Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 34 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Since I'm a free, sovereign state, Suverans2, I refrain from recognizing "Jurisdictions". But if I witness a silly movie-style car with red light flashing behind me I've learned it's probably a dangerously-armed goon wearing a silly costume and identified as a government agent, or government policeman. And I know these schizoids have been given free reign to shoot anybody and everybody on-site and claim later they didn't stop in time and acted like they might be a terrorist, etc etc., and never pay any kind of a consequence. So if a white man named Black, who in history claimed to have some authentic "knowledge" of the legal correctness of such terms as "highway" -- that only means he thought what he sez a highway be, it be. It does not mean what he sez be a highway BE a highway. Even if millions of other white men ("practicing", whatever that's supposed to mean, in the white man's court) accept white-Black's opinions as holy grail -- it still only means in their opinion Black could define what a highway be. So dictionaries, like jurisdictions, are meaningless unless I want to impress somebody with my authenticity or my validity (or my capacity for bamfoozling the troops), which I normally do not need to do unless I get trapped into one of the white man's courts; at which time I must first challenge the jurisdiction of s/he who is bringing charges, as well as the "judge" who claims to have "jurisdiction" to cause me grief. But that's just a bunch of fluff in what they're calling a "writ of habeas corpus", which properly defined means I'd better show a grateful attitude and acknowledge they're all such nice guys regardless of charges or jail conditions or I'd be a dead man by now, and after all we're a nation of laws not men. So if you ain't seen a government highway, Suverans2, you just hain't been lookin'. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    "It is thrown in the face of Christian ethics." ~ Jim Davies As much as you seem to enjoy throwing things in the face of Christians, it really does depend on what one reads, or reads into That Book, as the case may be. Think of That Book as a smorgasbord, a buffet, where you can pick what you want and leave the rest and one might be surprised at all the useful information. Irrational individuals usually find all the "bad stuff" and then use that as an excuse to 'throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Here are a just a few tasty morsels that the "Christian anarchists" adhere to. 1Corinthians 7:23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. 2Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? [Unbelievers being, among other things, those who believe that other men are born to be their "servants".] 2Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord... [Individual secession] Revelations 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. [Withdraw from membership (individual secession) in "her";"her" being Babylon, the "melting pot of the world"; and one of "her" greatest sins, according to That Book, is that "she" makes "merchandise of...slaves, and souls (lives) of men".] 2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you... ["Covetousness", they desire to have all your stuff without earning it; "feigned words", is the legalese used by the liars...er-r-r...lawyers to plunder your stuff, and the "merchandise", in this case, is "human resources"; they are traffickers in human flesh. Know any who are like that?] Luke 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. [nomikos, "expert in the...law"] Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Re: Perhaps the most delightful chapter in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is the one describing Dagny Taggart's visit to Galt's Gulch. Exhausted and frustrated by trying to run a railroad in the teeth of bureaucrats and bloodsuckers, she drops in to see what a free society is like--and is given a vision of liberty. If Rand had never written or done anything else, this single chapter (#1 of Part III) would make her life remarkable. --"Existence exists and man's mind is capable of knowing it". Ayn Rand ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This sums up the three sections of her book "Atlas Shrugged": "A is A"--The Law of Identity. II. "Non-Contradiction"--The Art of non-contradictory identification. III 'Existence Exists"--Reality exists independent of man. ( The axioms are from Aristotle) In Part III the heroes leave the world to those in Part II whose world has collapsed *because of the contradictions* they continue to hold. And in Part I there are those who understand that "Nature to be commanded must be understood", and that "You can't have your cake and eat it"; And accordingly "Grant me the serenity to change the things I can and the courage to know the difference". And those who do not. Dagny is indeed "Exhausted and frustrated" UNTIL she comes to see the contradiction she holds thinking she can show (*educate/manage*) others thru the sheer force of reason.... She finds her own freedom when she is able to finally adopt the self rule (anarchy/agorism) principle of "live and let live" which is "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." As Jim might find if he shrugged (went on strike, the original title of "Atlas Shrugged") regarding his unsupported assertion that he and others (we) cannot possibly be free nor live in Gulches until ALL the statists have been re-educated with his re-education program. Re: Galt's Gulch was "defended" by magic. This verdant valley was protected from hostile government attention by using so-far undiscovered electronic techniques for making it invisible from above; a spotter plane would see a mirage of mountains like those nearby, rather as if the landscape had been Photoshopped. From beneath, one would see clear blue sky normally and pilots "in the know" could dive through the barrier and land as usual. Magic. Real-life enclaves would need real-life defense. --This so called "magic" would be consistent with today's hologram imaging technology and a verification of good Science Fiction not fantasy nor "magic". Science Fiction is not like fantasy. Science Fiction has to be plausible, realistic, possible and yes, it has to be real. Even if it hasn’t happened yet, or never happened in the past, Science Fiction has to be possible in some alternate world. Elements that make a story downright impossible make a story something other than Science Fiction. There is a lot of leeway as to what reality includes, especially when dealing with a possible science or technology. It is important that the ideas appear to be real and do not raise obvious objections. Furthermore because Jim cannot find nor see the actual Gulches already out there does not mean they do not exist. It does mean that they have been able to maintain the very secrecy and privacy Jim thinks is impossible in an UNFREE world. Just by moving from the East coast to the less densely populated West coast is a good start. Good for them!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 34 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Sam, Don't know if I've ever seen any "government roads"; most of the roads I have been on are either multi-jurisdictional or private. Highway. A free and public roadway, or street; one which every person has a right to use. Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 728
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim Davies: "No need, says Rand; just get the simple principle dead right in a single sentence, and the details will work themselves out." With all respect, this statement is simply not true. In my article at http://tinyurl.com/Objectivism-to-Agorism which refers to Galt's Gulch, I quote Ayn Rand on this very issue: ------------------------------ Being an Objectivist morally and philosophically, I [Dennis Wilson] am understandably interested in Ayn Rand’s view of government. After defining the moral principles underlying a proper political system, she really had very little to say about the specific form it would take. She expressed some personal preferences (repeated below) but THERE IS NO FORMAL OBJECTIVIST POLITICS! Ms. Rand said in a magazine interview with journalist Garth Ancier[1]: * "I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done." It is well known that Galt’s Gulch as described in Atlas Shrugged has become THE prime model for those seeking relief from our current culture of ever encroaching tyranny. In The Letters of Ayn Rand, The Later Years (1960-1981) page 626, May 2, 1964, commenting about Galt’s Gulch, Ayn Rand said: * "I must mention that Galt's Gulch is not an organized society, but a private club whose members share the same philosophy. It exemplifies the basic MORAL principles of social relationships among rational men, THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH A PROPER POLITICAL SYSTEM SHOULD BE BUILT." [EMPHASIS ADDED] * "It does not deal with questions of political organization, with the details of a legal framework needed to establish and maintain a free society open to all, including dissenters. It does not deal with specifically political principles, only with their MORAL base. (I indicate that the proper political framework is to be found in the Constitution, with its contradictions removed.)" [EMPHASIS ADDED] ------------------------------ Later in my article I point out that "Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of interpersonal relationships based on those moral principles." And I proceed to explain why I think such. Elsewhere I have pointed out that minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do not require a person to be "fully rational". Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! The basic or minimum requirement is understanding and adhering to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily apparent to children. But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. [I have witnessed some pretty gross rationalizations, created in the name of Galt's Oath and/or by people who claim to be Objectivists, that would have undoubtedly outraged Ayn Rand--and perhaps you have witnessed such also...Dennis] Because of varying education levels, understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. And THAT leads to the need for Political Statements. http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement A characteristic of political statements--and a reason why they exist--is that they are more explicit and do not depend as heavily on education level as do moral statements and they are less subject to "interpretations".
