Recent comments

  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 23 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Terrific meditation on the subject! The artificial divide and animosity between intellect and emotion is at the core of our problems; civil society requires BOTH compassion AND liberty, and the false paradigm of Left/Right politics keeps this destructive division going. I'll add that intellect and emotion are BOTH necessary to guide behavior in healthy and positive directions, and in many ways emotion is even more important than reason or intellect. Plenty of very smart people are sick puppies -- sociopathic and psychopathic, even -- and plenty more are pushed by their old feelings to support the State for a variety of reasons. This is why emotional health (and thus, compassionate and respectful treatment of the young) is so important. Alice Miller's work -- about the role of cruelty to children in creating tyranny and other horrors -- is an excellent resource on the topic.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 2 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good stuff! I've watched the OWS movement as many have and found things to agree and disagree with but when I saw the vid of Peter Schiff with the OWS protester, I got this feeling that Schiff was there not to expand truth or open dialogue but instead for some personal PR sake. Sorry, the video camera present and how it's been spread around the "so-called" freedom and liberty movement was just too convenient for me. Not that Schiff didn't have some points and not that the protester in the vid wasn't the best at making her case but I just questioned the whole motive and this piece above by Paul helps to express in my gut what I was feeling as I watched it. The OWS movement is rightly pointing at crony capitalism so why didn't Schiff approach the protesters on that level while understanding that on other levels there may be disagreement? What if doing so could draw a line from Wall Street to Washington and thus make the OWS folks rethink some of the public demands they've made by bringing another POV? Schiff IMO has only made them dig in deeper and what does that accomplish? Now we're right back to the construct of division Paul laid out so I had to ask myself was Peter's real motive something else indeed or was he an unwitting tool of the tyrants as we've all been at times I'm sure? Thanks again Paul for a thought provoking piece.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 23 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Why?
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 23 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I will take your feedback to heart, though generally I find that being as precise as possible in my wording provides the greatest clarity to my thinking and therapeutic value. Sometimes I go soft, sometimes hard. I think with this piece I wanted to come on full force and hit as hard as I could.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 2 years 23 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    That might be an interesting idea if there were no spoken language or written language. In human discussion the idea of the threat of the gun is brought up, it isn't a secret threat or uncommunicated threat in the background. Your story is an interesting study in Pavlovian behavioral studies, but it has no bearing on the idea of the social contract to the interaction of beings with language. Also, in our society, we might not get hit directly by the water hose, but you cant missed the highly publicized soaking of others by the paid soakers (the police, military and intelligence establishments). So, once again, interesting story but it has nothing to do with humans or modern society other then pointing out that Pavlovian training is possible on an animal level, which most people already knew.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 2 years 23 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Leftists' first thought is for the unfortunate, and they rightly perceive us libertarians as heartless because that is not our first concern. We begin any discussion with seemingly selfish statements of self-ownership and (negative) rights, and then only as an afterthought add with a hand wave that even the unfortunate would be better off because society overall would be wealthier and charity would be greater. To our leftist adversaries this is utterly unconvincing. If we are not preaching to the choir, we need to take the point of view of our audience. In the case of charity, we need to grab the bull by the horns and admit, *in a voluntary society, there would indeed be a very real problem of under-provision of public goods such as charity, but the problem is tractable*. The US charity industry is amazingly sophisticated, and quite clever at extracting ever more money out of donors. The Internet has enabled whole new approaches, like crowd-funding sites like ChipIn and Kickstarter. Thus last week Jon Stewart and Judge Andrew Napolitano talked past each other, and Jon Stewart won applause by asking about "the free market's losers": http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew... Napolitano and other libertarians shrug this off as "creative destruction", but Stewart and his audience understood it to mean "the unfortunate crushed and left homeless by cruel capitalism". Do not cede the compassionate high ground to our adversaries.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very good, Paul Bonneau, "he that is not against us is on our part".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 23 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    "...incompetent social-engineers..."???? That qualifying adjective makes me very nervous.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Right on target. People will make up their own minds about every issue, and the worst way to approach them is with a "holier than thou" attitude. Though it's maddeningly slow, the only way to nudge people is in small steps, making respectful suggestions for other ways a particular conundrum could be viewed. If we lose sight of the humanity of those we consider wrong-headed, we will never bridge the gap between us.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 23 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Excellent point, one which deserves to be made more often. Please consider wording your columns using sentences less complicatedly constructed. I had a very hard time parsing many of them.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 23 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Thank you, tzo. As a complement to your fine article, I give your readers this. Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my friends, is how group attitude begins. Has anyone here ever really had a gun put to their head?
