Recent comments

  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    And yet you support voting for exactly the reasons I outlined. :) Chris, read what you have written, unlike religionists and statists I read what is written based on words used not "feelings and interpretations" regardless, why so touchy? I wasnt attacking, or even being "cruel" but simply stating a simple fact. One cannot vote and be free (Voting is agreeing with the slavers- we disagree on this), you cannot be a voluntary slave ("we" on this) and there is no liberty with forced servitude. :) So you see your argument is fallacious, you simply believe in a smaller amount of slavery, than other statists. ;) You say slavery is wrong, but voting is right...justify that using the slavery argument. Or support slavery, either way your arguments are and have become unfortunately at cross purposes i.e. fallacious in nature. However, unlike yourself and others I know I will offer something never recieved. If I offended your sensibilities by speaking bluntly, my apologies :) **And please argue on your own merit if you decide to respond, I tire of hearing others adopt some other persons stance and say it is theirs, where is the individuality and liberty in that?
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Interesting, why argue levels of slavery? Very similar to the arguments of how badly one can be raped, according to the justice system one can be date raped, gang raped, marital raped, incestual raped, child sexual abuse, prison raped, acquaintance raped, war raped and statutory raped. And the best part is, punishment varies for each one. So lets look to slavery, or do you really want to go there? Slavery is slavery is slavery, just as rape is rape is rape. You can stand on your philosophical high tower and claim some brilliant insight into how your only a little bit of a slave or you can simply admit you are a slave, WITHDRAW as much consent as you possibly can without causing harm to your family (if you have a family) or you can make a decision as an individual to withdraw all consent and drop out of the system completely. The following section of this post has been adjusted to be less offensive to the delicate natures of those reading. Chris Dates, slavery is slavery. Rape is rape. Murder is Murder. No amount of voting or conceding or acceptance will change what is. (I understand he did not say he supports slavery, and yet, he has supported voting...hence the use of his name directly for the preceding statement) (this section was meant generally, hence the use of "side note") - And as a side note, it is a fallacy that we are "voluntary slaves" I DID NOT at any point sign my life over to this government. In fact I have resisted that, and continue to do so.
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    We can serve whomever we wish, this by itself is not slavery. Slavery is slavery, servitude is servitude. A servant is paid for their labors, or completes a task willingly and with complete knowledge of the task at hand. A slave is not paid for their labors, their labors or the fruits of their labors are stolen from them without just recompense or willing acceptance. Tax slaves are as much slaves as those working the diamond mines in Africa. Sure they may not live as close to starvation, but the result is the same. Any attempt to rebel, flee or stop being a slave is met with force.
  • newjerusalemtimes's picture
    newjerusalemtimes 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    There's some valid and good criticism of the three so-called Abrahamic religions, or at least of their adherents. But, the author is either biblically ignorant when it comes to the New Testament, or intentionally conceals the fact about the last 12 verses of Mark 16 not appearing in some of the oldest Greek manuscripts, like Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, and others. So, this guy misses striking a root in New Testament scripture, since the root there is God's love for humanity, embodied in Christ and his peaceful Kingdom, who also suffered a State execution, after being handed over by a snitch and the High Priest, who stated at the time, "We have no king but Caesar". And, of course, within a generation, Jerusalem and the Mosaic World was gruesomely leveled to the ground in 70 A.D., just as Christ warned it would, at Matthew 24, and elsewhere. Here's a little bit on Mark 16 from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 Peace be with you all, Christian Livingstone www.newjerusalemtimes.com
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    How about "voluntary servitude"; can I, because I own my body, mind, soul [the life within it] and the fruit of my labor, voluntarily become someone's "servant", in your opinion?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "People believe what they want to believe, not what makes sense, and most of them get their beliefs from their parents/family/community." ~ mjackso6 And there it is, with emphasis on, "not what makes sense". If you listen to the 'reasoning' of virtually all superstionists[1] it goes something like this. When a prayer appears to get answered, "it was God's will", and when it does not get "answered", which is most of the time, by the way, it is explained away by saying, "it was not God's will". How convenient! Meaning no disrespect to any superstionists we may have in the crowd, one could pray to a can of WD-40 and effectively use these same 'convenient' answers; when one's wish appears to be answered, "it was the will of WD-40", and when one's desire does not manifest itself, "it was not WD-40's will"; "WD-40's way is not our way"; "your belief wasn't large enough"; "you had an iota of doubt", etcetera, etcetera, ad nauseum. But, instead of seeing the logic of that, most superstitionists will very likely, instead, choose to get offended by it. Whatever happened to the good old days of Elijah, when there were REAL tests of faith. " ...call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of [Jehovah]: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken." How many of today's "believers" would answer that challenge and say, "It is well spoken", meaning we will live by it? Not many, I suspect. Voltaire was right, “If there were no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.” _____________________________________________________________________ [1] SUPERSTI'TIONIST, n. One addicted to superstition. superstition NOUN 1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language What "influences its outcome" are the "laws of nature", and nothing more.