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 34 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    When you think about it, Paul, what percentage of people could concede the cold, hard fact that all "rulership" everywhere (other than the family) is criminal and is simply a matter of who holds and is willing to use the gun? I mean outside this and a half-dozen other anarchist-oriented forums. The family is rulership. The human newborn is unique among living beings due to its absolute dependence upon parents and adult caregivers for every element of basic survival. Even a newborn puppy or colt will at birth struggle to its feet, awkwardly find its way to mommy's teat to nourish itself, and is born with a coat adequate to assure its survival in its innate climate. Within months it will be weaned and from that time have no kinship with parent or sibling. Not so the human newborn. S/he is given total care at birth, protective and loving guidance until 5 or 6 (at times including incarceration in the form of bed and playpen rails to keep him or her from hazards until they can be trained and trusted to avoid perils and graduate to a bunk bed); a slow but loving unbinding of the restrictive chains until Mom and Dad can finally (with trepidation) say, "...OK. You may take the car to the party. But you call me at 8, and be home by 11!..." How many parents have heard, "..you just wait 'till I'm eighteen! THEN you can't tell me what to do!..." Already they have been inculcated with the statist mindset that state functionaries have a mandate to "determine" the age at which you are "legally" adult, thereby accountable. But "free"??? Alas, shortly thereafter kids will come or call back home with the lament, "...please! Tell me what to do!..." I think there's a line in an old country song, "Life gets complicated once you reach eighteen". You and I will love our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren until death do us part. In a normal and healthy family Mom and Dad will give loving guidance forever. That is the proper roll of governance -- not "government" or "rulership". There is a distinct difference. All rulership outside the family is gangsterism. Enforced by the unacknowledged gun pointing at you. By sociopaths who know that a vast majority of the unwashed masses are easily inducted into "voluntary compliance". The other small percentage (those who have a character defect called "thinking") can be dealt with -- through peer pressure or with direct violence. I just now gave bail money to a coworker whose father was arrested and jailed last night for operating a vehicle without insurance -- third offense. Gangsters of state and lobbyists of insurance (now a GSE -- government sponsored enterprise) have slept together incestuously to force all drivers on government roads to purchase their product. Under threat of savagery -- and you don't know what savagery is until you've spent a night or two in the white man's jail. Make no mistake -- if I stick a gun in your gut I become "your ruler". But I give you an advantage: if you comply "voluntarily" I'll go away and leave you alone and never bother you again unless you're dumb enough to come back into the same dark alley in which I robbed you the first time. Another advantage you have with me is that I know what I am -- a robber. I won't try to induce you to chant some slogan that you owe your "freedom" to the likes of me. I just thought of something: maybe I should give you my name and address. Out of gratefulness that I refrained from shooting your ass you might just continue to contribute some of your hard-earned "money" to me regularly. Voluntarily, of course. Good luck on locating that social contract. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 34 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Federal Reserve Notes would longer be accepted as currency and only conversion to hard specie currencies like minted silver, gold or composite value currency could be used" Why? Merely "accepting" currency, freely offered by a patron, places no onus[1] on a man. However, accepting "anything" from the government ALWAYS has a string attached. As proof of this let me pose a question. Assume that I, or my representative, borrow a million babel bux into existence, and I then turn around and freely give it to you at your casino; who lawfully owes the debt? ___________________________________________________________ onus noun ▸if the onus is on someone to do something, it is their responsibility or duty to do it ~ Macmillan Dictionary
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 34 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    “The Lakota are five years running after petitioning the State Department for withdrawal.” Bill Buppert [Emphasis added] Petitioning???? Petition. A written request, embodying an application or prayer from the person or persons preferring it, to the power, body, or person to whom it is presented, for the exercise of his or their authority in the redress of some wrong, or the grant of some favor, privilege, or license. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1145 One does not pray to the god called state for the “favor, privilege or license” to secede; secession is a natural right, it is not bestowed by any man-made government. Secession is simply the “act of withdrawing from membership in a group”. Did the colonists “petition” the person known as "King George III" for the “favor, privilege, or license” to secede? Not just no, but hell no!! They simply, out of "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind", declared "the causes which [impelled] them to the separation".[1] "Positive law defines the legal but can only be lawful in so far individuals have full secession rights from the institutional framework that is making said positive law." ~ Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law Notice, too, that Frank said "individuals have full secession rights". He's right because only individuals have natural rights. Corporations, i.e. "two or more persons united[2]" are examples of "artificial persons", that is to say, they are formed and authorized by human law[3], and as an "artificial" entity, they do not have "natural" anything. _________________________________________________ [1] "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession." ~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University [Emphasis added] ...not a "prayer" for the “favor, privilege, or license” to secede. [2] Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [3] Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113
  • Guest's picture