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 23 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Another excellent essay tzo.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 23 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "...the fact that natural-law theorists derive from the very nature of man a fixed structure of law independent of time and place, or of habit or authority or group norms, makes that law a mighty force for radical change." "The reaction of the State to this theoretical development was [and is] horror..." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 23 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Excellent article, Alex. I love that lawn sign.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Based on the signs posted in people's yards in my town, I have decided to cast my vote to, FOR SALE BY OWNER.
  • ELVISNIXON.com's picture
    ELVISNIXON.com 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    http://elvisnixon.com/2011/10/31/guns-and-liberty-.aspx Guns and Liberty Perhaps you believe the threat of tyrannical government is slight, or less severe today than when our republic was formed. There is still another important point our Founders understood. Namely, the demand for police or military to defend us increases in proportion to our inability to defend ourselves. That’s why disarmed societies adopt police-state tactics. Even if a reduced threat of government tyranny no longer required an armed citizenry, an unarmed citizenry could well create the conditions that lead to tyranny. There is plenty of proof in the last century. Gun control laws and anti-gun attitudes formed a key ingredient in genocides of the 20th Century. They assured that only “authorities” had weaponry. They made it difficult, costly, risky or impossible for civilians to own or use firearms. The Soviet Union, China, Uganda, Cambodia, Guatemala, Rwanda, Ottoman Turkey, and Nazi Germany all had tough gun control laws in place before and during their genocidal periods. Those nations alone murdered 70 million of their own disarmed people. Talk about repeating history: the Founders had garnered that same lesson from the ancients. They understood that concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth, and they contrived a variety of checks and balances in the Constitution to divide political power—between the separate branches of government, as well as between the federal government and States. The first ten amendments or Bill of Rights were adopted to keep political power from becoming concentrated, by reserving natural or pre-existing rights to the people. Technically speaking, the Constitution doesn’t actually bestow upon the people a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon a pre-existing right. The Founders’ knew that an armed man must, in a real sense, be regarded as citizen; an unarmed man is subject. English colonists enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms among their inherited rights as freeborn Englishmen. It was George III’s attempt to seize the colonial militia’s stock of weapons at Lexington and Concord that sparked the American Revolution. I submit to you our Founders took their right to keep and bear arms seriously, well before the Second Amendment. Likewise, they interpreted the king and parliament’s move to control firearms as a direct affront to all their rights and liberty. One of the biggest problems with the English system was that the English constitution was not written or fixed in meaning. Operating on purely common law assumptions, it absorbed precedents leading towards unfettered power. The successful operation of America’s written Constitution and the unrivalled political stability of the United States, stems from the Constitution being fixed and relatively difficult to amend. The risk and potential of American decline is entirely, in my view, related to a failure to live constitutionally. In the United States, we have allowed the letter and intent of the Constitution to be stretched by the Supreme Court which has given the Constitution a “living” interpretation, and this has reinstated a kind of modern version of colonial-era British common law. We have, in the words of Jefferson, made the Constitution “a blank paper by construction.” The solution is to move to recapture the Constitution of original intent, to reestablish it as government’s fixed edifice. Key to recapturing the Constitution of our Fathers is the reinvigoration of the Second Amendment. And while that certainly means we need good statesmen and judges to keep its meaning, it also means we ought and must exercise our right to keep and bear arms. Every time you take your son or daughter hunting. Every time you target practice, or break your weapon down to clean it; every time you travel with your firearm and undergo the inconveniences at the airport to do so—you reinforce the Second Amendment and ensure survival of our right to keep and bear arms and pass the torch to another generation. Why do I tell you this? Because there is a far different course down which this country can slide. Remember I said that our Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution. The Founders validated that right, and they intended it to guarantee an individual’s right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation—something Sam Adams called “the first law of nature.” And they also intended