  • JGVibes's picture
    JGVibes 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    This is excellent!! great job man!! very interested in taking a look at your other articles now! keep up the great work!!
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    I agree with Mr. Johnson in principle, but I find the chance of a great theological 'awakening' to be less than probable. People believe what they want to believe, not what makes sense, and most of them get their beliefs from their parents/family/community. In order to make that 'clean break' with the 'bad old ways' of thought indoctrinated into most people practically from birth, I'm afraid that the only practical way would be that Judeo/Roman 'cleansing' of the adults as mentioned in the article. Barring that, I can only see more of the same kind of subtle pressure for reform that's been going on for centuries, and I can't see any real results under those conditions taking anything less than centuries to come.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    PKAZ, Never did I say that rape was not rape, and slavery was not slavery. We were speaking about a hypothetical situation where smeone could voluntarily sell themselves into slavery. In case you missed it, I said "voluntary slavery" was a contradiction in terms, and I believe I laid out a pretty good case as to why it is. Sheesh. If you are going to make these charges, at least bullet point them and address them, because you seem to take joy in constantly singling me out. That's getting really old. I never even mentioned voting, or conceding, or acceptance; we talikng about a hypothetical situation.
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    As you are fully aware Paul, I could care less whether we had a community of like minds or not. Understanding as I do the necessity of social interaction and some form of society I often wonder if my current philosophical approach is a correct one. And than I remember that not only is anarchy possible but it has existed for all intents and purposes throughout history as well as being something that works right now. Anarchy quite simply being the absence of state intervention. We individuals who retain liberty of the mind are in many cases (not all arguably) able to function almost completely without the guidance and "protection" of the state. Yes, internet communities are a perfect example, and yes we must convert this to actual real flesh and blood approaches. However, it does not need to have rules, or even "community" involvement. It is far simpler than that, it is a shift in perception on an individual basis, accepting that we and only we are responsible for ourselves and our decisions alone. Liberty is but a thought away, grab it and once you find it dont let go.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    Embassy of heaven shatters the ''Higher Powers'' slanted interpretation. http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/ Police Crimes in Gospels 1.The massacre of the children (Matthew 2:16). 2.The execution of John the Baptist (Matthew 14:10). 3.The slaughter of the Galileans (Luke 13:1). 4.The arrest of Jesus (Matthew 26:50). 5.The striking of Jesus by an officer (John 18:22). 6.The mocking of Jesus - dressing Him in scarlet robe and crown of thorns, spitting and striking Him on the Head (Matthew 27:28-30). 7.The crucifixion (Matthew 27:35-37). and over 260 years ago> http://www.historycarper.com/resources/sermons/jmayhew.htm
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 42 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    Evan, it looks like someone got da-boot.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Just a quick glimpse of this guy's eYeS tells the "tail", and the "cat is out of the bag". lol
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 42 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I wonder how Lenco gets its sales? Larger cities likely have the budget to buy these items the local cops around here don't. Instead they get mil surplus armored vehicles from the feds for free. Paint them black and take the guns off and send them right out. For free. Our local congressman appears in all the media photo ops at the turn-overs too. I saw sheriff's SWAT team vehicle at a nearby town's Halloween party along with ambulances, firetrucks, police cars, and other stuff. Looked like a Stryker only in black and without the M2 and reactive armor.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Yes, which is why the Yisra'elites [sovereigns of God] were supposed to be "strangers and sojourners" in the land. Strangers. ...In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word "privy". Those who are in no way parties to the covenant or transaction nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1421 And, if one is a stranger he is, "...one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor". (Ibid.)