    MassOutrage (not verified) 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    I don't see from history that most people will "see the light". I know it sounds negative, but most people will go to war, pay high taxes, go to worshipful Obama rallies, and never ask themselves why North and South Korea are different. I also disagree that those who choose dependence on the state will find things more difficult. I see them adapt to gaming the system more efficiently all the time. The new welfare racket is to get "crazy checks" (Social Security Disability) for mom and for all her little whelps that have no steady father at home. The Parasite-American community is growing fast, and the sluggard/theft lifestyle is becoming more lucrative all the time. In the end, when has any people been able to throw off government, and keep it thrown off for more than a few months. People demand it, relentlessly. And there is always a Saddam/Obama/Bush at the ready to demagogue himself into power. The most ruthless guy with the least conscience, the best guile, and the smiley-est face gets to the top and the people tolerate it. See e.g. Ettiene de La Boitee., Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    I am a strong supporter of the Jim Davies' approach to our problem. He is using reason in a way that would delight Th. Jefferson. I note with considerable interest that the U.S.-funded Israelis are using assassination to destroy the governments of their enemies. Indeed, it may well be that Iranian citizens are also assassinating their own leaders. (Of course, Obama is now assassinating some Americans who openly disagree with his foreign policies, including a 16 y.o. Denver teenager, whose only crime was having the wrong father.) The Israelis are using their own spies, and perhaps "Black Market Reloaded" (tor accessible) operatives, which are reputedly anonymous and untraceable, and will contract in several countries. For just a few thousand dollars, they can target Iranian ? tax collectors or scientists, brutal police, ? Syrian politicians, ? Iraqi bureaucrats, and even ? Americans who disagree with their policies. That Jewish newspaper fellow in Atlanta made the same point. He was not joking. It is an interesting approach, with which I suspect Jim Bell will be in accord. What if someone had put out an anonymous hit on Hitler or Stalin or Mao, or even Lincoln. Would unnecessary wars have been averted, for the cost of single bullet? Bell argued in an essay about ten years ago that some day all governments would be eliminated in this manner. The Israeli government, especially, is testing his thesis, as it continues its quest for domination of the Middle East, using its U.S. proxy army. I presume government officials of Israel pray that their enemies do not have computers, perhaps including some Israelis.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    I agree with both MassOutrage and Paul. I see most people wanting someone else to take care of them and make them feel safe. Thus the state has become the surrogate parent for so many people. And we don’t need to convince everybody that individual responsibility is superior to enslaved dependence; just enough to create a functioning market with a division of labor sufficient to allow for increasing productivity and opportunities. Those that choose dependence on the state will find life increasingly difficult while those preferring liberty will prosper until eventually most will see the light. Still, not everybody will. I still am amazed at how many people don’t see the comparisons between North and South Korea or East and West Germany as being indicative of this phenomenon. Die-hard statists will just have to be left to their own devices until they are extinct. Still a good read Jim.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 34 weeks ago Web link strike
    DHS reportedly ordered 2,717 International MaxxPro Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in January. Who are they planning on fighting/rescuing?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    "So the real solution, the only one that can work in real life, is to induce everyone in the whole society (America would be a good place to start) to understand why it's appropriate to take the oath of those in Galt's Gulch." What does this mean? That everyone must take the oath? Or think about taking it? Or having the opinion it is a reasonable oath even if they personally wouldn't take it? Or leave alone those people who do take it? What about people already anarchists not interested in taking this oath? I think Per Bylund has a much firmer grip on reality. But hey, it may actually be that some people are able to be swayed toward freedom by sales tactics like this. More power to you if you can find some of them. Let me know when "everyone in the whole society" has bought your program. Of course it requires people to give up on such things as God himself, so I suspect you will find you are simply selecting from a small fraction of society already inclined in a certain direction, not even the full set of people who are capable of appreciating freedom (since there are plenty of Christian anarchists for example). Even if you have some initial success (how many by the way?), you may find you run out of potential candidates in time. My main problem with it, is that it requires far too much to get to our desired end. Despite repeated claims that "nothing less will do" that you seem so fond of saying, the reality is that very much less will do just fine. We don't need everybody to go through your program, ending up in complete agreement. We just need enough people to understand and practice simple tolerance - which they naturally do anyway, at least in face-to-face interactions - and practice it consistently. Failing that, to have other incentives, such as fear, to leave us alone. This is a much lower bar than the one you propose. Bottom line, we don't need everyone. We do need a goodly number, including the influential ones particularly, to tolerate us if not join us. We need the rest to leave us alone for other diverse reasons if tolerance doesn't work for them.
  • Guest's picture
    MassOutrage (not verified) 5 years 34 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Without knowing it, this article exposes the great problem that Atlas Shrugged, and the proponents of liberty will not acknowledge or address: The vast majority of persons don't want liberty. Ayn Rand's book tacitly admits that most of the people wanted the ridiculous laws about "equality" and government control that the government kept piling on, one after another. Only a few persons still embraced liberty, at least until it ruined them, such as some train engineers and farmers. Just like then, the vast majority right now continue to choose slavery to government. Otherwise, Ron Paul would be president, and we would be on our way to eliminating the artifact of the constitution and the powers it gave to a strong-arm central government. We have what the majority want: Not liberty, but theft from others for their own benefit; Not freedom, but crushing laws, regulations and a police state enforcement apparatus. Not mutual respect and peace, but perpetual wars on invented enemies outside the country, and on herbs, thoughts, money, and yes, liberty. Ayn Rand provided the narrative the proof that it CAN'T work as we wish it might. Maybe we should discern the basic makeup of humans and their motives more wisely, and advocate change in accord with that. Anything else is foolish naivety.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 34 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    BTW, none of "my" congresscritters responded to this communication of mine, even with a form letter. I suppose there is no way for them to respond to it, if you think about it.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 35 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The days of brick and mortar are waning. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 35 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Dominant Social Theme: (thanks, Daily Bell) (Said the spider to the fly) "We are committed to making our web comfortable, habitable and secure for all citizens within our realm of authority. Citizens should be thankful for our protective presence everywhere and anytime..."