firearm ownership and skill in the use of firearms to be general, because the customary American militia necessitated an armed public. The political theory behind that was to stave off tyranny or vindicate liberty when required. Even the position of the Second Amendment in the order of the Bill of Rights underscored its importance. It was the safety valve of the Constitution, affording the means whereby, if parchment barriers proved inadequate, the people could protect their liberties or alter their government. That sounds radical today, but that reasoning was part of William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the authoritative source concerning English rights in England and the Colonies during the Revolutionary period and after. Indeed, this inherited right of freeborn Englishmen existed in substantive degree in Great Britain until 1920. http://elvisnixon.com/2011/10/31/guns-and-liberty-.aspx
  • scott_free_68's picture
    scott_free_68 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    well vivianC, my perspective is that the government should not have the ability to impose any restrictions and that no one should have to be anyone's patient to self-medicate with an herb. I will always reject the idea that those who know what is best for us must rise and save us from ourselves. control mechanisms already exist to prevent working, driving or attending school under the influence. there is a "litmus paper" test that reveals the prescense of active cannabinoids in one's saliva. this test not only shows if a person is "high" but to what degree they are "high". the pee testing reveals what i may have done 25 days ago in the privacy of my own home. using that type of testing enables a multitude of agencies to descriminate against me. If i choose to drive "high" or choose to go to work "high" i infringe on the rights of others to be safe on the road or in the workplace and that is unacceptable. if i choose to "burn one" before bed, under current law, i am a felon who should have my income taken away along with my right to drive, collect unemployment and/or govt. assistance, or walk the streets a free man. this issue has nothing to do with right and wrong. it is simply a tool used by those in power to perpetuate the empire they control. total legalization is a financial threat to the medical machine, the pharmaceutical machine, the insurance machine, the tax machine, and the justice/incarceration machine. as i said, it would devastate their investment portfolios. it's only about the control of (their) $.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    G'day Tony Pivetta, I realize that you were being facetious, but persons like vivianC, whoever (s)he is, need to know that in my jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of free men, all things are "legal" which the natural law does not forbid. "...That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. IT IS NOT A RULE BINDING UPON MANKIND IN THEIR NATURAL STATE. THERE, EVERY MAN IS INDEPENDENT OF ALL LAWS, EXCEPT THOSE PRESCRIBED BY NATURE. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70 And, once more, for the record, I do not consent. So, vivianC, I don't really care if you "see a problem with it" or not. The simple litmus test, if I am a free man, is to answer the question, "Whose natural rights, e.g. whose right to life, liberty and/or property, have I trespassed upon by doing this act, in this case, smokin' a doob?" If the answer is no one's, then I have a "green light". If, on the other hand, you are not a free man, or woman, then you must seek your master(s) permission before you can "legally" do an act, even if it harms no one but yourself; you must beg 'him' to "legalize" it.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    No doubt Vivian will tell you the same bad effects as the legalization of corrupting political theories, which likewise rends the fabric of society. We have no more right to put bad ideas in our head than we do to put bad plant products in our bodies. The government knows best what we can read or ingest!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Do tell, vivianC, what are the "bad effects" of legalization of marijuana?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Every "man" does have the right to grow, harvest and ingest it, scot-free [#2], scott free 68, but every “person [#6]” does not. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 736 Now all you have to do is find out how, and become, an “unperson”, scott free 68, to grow, harvest and ingest marijuana...well, scot-free. ;)
  • Peter McCandless's picture
    Peter McCandless 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    John Stossel seems to be getting closer and closer to being a true voluntaryist. Maybe he'll eventually come over to our side. j
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Yeppers, Paul; our rule of thumb is if their lips are moving...well, you know the rest.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for the tip. I will look at that when he comes out with the ebook. He's sold out on the hardcopy, according to his website.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Vouchers are just another government program, funded by dollars stolen from taxpayers at the point of a gun. Their side effects will be to destroy independent schooling (which is probably their real aim - the ruling class does not really care about these kids). I'd trust Marshall Fritz' opinion on vouchers before I'd trust the phony libertarians at reason.com.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Just part of a very old tradition among cops, "testilying".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 24 weeks ago