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Now, in response to the second part of your reply, I would ask you, do you think that men have the right to "submit themselves to the dominion of a government", if that is what they desire? (I believe, from experience, that most of them do, whether they admit it or not when asked that question plainly.) Second question; if your answer was "yes", to my first question, then who are you to say, "all of it must go"? In other words, what authority do you have to force those who desire a government, to live without a government? The only humans I have any lawful authority over is me, and anyone who voluntarily consents to be under my protection; and the same holds true for me, the only humans that have lawful authority over me are those who receive my voluntary consent, and, once more, for the record, I do not consent. Your "real name is only what [you] call yourself". Very good! That means, that you always check the "No" box, before signing, when asked, "Are you a U.S. citizen?" or "Are you a citizen of the STATE OF______________?", otherwise you are also calling yourself, "U.S. citizen" or "citizen of the STATE OF ___________".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Jim Davies, As I understand it, prior to the 14th Amendment, legally speaking, there was no such legal entity, i.e. artificial person, as a "citizen of the United States"; citizens, prior to that, were citizens of their respective States, only. "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of [the U.S.] government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights". Herriott v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 500 P.2d. 101, 109. Dominion is defined, in Black's Law Dictionary (c.1991), as "perfect control in right of ownership". This is the primary reason I have chosen to "withdraw from membership" in any, and all, "political communities" known as the STATE OF ______________, and the UNITED STATES (See 15 (a)); I do not consent to anyone, or group of one's, having "dominion" over my person or the fruits of my labor. Another reason I have withdrawn from membership in the "political community" is that I do not want my name (authority), in any way, associated with the unlawful actions of these groups. None of their agents have ever put a gun to my head and tried to force, (vi et armis), membership on me, but they certainly have tried to bribe me with their "dainties", i.e. membership benefits and privileges, mainly by making life 'uncomfortable' without them. 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. Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practise wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil... Sound advice, in my opinion.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    The borrower is slave to the lender. I look upon the Constitution as the most fatal plan that could be possibly be conceived to enslave a free people-Patrick Henry. ''The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion' -- this is the important thing -- 'shall not be questioned.'' CONSTITUTOR, civil law. He who promised by a simple pact to pay the debt of another; and this is always a principal obligation. Inst. 4, 6, 9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0NnayDjUS4
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 42 weeks ago
    We Are All Slaves!
    Page Stephen Nichols
    http://www.duke.edu/web/philsociety/taleofslave.html In Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick recounts what he calls the Tale of the Slave, and invites the reader to consider himself as the slave in the story. The story moves through nine stages. First: You are a slave at the mercy of a brutal master, who forces you to work for his purposes and beats you arbitrarily. Second: The master decides to beat you only for breaking the rules, and even grants you some free time. Third: You are part of a group of slaves subject to this master. He decides, on grounds acceptable to everyone, how goods should be allocated among you all. Fourth: The master requires his slaves to work only three days per week, granting them the other four days off. They can do as they wish during their free time. Fifth: The master now allows the slaves to work wherever they wish. His main caveat is that they must send him three-sevenths of their wages, corresponding to the three days' worth of work they once had to do on his land every week. In an emergency he can force them to do his bidding once again, and he retains the power to alter the fraction of their wages to which he lays claim. Sixth: The master grants all 10,000 of his slaves, except you, the right to vote. They can decide among themselves how much of their (and your) earnings to take and what outlets to fund with the money. They can decide what you are and are not allowed to do. We can suppose for the sake of argument that the master irrevocably grants this right to the 10,000 slaves. You now have 10,000 masters, or a single 10,000-headed master. Seventh: You are granted the freedom to try and persuade the 10,000 to exercise their vast powers in a particular way. You still do not have the right to vote, but you can try to influence those who do. Eighth: The 10,000 grant you the right to vote, but only to break a tie. You write down your vote, and if a tie should occur, they open it and record it. No tie has ever occurred. Ninth: You are granted the right to vote. But functionally, it simply means, as in the eighth stage, that in case of a tie, which has never occurred, your vote carries the issue. Nozick's question is this: at what stage between 1 and 9 did this become something other than the tale of a slave?