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 35 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    In today's culture, a better education can be had from the internet than the one I got from Public schools and a State University. HERE is a really good one...: http://www.khanacademy.org/ Scroll down and marvel at the enormous selection of subjects!! Watch the founder explain it...: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/82347.html Now THAT is being creative!!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 35 weeks ago Quotation strike
    Well, Suverans2, the store appears to be open again, so I'll cut this short so nobody has to wait in line for comment space. You and I are definitely "on the same page". I think you know that. It's just that my tendency toward convoluted phraseology has not improved a whole lot with age. Often I'll look at something I wrote a day or so prior and can't decipher my own stuff -- how the hell do I expect anybody else to know what I meant??? My comment had to do with, as you aptly labeled them, gangs -- one gang seceding from another gang (collectivist entities referred to by the serfs as "states" or "nations", even when half or more of the sheep residing therein could care less and may even oppose the sociopathic "leaders"). For years the US Government boobuses had me on their books as an "illegal tax protestor". They quit using that term due to there being nothing illegal about protesting (or choosing to abstain from "voluntary compliance" -- a classic state absurdity). They've apparently quit hounding me because to them I'm not only a non-person, I'm just a tough old chop. With their current budget they can get more "bang" by hounding young, tender loins lurking about. Especially high profile loins. I stay low profile. It does not matter to me what they (or their computers) perceive their relationship with me. I know they will attack if confronted, and I've learned to avoid being attacked, especially by hordes with heavy arsenals. I am a free, sovereign state. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 35 weeks ago Quotation strike
    And, good day to you, too, Sam. Donald Livingstone, only stated, in that quote, that the so-called Declaration of Independence is a document containing information “justifying secession”, that is to say, showing why secession is just. I happen to agree with his assessment, and what makes it a particularly good template is the fact that it is the very document used to “justify” the existence of the corporation known as the United States Government. Yeah, Suverans2, but it's still all a collectivist mind game when you boil it down. Secession via this, that or some other document is an act of granting legitimacy to the entity from which you're claiming to secede. So, an individual withdrawing from membership in a gang, or giving the gang notice of withdrawal from membership (especially, it would seem, using the gangs own declaration of independence), is, in your opinion, “an act of granting legitimacy to the entity [gang]”. Fascinating. Oh, and I happen to know that secession is always an individual act. And if you're acting as one of the wizards of whatever klan it is that purports to claim "independence" (which will forthwith "join the family of nations"), you're no doubt as sociopathic as those wizards to whom you're directing said declaration of independence. I think you know me better than that, Sam. I am not “acting as one of the wizards of [any] klan that purports to claim “independence”...), so I will not waste your and my time responding to the “sociopathic” charge. And, once more, secession is always an individual act; notwithstanding that some individuals have consented to abide by whatever their representative(s) decides is best for them. Consider: Some of "Our-Forefathers" might have appeared to be relatively sincere and focused upon "Freedom-Of-The-Citizens". But very quickly as history is calculated -- within a generation or two -- their progeny were finalizing schemes to impound all production of all "The-Citizens" and nationalize all work of all individuals residing within "Our-Great-Nation"....The groundwork had been laid with the machinations of a gangster named Hamilton. Yes, the “Federalists”, particularly Alexander Levine/Hamilton, and James Madison, were most certainly puppets of those doing the calculating. I find it quite telling that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the so-called Declaration of Independence, characterized the delegates as an assembly of "demi-gods", and that Patrick Henry was also noticeably absent; he refused to go because he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy." Evidently they were both right. Interjection: thanks again, Suverans2, for your help a few weeks ago on private email in launching me and getting me up to speed in html technology. Most of the time nowadays my embedded links actually work, thanks to your gentle nudging. You know, of course, that you are very welcome. The other 1% (that would be thee and me) can be dealt with. Severely. When they can find us. Do you think that we actually make up a whopping 1%? I thought it to be a much lower percentage than that. ;) And, for the record, I'm not hiding, Sam; as an Individual Secessionist, I am regarded as "nonexistent", "nonexistent", "nonexistent", is all. 'Til next time, my friend.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 35 weeks ago Quotation strike
    Yeah, Suverans2, but it's still all a collectivist mind game when you boil it down. Secession via this, that or some other document is an act of granting legitimacy to the entity from which you're claiming to secede. And if you're acting as one of the wizards of whatever klan it is that purports to claim "independence" (which will forthwith "join the family of nations"), you're no doubt as sociopathic as those wizards to whom you're directing said declaration of independence. Consider: Some of "Our-Forefathers" might have appeared to be relatively sincere and focused upon "Freedom-Of-The-Citizens". But very quickly as history is calculated -- within a generation or two -- their progeny were finalizing schemes to impound all production of all "The-Citizens" and nationalize all work of all individuals residing within "Our-Great-Nation"....The groundwork had been laid with the machinations of a gangster named Hamilton. Some of you have heard me state that my favorite US "politician" in history was Aaron Burr. Burr declared and personally carried out the only legitimate "war" perpetrated by schizoids of state: having a number of issues, both private and "public", with Hamilton; Burr called him out, challenged him to a duel and shot his ass. Bring back the duel, I say. End the insanity of marching "citizens" off to murder (warning: lossa bad language in the video) "brown citizens over there" and call it "war". Enter The Federal Reserve Act and The Sixteenth Amendment (which was and is fraudulent to its core since it does not spell out what is being "taxed", does not define "income", and does not amend already existing restrictions on taxation in that "sacred" instrument called "The Constitution"). Interjection: thanks again, Suverans2, for your help a few weeks ago on private email in launching me and getting me up to speed in html technology. Most of the time nowadays my embedded links actually work, thanks to your gentle nudging. But never worry your little head about legalities. All "positions of state" (senator, congressman, potus, secretary of this or that department and all their warring generals) are always filled by sociopaths. Sociopaths are sociopaths due to their inbred capacity to understand that the 99% ("citizens") will never really call into question "My-Country" ("Our-Great-Nation"). Most of them are inclined to docilely comply with the edicts of "our" leaders. "TPTB" (the-powers-that-be). "Voluntary Compliance" is an oxymoron of genius coinage. The other 1% (that would be thee and me) can be dealt with. Severely. When they can find us. I'm just filling space 'till the store opens again. Regards. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 35 weeks ago Quotation strike