    In Defense of the 1%
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Thanks for that link Suverans. That's the best exposition I've ever seen on the issue, and I think it is more on target than Schiff himself (I think it is a mistake to make TOO much of a distinction between Washington and Wall St - there is a revolving door between them).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I don't believe that it was the Patriot Acts that stripped "citizens" of their "free-speech rights". "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or 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, 5000 P.2d 101, 109 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., C.A.Tex., 522 F.2d 1299, 1307 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486 Conclusion, if you are a member of a political community, you have, most times ignorantly, submitted yourself to the dominion of a government. If you happen to be one of those who claim that this "social contract" doesn't meet all the criteria of a contract, you very well may be right. However... Contract. ...Express or implied. ...An implied contract is one not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law [government], as a matter of reason and justice from their [your] acts or conduct, the circumstances indicating that he expects [you expect] to be paid therefor, and defendant, knowing such circumstances, avails himself of benefits of those services. Chem-Tronix Laboratories, Inc. v. Solocast Co., A.D., 5 Conn.Cir. 533 , 258 A.2d 110, 113. It is an agreement which legitimately can be inferred from intention of parties as evidenced by circumstances and ordinary course of dealing and common understanding of men. Martin v. Little, Brown & Co., 304 Pa.Super. 424, 450 A2d. 984, 987 Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 323 ...if one fails to manifestly rebut that "rebuttable presumption[1]", once he discovers the "mistake" he has made, he will remain under this "implied contract", regardless of how much he may moan and groan about it. Mistake. Some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence. A state of mind not in accord with reality. A mistake exists when a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does, or omits to do, some act which, but for the erroneous conviction, he would not have done or omitted. It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition, or misplaced confidence. Salazar v. Steelman, 22 cal.App.2d 402, 71 P.2d 79, 82 See also Error; Ignorance. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1001 And, instead of crying that there is no such thing as an "implied contract", why not simply rebut the presumption and be done with it. But, I suspect that many of us here already know most of this. ______________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Rebuttable presumption. In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a "disputable" presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced. Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 213, 215. It shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S.Ct. 358, 362, 76 L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of further evidence, and presumption provides prima facie case which shifts to defendant the burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla., 174 So.2d 26, 28. And which standing alone will support a finding against contradictory evidence. Lieber v. Rigby, 34 Cal.App.2d 582, 94 P.2d 49, 50. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1267
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago
    In Defense of the 1%
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    “An Open Message to the 99% (Occupy Wall Street)” Found it on “The Rule of Freedom” Facebook
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    This is for rita. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=188072631240640&set=a.1880701945... She'll know how to use it. ;)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/313315_240327869348...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    A little more on the law of free men and women. "...there are those libertarians who would simply and uncritically adopt the common law, despite its many anti-libertarian flaws." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "The natural law always buries its undertakers." ~ Etienne Gilson
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    The STR quote of the day for 10/29/2011 will be a fitting reply to the above comment. "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." ~ Thomas Jefferson