  • JGVibes's picture
    JGVibes 4 years 42 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    i appreciate your well thought out response and your deep knowledge of religious history. I want to be clear that i am not attacking religion in any kind of way, i am simply pointing out how religious institutions in the past have have used the government to carry out acts of violence. we saw this with the crusades and the inquisition, that was what i was referring to when i said .."the church had the gun in the middle ages". i also agree that following Christs teachings to a T would result in a free society, but i wasnt really talking about christ here... just about specific religious institutions that forced their will into people in the past...many of these institutions proclaimed to be "christian" but thats besides the point...believe in religion doesent pose a threat...but using government to force your religion onto others is a bad thing i dont think that is being disingenuous, my only point here was, separating the church from the state did nothing to stop what the state was doing... it only changed their justification...before they said it was god, so people separated church and state, and nothing changed... today they say its money... so people want to get money out of politics...but again that wont do anything either... the true problem is power...which is politics itself ..i was simply saying that although the state used the church as a justification for the violence that they carried out in the middle ages, the source of violence was still the state...and it will always be the state...because the state is the "gun in the room" i hope that clarified my message a bit...and wasnt too ranty :-)
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 42 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    Interesting. You could be right. I thought state constitutions either provided for free (!) and compulsory (!!) public education, or created school districts with authority to do so. At any rate, you weren't advancing any theory of incorporation. I still hear libertarians insisting tax-funded Nativity scenes violate the U.S. Constitution. They do no such thing. The First Amendment merely bars the U.S. Congress from establishing a state religion. It says nothing about what the states may do. Not that I think it's a good idea for non-Christians to be compelled to promote Christianity in any way. Nor, for that matter, should Christians be compelled to promote secular humanism in any way--though that's precisely what they do when they pay taxes for government schools. I agree with your assessment of constitutions. Paraphrasing Lysander Spooner, they've either given us the government we have or been powerless to stop it. Either way, constitutions are of "no effect."
  • Jerry J Brown's picture
    Jerry J Brown 4 years 42 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    The gov't is the biggest bully of all. And they don't share
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    My understanding (admittedly not rigorously tested) is that state constitutions created prior to about 1850, when state "education" was imported to America from Prussia, do not mention education at all (unless later amended to do so). Right around 1850, as with Oregon's constitution, it gives the state a role in "education" but does not make it compulsory. Later constitutions like Wyoming's adds a compulsory component. I bet very few actually call for 12 years of compulsory "education" though, even now. The unconstitutional part I was referring to was the compulsory part, where statute calls for compulsory "education" beyond what the state constitution allows. Some people claim state constitutions are plenary, i.e. that states are able to do anything the constitution does not explicitly prohibit, the reverse of the way the federal constitution is interpreted. I think that is nonsensical. But I also think that constitutions do not work in any practical sense, that they are more for show.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    "I would not be surprised to learn that they, and those who depend upon them, and retirees, and their families, and those doing business with the city, would be a significant proportion of the 43,000 who voted to compel their fellow St. Louisans to support them and their projects." Yes, we had this issue in Oregon. Oregon statute (or maybe constitution) mandated something like 6 different days a year to use for elections. The teacher's union of course would hold elections for tax hikes to "support schools" on the low-turnout election days - that is, days that weren't primary or general elections. And of course they came out in force on those days, days when most people didn't even know an election was going on. It got so bad that some irate citizens put an initiative on the ballot that any tax measure outside of the regular primary or general election dates requires at least a 50% turnout of registered voters to pass. You should have heard the hogs squeal when that passed!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Oh, one other nit: I think it is better to choose analogies that serve us rather than serving the ruling class, as I mentioned in this article: http://strike-the-root.com/some-problems-with-farm-analogy The ruling class probably would be happy if we started thinking of ourselves as slaves. It probably would be unhappy if we started thinking of them as parasites.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    "In this light, I see it as being inaccurate to talk about "degrees of slavery" (and inversely, "degrees of liberty"). If we're talking about the "ability" to control, then the degree of slavery is basically always 0%, since the "slave's" mind still has 100% control over their body. But if we're talking about the exclusive right to control, then you cannot be partially enslaved and partially self-owning. Someone has the final authority (i.e., interference with this authority would be unjust). If it is you, then you have liberty (self-ownership). If it is not you, then you are a slave. Liberty/slavery clearly seem to me to be binary and mutually exclusive (antithetical - Slavery = not liberty. Liberty = not slavery)." Yes, I too have problems with this "government equals slavery" argument. Slavery is clearly not equivalent to having a government; instead it is an analogy, just like Molyneux's farm animal analogy. We are not literal slaves any more than we are literal farm animals. This explains why the thesaurus does not equate them - they aren't equivalent. As an analogy, we can reasonably say "we are treated like slaves" in some respect. We can't reasonably say "we are slaves". The other problem with saying "we are slaves" is that it doesn't resonate with the audience, while "we are treated like slaves" does resonate. So I would advise people not to go overboard with this stuff. When you see peoples' eyes glazing over, that's a clue...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    They would because most people remain believers in the government religion. However as with conventional religion, most people do not believe that adherence to one mandates literal war with all others.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "For an anarchist enclave to form, there would have to be some kind of secession, right?" Not necessarily. It only means that for example, enforcers see it is in their own self-interest not to enter the anarchist community. In various times and places enforcers have operated this way, at least unofficially. After all, they don't get paid so much that any and all threats, complications, and pains in the ass are worth it. Most government employees want a life of ease and security, not strife and danger. There is also the notion of pro-forma compliance. A community might have a sheriff as required by state law, but it might be a sheriff who does nothing. The first anarchist communities will no doubt fly under the radar with such dodges. But this is somewhat beside the point of the article. I was trying to do mainly two things - determine what the general population would tolerate (testing the indoctrination) which after all has some effect on the actions of government, and also to use the discussion as a foil for educating people about anarchism (although the latter was almost an accidental or ad hoc aim).