    "The Declaration of Independence was and is, no more and no less, than a document justifying secession." ~ Donald Livingston, PhD--Emory University
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 35 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Yes Sam, I look at Harry Browne like Ron Paul as great educators. As Harry put it in the Afterword to the 25th Anniversary Edition of How I Found FREEDOM in an UNFREE WORLD: "You have to decide for yourself whether to participate in any group endeavor. And one thing to weigh is whether you will consider your participation to have been worthwhile even if the group doesn't achieve its main objective". Ron Paul Is the Future http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/109404.html Ron Paul on Self-Government or Tip-Toeing Into Panarchism http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/109298.html Best Regards and congrats, Atlas
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Atlas: ~I personally have found that Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an UNFree World" and L Neil Smith's "Covenant of Unanimous Consent" have provided a simple way to live in an UNFree world. Including seeing thru and solving the assumption that others need to be changed (Identity and Group Traps). (Emphasis mine in what I think was a quotation by Atlas from somebody else. As Jim Davies stated in a recent post, this thread has become so lengthy it's hard to know where you're wading into it. That happens, I surmise, when "we anarchists" let ourselves get sucked into the business of judging any belief system practiced by others). To attempt to answer "The G-d Question" as it pertains to libertarians is tricky at best -- sociopathic inquisition at its worst. Bill W and Dr Bob (Bill Wilson, co-founder with Dr Bob Smith, of Alcoholics Anonymous) discovered that conundrum. What they had set out to do was to help as many hopeless drunks as possible to get sober and stay sober -- as they had helped each other at the very beginning, 77 years ago June 10th. The result was the most libertarian "movement" (I know, "movement" is really oxymoronic to genuine libertarianism) I've run across. Didn't you mention that recently, Atlas? We drunks seemingly can only tolerate genuine libertarianism. I didn't recognize that or make the connection in that manner until well after I had been exposed to STR and Mr. Davies' and many others' excellent essays early on in my quest for liberty. Many (most) of us guys and gals who straggled into AA for help had been so sullied by organized religions and the superstitious edicts thereof that we could not even conceive of a Higher Power without suspecting that some sort of "religion" would become involved. Yet we knew to a man (and woman -- the original text of Alcoholics Anonymous is slanted to the male) that our own best thinking inevitably led to one more drink and one more drunken debauchery. And insanity or death -- the latter preferable to the former. Harry Browne was probably most responsible of anybody for my coming to libertarian thinking and anarchy..although he ran for "potus" under Libertarian (note upper case "L") auspices, and as such would have to be considered "mini-statist". "How I found Freedom.." is the most concise and complete outline for liberty I know of. Not once does Harry call somebody else's faith "foolishness", although he does include religion as a part of "the group trap" -- primarily because organized religions often advocate the practice of proselytizing in one form or another. I don't think liberty can be proselytized, and implying somebody's faith is "foolish belief" is, as I see it, unbecoming to us. Sam PS: I received my 28 year medallion Sunday from Steve F, my AA sponsor of 35 years. I can say that because I'm anonymous except for a couple of guys on here who know my "real" handle.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Some of the preceding discussions reminds me of the following excerpt from Harry Browne's book: Why You Are Not Free, Ch. 11: The Burning-Issues Trap http://www.ultimatefreedomquest.com/harry-browne-burning-issues-trap/ All right, it’s time to move on to the eleventh chapter of the book, “How I found freedom in an unfree world” by Harry Browne Harry is going to talk about the myth that you must fix social issues before you can be free. I will simply be adding the parts of the book that I highlighted. By no means is this the entire book or even the best way to sum up each chapter, it’s just what I excerpted so that I could review the book quickly later. Chapter 11 [For the bankrupt society]: The Burning-Issues Trap. To be free, you must know what you’re doing and why. Otherwise, slight setbacks can cause you to discard your plans and give up. The Burning-Issues Trap THE BURNING-ISSUE TRAP is the belief that there are compelling social issues that require your participation. *You can enslave yourself by assuming* a responsibility to observe, judge, and correct any social problems. For the problems will continue indefinitely. They’ll never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The demands upon your time, energy, and money can never cease. Campaigns for social change are excellent examples of the indirect alternative—working through others to get what you want. Your success depends on the responses of literally thousands of people. Your control over the situation is minute. The existence of evil isn’t a claim upon you. “Evil” will always exist in the world. To accept as a principle that you must fight something because it’s evil is to believe you must fight anything that’s evil. There’s no end to the number of evils that could command your attention. Is that all your life is for—to spend it fighting evil? Questions: But you can get a better perspective on the issue if you ask yourself a few questions: 1. How much do you really know about the issue in which you’re about to get involved? 2. How do you know the solutions sought will end the problem? 3. Is the issue really of significance to you? 4. Is it possible that you’re responding to social pressure rather than genuine concern over the issue? Solving Problems If an issue concerns you, there are both direct and indirect alternatives available to you. The indirect alternative is to try to change the prevailing social trend—which involves changing others. The direct alternatives are the ways by which you can handle the problem so that it doesn’t affect you personally. Ask yourself what you’d do if you were sure you couldn’t change the attitudes of others. What then would you do by yourself to keep the problem from affecting you? If you approach it on that basis, you usually find that there are many more direct alternatives available than you’d noticed while you were busy trying to change others. You’re not going to live forever. With the years ahead of you, why not start now to concentrate on making your life as meaningful, free, exciting, and joyous as possible? You are the most important issue in the world. What happens in the social issues is only incidental; to concentrate on them is to approach the matter much too indirectly. What you do directly for yourself will have a far greater impact on your life than what you do in response to the burning issues of society.