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 24 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Regarding those who say "Well don't take this the wrong way but *it sounds like it is just nothing then*. A signor just signs it[--the Covenant of Unanimous Consent--] for the purposes of signing it. and that's it"? 1. When I Stopped using an Authoritarian formula--of, "We hereby make the following illegal"--and STARTED using "I believe that if you do this, I will do this--using my own moral code, my own interpersonal rules and my own security--in this way" I am using Direct Alternatives and this IS "How I Found Freedom in an UnFree World" by Harry Browne. 2. When I Stopped asking (essentially begging, raising my hand, pleading, voting ) for permission--(an Indirect Alternative that I do not control)--I stopped playing into the hands of tyrants and their wannabes. The only way to achieve freedom is first to achieve mental freedom and fiber which comes by realizing *No one has the right to rule another, which means govt is NEVER legitimate*. Paraphrased from "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose. 3. When I Started using the 5 precepts of the Covenant of Unanimous Consent I covered ALL the issues--including the crow epistemology--as that relates to *NOT initiating force on others* AND Keeping it Simple and Strategic! I opted into *natural law of relationships* and opted out of a myriad of complex unjust non-objective Statute Laws and bureaucracy. Paraphrased from "Market For Liberty" by Linda and Morris Tannehill. 4. Where I Choose to be and go--that is humanly possible--makes a difference. Do I go to the airport? No!! The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is not going to serve me there! In fact it warns and confirms to me that I should stay away; and what and who I choose to talk to; and about what makes a difference. I do not talk to sociopaths (who are he antithetical to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent). Functional Rights: The Elephant in the Parlor, Part II http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/scarmig/scarmig2.html http://tinyurl.com/American-Sheep 5: When it is I Ensuring the Job of living peacefully and taking the direct responsibility and risk *paying the price* to make good my life experience, reputation and on-going freedom--I am objectifying self reliance, security and future trade opportunities with compatibles. Paraphrased form Harry Browne's "The Great Milk Robbery"; and 'Freedom Has No System--Challenge the premise. There is no “we.”' http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 5. When it is I who has Given Up the Belief in Government, it is I who has to develop rules for *interpersonal relationships* which, at first glance, *might* resemble what are now called laws to some. It is both legitimate and useful to write down, and publish for all to see, statements about the consequences of doing certain things. But there will be a fundamental difference. And it turns out that the Covenant of Unanimous Consent accomplishes this. 6. When I actually Make the Rules and Warnings--and Decide what retribution I personally feel justified in inflicting on those that harm me--then I ALONE will bear the actual *responsibility and the risk* for making and enacting such warnings. Picture you and I talking and you do x. I will only do what is in my maximized rational self interest short and long term to do. 7. When I do Not Require any election or lawyers or other group traps then I become less vulnerable. Free! The warnings would not be seen as "the will of the people" but only as a statement of the intentions that I actually issue. Me and you. If you are a dissenter who will not sign the covenant then you are not going to get very far in this community of you and me. You may well build trust and perhaps find yourself a de facto signatory. This happens everyday but not without risk....as was pointed out above. 8. When I decide the Legitimacy of such warnings and judge not by "Who" made the rules but by whether the consequences in the eye of the observer and are appropriate for the wrong committed then I wouldn't feel any obligation to agree with or abide by such a debt if deemed unfair of unjustified. 9.When I realize that such warnings would not pretend to alter morality, make new crimes nor would imagine such warnings to be legitimate simply because they were issued the way people now view authoritarian laws then instead such warnings would simply constitute statements about what those making the restitution believe is justified. 10. When I see that a dispute resolution might be flawed by free market natural law standards such as retribution is too high or a person is innocent then I am not going to get paid or I will incur a debt. The cost will be arrived at so that it makes more sense to make a payment than not to.
  • vivianC's picture
    vivianC 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    legalization of marijuana both has good and bad effect but I guess if the government will put some restrictions on the way patient will use it, I don't see any problem with it. Anyway another controversial bill regarding legalization is now on the processed. According to the article I read awhile ago, The state of Hawaii could be the fourth to enact a “Death with Dignity” law permitting terminally ill individuals to commit physician-assisted suicide. Many believe that the terminally ill should be able to determine their own death if they desire to end their suffering, but there are an equal number of people that don't agree. Source of article: Hawaii might already have Death with Dignity law
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted." I'll have to edit the above post in the morning, scott free 68, to give you the additional information links I have for you. We've been having trouble with the spam filter here, seems like, forever.