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 42 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    Like all libertarians I oppose "public" education. The government should have no role in it at all. Strictly speaking, though, only federal involvement in education is unconstitutional. Whether the various states' provision of education is constitutional depends on each state's constitution. I believe all 50 states make provision for it, which includes the "longer and longer periods of indoctrination."
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 42 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    This is a truncated and grossly overstated, not to say distorted, summary of Church-state history. It will take more than just an FYI to correct it. I'll give it shot anyway. "In the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church had control of the gun"?! This would certainly be news to St. Ambrose of Milan, the Archbishop of Canterbury St. Thomas a' Kempis, and Pope St. Gregory VII. Take a cursory tour through the pages of Wikipedia when you get a chance. Read about these high-profile prelates' bitter conflicts with the civil authorities of their day: the Emperor Theodosius, King Henry II of England, and Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV. For that matter, read the Jewish agnostic Murray Rothbard's account of the development of capitalism in Medieval Europe. He attributes it to political competition. The Holy Roman Emperor, kings, dukes, earls, knights, the guilds, merchants, feudal lords, simple peasants and, yes, the Church were all very protective of their turf. The patchwork laid the groundwork for property and individual rights and the marketplace. If you can't have anarchy, radical decentralization is the next best thing. In sharp contrast, the pagan authorities of ancient Rome did not differentiate between faith and state. Neither does Islam. Neither do run-of-the-mill secular humanists. (This gang aggressively rejects traditional religious mores, even as it insists on translating its effete, not to say warped, notions of the good—e.g., taxpayer-funded abortion, drug prohibition, equal employment diktats—into civil law.) The bifurcation between temporal and spiritual is entirely a Western, i.e., Catholic, development. At various times and places, Catholic monarchs may well have melded church and state in ways not consistent with the libertarianism readers of this website espouse. At various times and places, the Church may well have failed to disabuse them of the notion they should be melded. But the Church always upheld a fundamental distinction between the two. That's a lot more than I can say for the Enlightment jihadists who turned Notre Dame Cathedral into a shrine to Athena (goddess of Reason, don't you know?), even as they rampaged through the Vendee, perpetrating wholesale slaughter of priests and faithful peasants alike. For many of us, Christianity informs our anarchy. We believe in applying the rules governing human behavior in truly universal fashion: no exemption from "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill" for politicians, bureaucrats or generals. Yes, institutional Christianity's record is somewhat checkered in this regard. But cavalier summations and sweeping generalizations do nothing to advance your message, which is quite elegantly and succinctly stated in your concluding paragraph.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    I'm wondering why the 14th Amendment made any difference to our status as selfowning human beings. Sources like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow say that the Sami people of the far North of Scandinavia use several hundred different words for "snow;" wet and heavy, light and fluffy, glazed, and so on. Governments, likewise, use many different words to try to justify their miserable existence; divinely appointed monarchies, heroic "leaders", constitutionally limited ones, and in this case, if I understand you, Suversans2, something like a group of thugs fronting for a financial oligarchy better known as a "corporation." All these purport to govern, and therefore all of them enslave; that's the point of my article. It granted that there are degrees of slavery (and therefore of savagery in government) but government is government no matter the degree, just as snow is snow no matter the style. All of it it totally irreconcilable with selfowning human nature, and therefore all of it must go; and it won't go voluntarily, Am 14 or no Am 14. Government's name for me (citizen, employee, resident subject to its jurisdiction, civilian, etc etc) is irrelevant; my real name is only what I call myself and so it is for each of us.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Well, at least /I/ was enjoying the conversation! :-) Cheers.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, "Nope, no desire to get back to the original argument." So, if I'm not there, start without me. ;-)