  • David Calderwood's picture
    David Calderwood 5 years 36 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    As I posted on the original website, I believe Higgs' column may be an oversimplification; he admits it is basically anecdotal. His reply to comments clarified his position greatly. He posits that those who believe this life is just a prelude to the next one may be more likely to risk this one in a stand on principle. Taking the opposite position, one could also state that such faith would also help people strap on bomb vests and walk into a place crowded with others. Such faith would lower the marginal resistance to joining the Christian (or any other religion) Soldiers marching as to war...with the cross of Jesus, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaah. I doubt Professor Higgs (or anyone else) would like to simply count the number of times someone did a "good" thing based on a lower marginal value placed on this life, subtract the number times someone did a "bad" thing based on the same calculus, and yield an answer. In the end, I simply disagree on this particular position with the good professor. I think decisions one makes are either pro-life or anti-life, and a handful of White Rose martyrs count for anti-life while an army of people telling their sons and daughters that it is unequivocally wrong to work for the Ministry of (fill in the blank) is pro-life. Until the balance of consensus as to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG shifts, martyrs are just corpses. While someone could argue that martyrs contribute to a shift in the balance of that consensus, I'm not sure what data one could cite in support. Such a position strikes me as an argument over the number of angels fitting on the head of a pin sort of thing.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 36 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Well, there is one sure way to avoid being sent into the gulag: never allow yourself to be arrested in the first place. Glen, you say it's time to speak out while you still can. It appears to be even more important to buy yourself a battle rifle and a case of ammo while you still can. Being armed is a great way to avoid anxiety attacks, too. :-)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    "It seems one could believe in God(s), or believe in the possibility of God(s) without subscribing to any authoritarian or over-explanatory religious doctrine." ~ tzo That, my friend, would be Deism, if I am not mistaken.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    ~To see superstition for what it is, is to be free of it. ..."The root cause of most of society's ills--the main source of man's inhumanity to man--is neither malice nor negligence, but a *mere* superstition--an *unquestioned assumption* which has been accepted on *faith* by nearly everyone, of all ages, races, religions, education and income levels. If people were to recognize that one belief for what it is--an utterly irrational, self-contradictory, and horribly *destructive myth*--most of the violence, oppression and injustice in the world would cease. But that will happen only when people dare to honestly and objectively re-examine their belief systems. Larken Rose's '"The Most Dangerous Superstition" *exposes the myth for what it is, showing how nearly everyone*, as a result of one particular unquestioned assumption, is directly contributing to violence and oppression without even realizing it. If you imagine yourself to be a compassionate, peace-loving, civilized human being, you must read this book". http://larkenrose.com/store.html ~I personally have found that Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom in an UNFree World" and L Neil Smith's "Covenant of Unanimous Consent" have provided a simple way to live in an UNFree world. Including seeing thru and solving the assumption that others need to be changed (Identity and Group Traps). References: Dying for a Lie Thursday, 14 July 2011 08:00 http://larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/2091.html Harry Browne's Freedom Principles http://www.escapeartist.com/Roger_Gallo/Harry_Brownes_Freedom_Principles/ what's up - A discussion about The Covenant of Unanimous Consent http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=42.msg125...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Voluntaryist: I know that all superstitions must be confronted and opposed at every opportunity. Why? Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day JD, You may not be aware, but you failed to answer the question, and instead chose to resort to ridicule. The question was, if Deism is "...the 17th- and 18th-cent. doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning[1]", does this, "who created everything that exists and who is closely interested in the conduct of each of seven billion individual humans", pertain, in any way, to Deists? Since you may no longer be responding to anything I write, I will answer it for you, "No, it does not". See how easy it is to give an honest answer? _____________________________________________________________ [1] Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    This thread is so long I only just came across your post, Paul. I'm glad you've no wish to offend. Even so, you came pretty close by comparing my approach to that of Leftists, and by calling me "presumptuous." I fear there is more of a gulf between us than I'd realized. I'm not interested in whether anyone prefers cats to dogs or cauliflower to beans, but certainly I'm eager that everyone base his or her life on rationality instead of superstition. If you want to insert the words "like me" I can't stop you, but I do resent it. Reason is the distinguishing feature of human beings, and the only basis for the self-ownership axiom; so to urge everyone to think rationally seems to me a pretty good place to begin. Then, I see you want to "get everybody else... to look for localized government models that they prefer for themselves." Really? You want to encourage people to form governments? I wonder what it is about the tin gods of town hall and the zoning or school board that you find so appealing. My understanding was that Strike the Root intends to put an ax through all that nonsense.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    The obscene growth and intrusiveness of the State is a fact, whether or not we like to imagine where it may rather shortly lead. I'm sorry therefore that you decline to imagine yourself in a concentration camp. That, or a gulag, is where governments put dissidents when they have the power to do so; and ours very nearly has. Fixing the mind on more wholesome subjects is all very fine, but it will not stop them. If and when it does take place, you will have your inner peace and sense of freedom, we've already agreed that; but you will not have much else. You'll not line up and wait to be transported in a cattle car, but that will not stop them finding you and caging you, if and when they decide to do so. Quite obviously, living in a government cage is not "freedom" at all except in that important but limited sense. Equally, I am not attracted by taking the trouble to live low-profile, to become as hard as possible for government to see; that may be "freedom" to you (and if so I don't mean to challenge your choice) but to me, it is not. It's a prison of a different kind. To me, freedom means doing whatever I want, wherever and whenever I wish - without, of course, aggression. Looking always over my shoulder is not my idea of fun. Therefore, since there is a way to abolish the State and liberate everyone, I choose to take it.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, >>There's truth there, but .... I'm disappointed. I thought we were BOTH too old for "buts". >>Let's imagine a situation where you are... Nope. Sorry. My imagination works differently. [ http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty ] *I* imagine myself NEVER EVER allowing such conditions as you describe to be thrust upon me. (You supply the details, I will not spell them out). Perhaps the differences in our imaginations is because of differences where each of us was raised and/or the differences where each of us now chose to live... >>...in your own self-interest (to obtain that much larger measure of freedom, and the strong satisfaction of helping liberate others) I encourage you to undertake the work. I HAVE done what *I* think needs doing in order to attract the kind of people *I* can admire (i.e. liberated individuals) and I am quite satisfied with my work. Like you, I have expressed my views and shared my insights to hopefully help individuals liberate themselves. I have published articles (in The Libertarian Enterprise) and I built an on-line shop and two public websites with various collections of articles and projects--including several links to YOUR websites and articles. At this time, I have written more about The Covenant of Unanimous Consent than has the author, L. Neil Smith--who seems to have given up on his brainchild in favor of petitioning the government and blocking "illegal" immigration. http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna <<--the shop http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php I encourage you to explore the sites. I won't guarantee light reading, but you may find things you have not considered. Best regards, Dennis