  • scott_free_68's picture
    scott_free_68 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I believe the number in favor is higher. The key to legalization is reclassification of the cannibis plant. the narcotic label is the problem. the legislation against cannibis makes it a commodity. Everyman should have the right to grow, harvest and ingest it as they see fit. If this were the case, it would be devalued to the point of being nearly worthless, no longer able to be bought, sold or traded for profit. I believe this will not be allowed to happen because self medication would devastate the health care money machine. the toxins doctors prescribe would be shunned, drug sales would plummet, insurance companies would lose their meal ticket and investors would lose their asses in the great turning away from medicine for profit. What a blow this would be to our corrupt oppressors, to take away the ridiculous premium we pay to ease our aches and pains. Stress is a killer. There is no arguement for that. The sense of peace from self medicating would lower bloodpressure, relieve anxiety, ease depression and improve the quality of life for so many, it's no wonder they see it as such a huge threat...to their investment portfolios! I could say so much more but since this is my first post, I'll keep it concise and to the point.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "One can only guess whether the republic can survive another decade of the destructive war on freedom waged under the banner of anti-terrorism." What "republic"?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    "...[T]he centuries-old tradition of common law" is not one of our "real...heroes"; it is the Natural Law that is our "real hero". Recommended reading: Natural Law by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don’t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time." ~ John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Horribly right, Glen Allport. This is just one of the many reasons my wife and I decided to secede from the U.S. corporation[1] and all of its franchises (States). And, no, we are not foolish enough to think that this decision will somehow protect us from what is about to happen, we just want to be able to say that once we began to see what was going on, we chose to no longer "take part in the lie[2]". _______________________________________________________________________ [1] ″Despite all the flags fluttering on First Avenue there are no nations any more, only companies; International companies.″ ~ Kuman-Kuman (Character in the movie The Interpreter) [2] "The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie." ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn
  • Augydoggy's picture
    Augydoggy 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I am old and gray, my eyes don'st see to good and i am hard of hearing/ But I can read. You sir have hit the nail right on the head. At my age i am fearful for all that I have worked and payed for will be gone. I fear for my children and grandchildren. I thank you for what you have written,
  • Peter McCandless's picture
    Peter McCandless 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    See Larken Rose's book entitled "How to be a Successful Tyrant." Contains lots of useful techniques that tyrants have utilized through the ages.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 24 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Sound advice, IMO, Paul Bonneau. Someone else, a couple of thousand years back, gave similar advice. "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." And, where is this "kingdom" he speaks of? (113) His disciples said to him, “When will the Kingdom come?” Yahu’shua [JESUS] said, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.”
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 25 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Sam, Hope you enjoy Frank's treatise as much as I did, brother. One discrepancy I find with what you just wrote, according to "that book", I believe it talks about a "...government of the Creator, by the Anointed. ANOINT The use of oil in consecrations, was of high antiquity. Kings, prophets and priests were set apart or consecrated to their offices by the use of oil. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language And, who are the "anointed"? "Ye are a...royal priesthood" Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. According to "that book", the commonwealth of Israel, (not to be confused with the STATE OF ISRAEL), as I understand it, is made up of "fellow citizens", that is to say, all members have equal rights. FEL'LOW, n. [Heb. to tie or connect, to be joined or associated.] ...3. An equal. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 25 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    And mellow greetings to you too, Darkcrusade. Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. Do we have any witnesses, other than the so-called “New Testament”, that Jesus [sic] fulfilled those "over 300 prophecies concerning Christ"?
