? Suverans2: You may be right, but how exactly does one give up citizenship?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day Alex R. Knight III, "The non-voter takes the moral high ground by not only refusing to consent to be governed..." Not true, except, perhaps, in his own mind. I believe you may be confusing participation with association. If he consents, either tacitly[1] or expressly, to be associated with the government, (i.e. consents to remain in the government office of 'citizen'), whether he participates, (i.e. votes), or not, he is consenting to be governed. He is only "refusing" to participate in choosing who, or what, will govern him. Only by "withdrawing from membership in [the] group"[2], i.e. opting out of the government office of 'citizen', does he refuse to consent to be governed. “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau _________________________________________________________________ [1] Tacit consent is synonymous with connivance, which is defined here as "tacit encouragement or assent (without participation) to wrongdoing by another." [2] Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1351
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "He or she also escapes the possibility of being compelled to “serve” on a jury in a government “court” (read star chamber) – or even being coercively forced to be screened by bureaucrats to possibly be compelled to be part of one." Really? "The details may vary among states and between the state and federal courts, but the basics are pretty much the same. A court selects potential jurors from a list of names that are often obtained from lists of people with drivers licenses in the state..." ~ http://tinyurl.com/ccf9aa6
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    The non-voter may be, in his own fashion, "...refusing willful endorsement of the arbitrary rule of others and their property."
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Jim wrote: "Elections are, of course, a complete waste of effort; they merely change the zookeepers from time to time." -Quite correct, but it has occurred to me that there is one type of election in which it may well be very meaningful for anarchists to vote, namely an election where the option "None of the above" is stated explicitly on the ballot. It may be very interesting to see the results of such an election. I would be interested to hear opinions on this, because it seems to me it may be meaningful for anarchists campaign for such ballots. Not that the government is likely to ever do it that way (imagine the horror when "None of the above" wins an election in a landslide!). But the campaign itself will raise awareness of how hollow a thing democracy is.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    I was about to express my astonishment that it is illegal in the first place to possess a knife, and especially the harsh punishment for it. Do people get those sort of sentences even for illegal possession of firearms? Anyway, it then occurred to me that my astonishment may be misplaced - I don't know whether there is such a law here in South Africa as well! I can't remember any cases where people have been prosecuted though. However, there probably soon will be such laws. Recently some brainless bureaucrat proposed a law that would make it illegal to even possess a pocket knife, and would also ban pepper spray for self-defense (this in a country with some of the highest rates of violent crime in the world, and a largely corrupt and incompetent police force!) They are of course shooting themselves in the foot: if I am no longer allowed to carry pepper spray, I may well decide to carry insect spray instead, which will kill instead of merely temporarily blind an assailant.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    The government office with the largest number of people who "work for this utterly evil organization", is the office of "citizen". "The...system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see. Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." ~ Morpheus
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers." Do You Own Yourself? by Butler Shaffer http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer9.html Does anyone here also read the articles/blog at Lewrockwell.com? It is full of individuals--Catholics (Lew Rockwell, Jeffrey Tucker, William Grigg, Tom Woods), Christians (Gary North), atheists (Stephan Molyneux (Freedomain Radio), Doug Casey, Walter Block, Harry Browne) and Jews, Muslims and Taoists and even an ex-treasury secretary http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ spreading the ideas of Liberty (not God and not religion). I don't know what religion Thomas DiLoenzo is and I don't care. I do know he IS the author of "The Real Lincoln"--a break thru for understanding history--and I know Butler Shaffer is no lover of Ayn Rand (although he gives her credit where due as does Stephan Kinsella who broke thru the monopoly of The Intellectual Property thicket). Every issue has been put to bed in our time regarding the need for government. I think Kinsella solved the last standing leg on the IP issue. http://c4sif.org/2012/02/history-of-copyright-part-1-black-death/ I can search for many of these authors when I tag them with my avatar pseudonym on strike-the-root.com or use the trackback feature as they pertain to issues I might have commented on such as: "Atlas Shrugged" is about spreading the ideas of Self Ownership and Liberty (It is not about God and not about religion) http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged/rearden-metal-not-sale
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Hello voluntaryist, That is good company to be in!! Wow! I imagine being with them when I listen to their students Stephan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio and Lew and Jeffrey Tucker or Thomas DiLorenzo's podcasts at Lewrockwell.com. Your points are well made. And I concur. I was discussing Tesla and Einstein with a friend recently... Jeffrey Tucker of Mises.org beautifully explains the importance of ideas and how ideas work (no mention of Tesla or Einstein here but certainly of Ludwig Von Mises). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw_oDcRN3gI&feature=related I am perusing this, which I just found: http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged/atlas-shrugged-plot-synopsis In Part III the heroes leave the world to those in Part I and II whose world has collapsed because of the contradictions they continue to hold. It was in that regard that I was using the burning issues trap. It took a few days to think this thru again, hence my non-timely reply. I just finished this ** Stateless but not Lawless: Myths of Violence in the Old American West ** Exclusive Interview with Dr Thomas DiLorenzo I will never be able to hear the words, 'Wild West' again without saying to myself "No, it was not!". *Law and Order did not (and does not) require a Government at all. *The Old West was mostly Peaceful UNTIL the US Government arrived and perpetrated the genocide of the American Indians. *Unlearning what we [I] have been taught through television and movies; a foundational show. Hosted by Michael McKay. I read Dr. DiLorenzo's scholarship Here http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_04_dilorenzo.pdf Or here http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803 Or Listen http://www.radiofreemarket.com/archives/stateless-not-lawless-crucial-in...