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Wow! I forgot how much I enjoyed thinking about important issues. And how much I owed to Branden. It was his "First Cause" article that helped me understand the "Existence exists" point of Rand. This is essential to the foundation of Objectivist metaphysics. And very useful in life. For example, a sound metaphysics leads to a sound epistemology which leads to a sound ethics. I know that all superstitions must be confronted and opposed at every opportunity. Doing so without denigrating the individual is tough. The temptation to ridicule is hard to resist (for me) sometimes. When I do, I am not giving into my own insecurities and being petty. I am at my best. I noticed Ayn could take either tact. I admired her most when she was not so defensive, but stood her ground eloquently. As for the futility of arguing with a theist I agree it does appear that way sometimes. But it must be done. It is not a waste of time. 1. It is good for you. 2. Silence can be taken as moral weakness or cowardice or doubt. That encourages the superstitious and gives them the appearance of credence. 3. Other more open listeners may be given "food for thought". This may not bear fruit for years and you will never know when it does. But it does happen. Standing up for truth is never a waste of time. The most effective teaching method is by example. It is observed and taken in subconsciously. It moves without pain. And it is long lasting. For this reason I would like to see a libertarian community founded. The danger from outside is real. But what of the danger now? It is greater. And time is running out. Doing less than the most effective effort is a luxury we cannot afford without high risk. It would refute collectivism in a non confrontational way. It is our best chance for total freedom in our time. And besides, it would be fun.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 36 weeks ago
    Signs of Autumn
    Page B.R. Merrick
    "The methods and processes of this migration from governmental influence will (and should) vary from person to person. I cannot and will not dictate the number of ways it should be done, because depending on your circumstances with work, family, income and locale, my advice may or may not be worth the effort." I cannot and will not dictate ways either, but if you care to review a few ideas that might stir some brain cells, give this article a try...: http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty “Superstate North America vs. Individual Sovereignty” A discourse on the impending North American Union and how it relates to being a free individual Dennis
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Dennis, congrats on discovering that you were not, after all, wrong. And I'm glad we can disagree without acrimony. That difference hinges, I think, on your "I don't need a 'free society' in order to be free." There's truth there, but IMHO falsehood also. Let's imagine a situation where you are in all appearance as un-free as possible; you're in a concentration camp, barely existing on gruel, grossly overworked, clinging on to life. Are you "free" with no need of a free society? In one sense you are, because your mind is still free. They can mistreat your body, take your life even, but your spirit is not shackled and with any luck it never will be. I understand that, and agree with it. In that important sense, everyone is free the moment we realize that no master has a _rightful_ claim on our obedience. (I could have illustrated this with a slave plantation. You'd agree that with that proviso, even a 100% slave is actually free?) I don't know if you've reviewed the "Benefits" page of TOLFA but you'll find this there; http://tolfa.us/ben.htm at para (a). In the other sense (which I perceive as much larger) however I suggest you are _not_ free, and that you _do_ need a free society before enjoying the great potential of liberty; the actual, practical freedom to go and do wherever and whatever you want, while harming nobody. Para (b) on the same page spells that out, summarized as "getting your life back." The need for this much extended liberty is, it seems to me, strikingly obvious. Nobody _has_ to help work to bring it about, of course, there can be no obligation, but in your own self-interest (to obtain that much larger measure of freedom, and the strong satisfaction of helping liberate others) I encourage you to undertake the work. It's very light.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 36 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    One of Robert Higgs' shorter essays; but, like Jim Davies, Higgs has the ability to "stir up the troops", which is a good thing. I would perhaps still be a bored, depressed "mini-statist" had not the Higgs', Davies', you (Paul), and quite a number of others stirred me up and forced me to think along more than one plane -- to not remain invested in the sort of dogma that kept me treading h2o for a lot of years, getting nowhere intellectually ("spiritually" -- which means about the same thing, but tends to incite the ire of certain anti-religionists who may suspect proselytizing around every corner). With this essay I think reading the comments is as enlightening as the article itself (especially Robert Higgs' comment to the comments). Many of us will have to admit getting our backs up when the idea of religion and/or religious faith creeps into the spectrum. I submit that the reason for that is religion, not faith; but many simply cannot (or refuse to) see the dichotomy. In history religious leaders ("religion") and state agents ("the government" or "the reich") have formed concordats that have given rise to rape, torchery and slaughter of millions upon millions. At the same time within those religious and government organizations were people of faith (priests, nuns, lay men and women) who risked excommunication and execution to rescue thousands of children slated for extermination and take them to freedom. Ask me about that some day. I have no way of accurately reporting to what extent "faith" bolsters risky action for good. I suspect, Dr. Higgs, at times it might. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Like!
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, I understand the "shock" of "being wrong". I thought *I* was wrong once, but luckily I quickly realized that I was in error to think such.... >>"But still, why does it matter?" >>"It matters because the prime task of those wishing to bring a free society about is to move our statist neighbors away from their belief in the need for, and efficacy of, government;..." It DOES NOT matter to me because MY prime task is BEING FREE. [ http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty ] I don't need a "free society" in order to be free. What you are describing is at best, a SECONDARY task for me. I would NEVER reverse the priority of the tasks. MY secondary tasks can never be sacrificed to MY primary task. It is actually not even a secondary task to me, nor a "huge" task. It is an UNnecessary task. See below. >>"This can only happen when our statist friend begins to think straight; ..." >>"It is of paramount importance that people _begin to think straight_. Otherwise, they will never, en masse, ditch their absurd, superstitious belief in government." But THIS (understanding that government is a myth) is ALREADY happening! And it is happening without statists (not MY friend) changing their thinking "en masse". It is happening partly because of other things that YOU have written. >>"We have to change their _mode of thought._" Arrrgghhh. The "WE" thing again. NO! WE do NOT have to change their mode of thought. "Billions of humans making trillions of decisions could never be harnessed or thoroughly theorized by even the most brilliant voluntaryist thinkers or free market economists." Chris Dates [ http://tinyurl.com/There-is-NO-WE ] And, as I point out below, it doesn't matter to me what a man thinks or how straight or convoluted his thinking, as long as he respects MY right to exist as per the five Precepts by which I deal with other humans. I have NO desire whatsoever to meddle with the way most other people think. It is like wrestling with pigs. You ALWAYS get dirty and it only annoys the pig. I spent many hours as a youth attempting just what you recommend--and learning about "pigs". To paraphrase your own statement in Help Wanted, It is futile and a thankless waste of my time "...to try to impose ["MY version of what *I* consider to be rationality"] on people who do not want it and who made their preference lethally clear.". I look for those INDIVIDUALS ONLY who have already indicated by word and especially be deed that they are thinking and acting in a manner I can admire and possibly help or support with what I have learned. Minimum requirements for living peacefully amongst other people do not require a person to be "fully rational". Education levels vary enormously as do levels of rationality! The basic or minimum requirement is understanding and adhering to the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), a very simple MORAL/ethical concept that is even readily apparent to children. But sometimes moral statements are not sufficiently explicit or not easily applied to particular situations. Because of varying education levels, understanding the full consequences of moral statements and/or applying them consistently can become problematic. Enter from stage right: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent. [ http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles ] The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a Political statement [ http://tinyurl.com/Political-Statement ] explicitly derived from the Non Aggression Principle, which is a Moral statement. A characteristic of political statements--and a reason why they exist--is that they are more explicit and do not depend as heavily on education level as do moral statements and they are less subject to "interpretations". Education is a wider, more encompassing thing than is religion (i.e. religion is a subset of a person's education). And education continues throughout an individual's life and is a primary cause of behavior changes during that lifespan. Free State/county/town movements are examples of people with varying levels of education--and varying religious views--agreeing to conduct their interpersonal relationships by the simple principle of live and let live. Personally, I am disappointed that NONE of the "popular" movements has adopted some EXPLICIT political pledge such as the Covenant provides. The closest thing to a pledge of personal conduct has been the Shire Society which needlessly plagiarized the Covenant and then REMOVED what I consider the most important part for a Free State/county/town movement, the Supersedure section! You, me, Paul Bonneau, Darkcrusade and many (most?) of the contributors to this site--without resolving ANY of our differences--COULD conceivably agree to the entire Covenant and live in close proximity to each other in a "Supersedure Zone" and even trade with each other, without engaging in physical conflict. This is possible because the contents of the Covenant are the COMMON ROOT of everything that each of us considers to be important with regard to interpersonal relationships. AND, as I pointed out in my article [ http://tinyurl.com/Objectivism-to-Agorism ], people who--for whatever reason--refuse to sign the Covenant, could still live amongst us and trade with us, knowing full well what to expect should THEY (the non-signatories or "dissenters") violate our Covenant's Precepts in their dealings with us. Dennis Lee Wilson Signatory: The Covenant of Unanimous Consent.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 36 weeks ago
    Help Wanted
    Page Jim Davies
    Well, I become pretty doubtful when I hear extravagant statements such as "Nothing less will do". Actually, a lot less will do. Government employees are the people who still get to eat, when things get bad. As such, and given the human capacity for rationalization (which appears infinite at times), I don't hold a lot of hope for persuading government employees to do the right thing and quit - particularly when things look to be getting pretty bad pretty soon. However, that is not saying we should ignore them entirely. Gene Sharp, the doyenne of nonviolent resistance, considers it key to work with government employees including police, getting at least some help from that quarter. There are some decent people in government who can affect outcomes in our favor even if they don't take that final step of quitting.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 36 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Not one of Higg's better articles. "Divide and Rule", folks. Never forget it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago Web link strike
    Unless they are gonna use slingshots, I'd guess you are probably right. lol And, "For what purpose?" Why, to protect the "homeland", of course. I mean, what other purpose could they possibly have in mind?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago
    Help Wanted
    Page Jim Davies
    Oh-h-h-h, anything but that, JD!! lol I think that if you believe that you, (and your TOLFA followers), are going to "persuade all [government workers] to quit", you should get your other oar in the water. You have about as much chance as the proverbial "snowball in hell" of doing that. Nothing any of us will do will bring about a "free society in tolerably short order", JD. Even if the present Lewyathan were to collapse under its own weight, a "free society" is hardly the inevitable replacement, as you correctly pointed out to Mark Davis. Most individuals, IMO, don't want personal responsibility; they want rulers to protect them and to tell them what to do. "...we will have a king over us; that we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." JD: So again, where exactly do you stand? Go read my reply posted on March 31, 2012. The short answer is, we, individually, must BE the change we wish to see in the world. At the risk of harming his good name, I am pretty much in agreement with this, from Paul Bonneau. Your sales program to the statists is, "Be just like me, rational," although you will not be able to say it in any such straightforward manner (which itself is a hint it is lacking). My sales program to statists is, "Be like you want to be, have exactly the kind government you want. Just leave me alone." Seriously, is there any question which has the better chance of success? Not in my mind, Paul Bonneau.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 36 weeks ago Web link strike
    Well, I think they are buying 450 million cartridges rather than bullets.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 36 weeks ago
    Help Wanted
    Page Jim Davies
    No, S2, perhaps it's "obvious" to some "regulars" but it's not to me. On March 30 I asked you some specific questions regarding your position relative to the article I wrote, and upon which you were as usual quick to comment, but you have not answered a single one of them. Until and unless you do, I will not pay attention or respond to any further posts you may make.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago
    Help Wanted
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Mark Davis, I think of "the system" as a merry-go-round; I can choose to stay on or get off. When there are too few "riders" it will have to shut down. "...all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by Withdrawing from the governments to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to Secede from such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of this Man; and such is now the necessity that constrains this Man to Secede from this Government. The history of the United States Government, rather than securing, has a record of repeated injuries to, and usurpation of, Man’s Inalienable Rights, all having as their direct objective the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over men."[1] I have chosen to "get off", that is to say, I have withdrawn from membership in the government, I do not accept member-only benefits and/or privileges, I do not use any of their Taxpayer Identification Numbers, and I do not seek their permission (license) to do anything. I am not lawless, nor am I a law unto myself. I do my best to obey the Supreme Law of the Land, which is the Law of Nature.[2] ____________________________________________________________________ [1] Excerpted from my own Declaration of Independence, Notice of Secession [2] The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Some of you may be interested in reading this, regarding genetically modified food. So what's wrong with GMOs? ~ Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - The Independent Science Panel
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 36 weeks ago
    The God Question
    Page Jim Davies
    I'm still pondering your good argument about time, Dennis, but meanwhile must reject the shocking accusation that I am "wrong." Don't you know that I'm _never_ wrong? Just ask my wife. I will accept though that here, there is a hair to be split, albeit an important hair. Paul is right in one sense; provided a theist does nothing to impose his belief or standards on others, there is no need to convert him to rationality in a free society. They normally don't fit that profile (Santorum, and any Islamist on the street) but if we find one, yes - leave him be, to enjoy his freedom. The burden of my article, however, was that it matters a whole lot in the process of _getting_ a free society in the first place. If I may ask, please re-read its fifth para, under "But still, why does it matter?" It is of paramount importance that people _begin to think straight_. Otherwise, they will never, en masse, ditch their absurd, superstitious belief in government. We have to change their _mode of thought._ Huge task, I know. I don't see any short cut.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 36 weeks ago
    Help Wanted
    Page Jim Davies
    JD, it should be obvious, to the regulars here, where I stand. "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 Therefore, "those wishing to enjoy life without government in practice as well as in theory need do only one thing: persuade all [CITIZENS] to quit. Nothing less will do..." Do you agree with that, or disagree? If you agree, are YOU the change you wish to see in the world? That is to say, have YOU withdrawn from membership in the government, or do you still accept member-only benefits and/or privileges? Do you still use one of their Taxpayer Identification Numbers? Do you still seek permission (license) to perform acts which are not in violation of the non-aggression principle, i.e. the natural law? "Do as I say, not as I do", will never work with men, women and children who are able to think for themselves, and they are the only ones we will ever reach. The rest will just follow the herd...whether it be to greener pastures or over a cliff.