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 25 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Mellow Greetings Suverans2, Sorry for the delay in responding to this all important topic. You might establish a belief on a truth and work down from that reference point.Say, maybe that ''All men are created equal.'' From my perspective means that-God(The Sovereign) has granted all men personal sovereignty. Which leaves them to offend(sin) against a righteous Creator,(to their detriment)or accept the(Free) provision God has supplied for all. Their is a proof(many),That puts the fingerprints of God upon the Holy Scriptures. 2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: The Fact that God tells the future as a history.(prophecy) You might be familiar with the Septuagint?These, the(old testament) Hebrew scrolls that were translated into Greek,300 hundred years before Christ.(ref-any encyclopedia) The Septuagint contains over 300 prophecies concerning Christ and was translated almost three centuries before his birth. Christ fullfilled every single prophecy! The odds of one historic personage fullfilling every single prophecy written almost 300 years before his birth are unfathomable.(impossible really) http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2005-11/msg018... All of Christianity would come crashing down in a rubble pile if one(1) prophecy of christ were shown to be unfullfilled.The critics have had 2,000 years to no avail. Nowadays,the best testimony against Christianity,would seem to be so called Christians. There is reason for this. The first century true christians were martyred by the thousands and the truth grew in spite of persecution.Onced the state legalized and endorsed it,it could control it.The modern apostate church has been infiltrated.We have wolves in sheeps clothing sheperding the laity to destruction. The Holy Scripture is the inexhaustible word of God.Libraries of books have been written on one verse. Generation after generation of men have studied it all their lives and have NOT plumbed the depths. There is reason for this. You would expect that ,from a writting that had the audacity to claim the exalted status as the ''word of God!'' I find a lot of intersting truths from the Scriptures that point to God. Exd 20:3 ¶ Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Which is to say-First is God,than is man.The creature is not above the creator.Do not bow down to the idol of a manmade government. or Christ Jesus has said; “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.21 Luke 22:25..."But ye shall not be so." Jesus said in Matthew 20:25 “But Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you Christ's admonition is wise than, and wiser today. Those who will not be governed by God,will be ruled by tyrants. “And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9) Governments operate under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. Christ cautions us.(This verse also condemns the universal 'catholic chuch' wher they call preist and pope Father.) 1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; You maybe familiar with the contractual nature of governments. The Scripture speaks- When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Proverbs 23:1 “A man void of understanding striketh hands, [and] becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” (Proverbs 17:18) Man has been warned over and over that he should be cautious at the table of rulers whether they be singular monarchs, elected executives or mobs of the majority. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13:8-10 (no tax,no tribute,no voting,as that is a trespass and a violence to your neighbors.) Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. and Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment. Mat 22:39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (No room for a Government of rulers here.) The next verses are prophetic and point to the rulers(kings) and their creatures(corporations,merchants) and how we should ''come out of the mystery babylon.'') Rev 18:3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. + 2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, 2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. My purpose in this posting is that maybe you have not read the Scriptures in light of these truths that i am attempting to share with you,and hopefully you consider them in a 'new light'. let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written. ~Darkcrusade P.S. Believe nothing that i have wrote,unless you can verify it with the truth. As it is written> Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 25 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    http://www.archive.org/download/cu31924050187842/cu31924050187842.pdf "I look upon that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people." Patrick Henry's Election Speech to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Prince Edward Courthouse, 3rd Monday of March, 1788. http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/jesse-richards-commentary... The "constitution" itself was a counter revolution to the agreed government set up at the revolution. It thoroughly repudiates the 5 truths articulated in the Declaration of Independence as the causes and premises for the Declaration by declaring itself to be the "supreme" law/sacred text of the land. Thus creating itself as a "sovereign" with divine right to rule because its subjects have elected representatives to plead and petition the sovereign. The eventual corruption was systemic from the initiation as articulated by the "Anti-Federalists." They were right and the Federalists were wrong.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 25 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Geoffrey Allan Plauché at http://gaplauche.com/blog/2008/01/29/comments-on-roderick-longs-inside-a... has comments on Roderick Long's "Inside and Outside Spooner's Natural Law Jurisprudence". At the bottom of his comments is a clickable link to Rod's paper. I'm such a computer klutz I have no other way to post a link directly to Long's treatise, as it posts as a word file. Sam