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    I'd sooner be a fool who tries, Paul, than a passenger who carps. No, I do not think that support staff are hopelessly intoxicated with power. Inebriated, yes, but they do their jobs mostly because they need a job. Quite likely, they don't give much thought to vital questions such as the article raises. They are human beings, and I do not share the dark Judeo-Christian view of mankind as Original Sinner. Albeit suppressed a lot, they have consciences. Better yet, they have a wish to respect themselves. Hence the appeal, in the article, to both. You're dead wrong in your third paragraph, too. Our liberty certainly does depend on persuading people not to work for this utterly evil organization; for if we don't, it will get inexorably larger and more oppressive, without known limit. The evidence of that is all around us; merely to review the monstrous progress of government in the US during the last 100 years should be sufficient proof. The ostrich option of pretending it's possible to live free while it continues its evil march will not last much longer. Niemoller, I recall, penned a few regrets when he came to understand that.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    I will conceed that I believe in a "Divine Creator" I see the evidence of the Deitys existance everyday, but what does it have to do with the search for Liberty. Nothing. But I must agree that it is being awful nasty to be so perverse with someone who believes. To attack anothers belief system I believe negates that individuals honesty with Liberty. I get the feeling that someone who is so ardently hateful towards Christianity says there is a problem somewhere. Christian, atheist and Jew all die in a fox hole.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    A nerve-wracking story about your son, and all too common in occurrence. I bet the episode got you questioning the legitimacy of the state, however. Look at the bright side of things. Every time these bastards do this sort of thing, they create more enemies. At some point, people will simply stop putting up with it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    A fool's errand, Jim. These people sold their souls long ago. There's no fixing them. Oh, and you don't think cops and people in a prosecutor's office are not also "hopelessly intoxicated with power"? Of course that is one of the main benefits of their job. Fortunately our liberty does not depend on convincing such corrupt people to do the right thing.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Thanks, Glock27 for your kind words. (Hmm, so Glock makes a 27mm? Some cannon...) Your son was very fortunate to escape so lightly from their clutches. Perhaps he has a very dedicated Dad. "How do we change it?" is _the_ #1 question, the only one that really matters, congrats on posing it. There is no magic wand to wave, but my answer begins at http://TakeLifeBack.com/oto/p1.htm Then more recently and as an adjunct to that school, I made the web site mentioned at the head of this article, http://TinyURL.com/QuitGov. The premise beneath each is that government will survive for as long as people are willing to work for it, but not a moment longer. Therefore, if we reckon humanity will be safer and richer without it, government employees must be persuaded to quit their jobs. All of them. Elections are, of course, a complete waste of effort; they merely change the zookeepers from time to time. I've little hope of persuading those who lead it - they are too hopelessly intoxicated with power. But they depend absolutely on those who work for them as supporters. Hence here, my remarks were addressed to those who "Work for a Prosecutor."
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    (Re-posted as a Reply)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Jim, You make some very interesting points. I have always been negative towards prosecutors since I personally faced one hell bent on prosecuting my then 17 year old son to 15 years in prison for the possession of a double edged knife of which he had no knowledge of as it was consealed in my vehicle of which I let him use on a date. It took a lot of effort to garner the evidence to shed any light on the truth that he had no knowledge of the knifes presence. The Prosecutor merely wanted a conviction, but when the evidence was reviewed by the judge he concured that the Prosecutors efforts were dishonest attempts to put someone in prison. My son was still charged, but it was probation and community service and loss of hunting privilages for three years. However, in our given society we are currently faced with how do we change it? I believe we as a people must come up with a solution, but what I fear is that our solution would amount to the suppression of someone elses natural right to believe as they do. I believe in carrying a concealed weapon and do (legally), but there are others who disagree with this and wish to abscound every hand gun and long gun because they have a natural belief that this is the true solution. It's not I know it and I believe they know it also. Any way I liked your thoughts and gives me something to ponder over for awhile.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    How are you proposing this one dollar was stolen,by actual theft by neighbor or political theft. Though they may be synonamous they are two entirely different things. Merely because you have Liberty here does not mean you have Liberty. This may work in a Utopic society, but is inoperable in reality. What is your solution to the problem and how would you implement it. Right now as I am viewing it what you propose is no different than what is occuring right now and has occurred since Wilson and Roosevelt, maybe even further back.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    "...real justice is not about crime and punishment at all, but about restoring damaged rights--about restitution, not retribution..." With what is between these quotation marks, I couldn't agree more, JD. I would add to that, that if a man steals a dollar from someone, he is consenting, by that act, to have a dollar taken from him, thus the equivalent of two dollars would be given to the man whose natural right was violated. As the violation of natural rights increases, so does the "restitution". This would act as a deterrent, not only to him, but to any others who might be considering violating someone else's natural rights to life, liberty and justly acquired property.