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, Well, I think involuntary slavery can still be very possible. A person can still be held by force, and made to perform acts that are not of their own will. However, this is very different than voluntary slavery, which I would assume would be contractual. Think about this, if there was a voluntary contact between the "slave" and the "master" then there would be some kind of governance over the two parties: there would be "rules" for the relationship. Therefore, the master could never have "exclusive rights" or "absolute command" over the slave, because the contract was specifically drawn up to preserve the rights of either party. There is still problem even if the person just tried to sell himself into slavery with no contract, and here is why: In involuntary slavery, the master has chosen to use aggressive force to take the slave, therefore he has abandoned all moral human law to take this slave. This is VERY IMPORTANT to consider when comparing the concepts of voluntary and involuntary slavery. The master has essentially chosen to become a thug, and has chosen to use the way of force and not of reason. Since this is the case, this master has come a little closer to that "absolute command" we were tallking about, since he has already shown himself to be aggressive. But this is much different than the voluntary slave, and here is why... The voluntary slave is basically offering his "services" on the market. We are begging the question if we just assume any potential new master of this so-called slave would be willing to break moral human law(natural law), and take him as a slave with "absolute command", and that is our problem. There has been no crime yet, because there has been no aggression. The master of the involuntary slave has chosen to use aggression to force another to perform acts against their will, so it is not unreasonable to say that this master may severely hurt, rape, or even murder this chattel slave. When the voluntary slave offers his services on the market, he is still assuming that their new master will abide by moral natural law, BECAUSE it does not stand to reason that the voluntary slave would offer their services otherwise. Think about that, why would they? If the new master could potentially severely harm, rape, or murder them, WHY would they ever offer their services on THAT market? The voluntary slave would be offering immorality for sale on the market if they did not assume that the natural law would stay in place as they agreed upon the voluntary slavery conditions. Why would any rational human being enter into a contract where death would forever be a very real possibility? Agreements do not relieve either party from morality. Period. Putting immorality for sale on the market does not make it moral. "Voluntary slavery" is a contradiction in terms, and dig this, voluntary slavery is impossible because involuntary slavery is possible. I hope that makes sense. It's just like the difference between aggression and reason; morality and immorality.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    You are absolutely right, well, not "absolutely" in the strictest sense of the word, about that; just look at what happened to the Doukhobors of Leo Tolstoy's day.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, Ummm, it didn't become an argument about the Constitution (of these united States), in my opinion. But, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion about this statement from you, ""My Constitution" is just as much yours as it is mine! :-)" If you are not a citizen of the United States, then I must apologize, once again. Not sure what "fallacies" you are referring to. Yes, I am the one that used the phrase, "your Constitution"", followed by "(presuming you are a 14th Amendment citizen)", which admits that you may not be. And, yes, I am the one that used the phrase "or your government", because I didn't know if it was you making the claim that, it was just as much mine as yours, "or your government", if you have one, that was making that claim. Nope, no desire to get back to the original argument. I agree, old Noah's use of the word "absolute" is apparently inappropriate. If we hold that word to its strictest interpretation then there is no such thing as slavery, period. I am absolutely mortified by this...well, not "absolutely", in the strictest sense of the word. :-)
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 42 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Of course they do.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    As individuals, yes I agree - most of them behave in their private capacity much as "civilians." By "government people" I was thinking more of those who form and execute the will of government in their official capacities. For an anarchist enclave to form, there would have to be some kind of secession, right? - a government-free zone. Since 1861, it's been clear that governments do not tolerate those very well. In fact, one might reason that in their own survival interest they _dare_ not tolerate them. Once one such enclave forms and prospers, there will be an insatiable demand for more.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, How did this just become an argument about the Constitution(of these united States)? Again with the fallacies. You are the one that used the phrases, "your Constitution", and, "your government". Then you accuse me of pushing it on you? Wow. We are now far afield of the original argument, and I have no desire to debate "my constitution" or "my government" with you. Mr. Spooner has already done that for me. Do you have any desire to get back to the original argument?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." ~ Excerpted from the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizenship to everyone born in the US and subject to its [political] jurisdiction. I am not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", because my allegiance is to the natural law, the "laws of nature [the "natural law of the human world"] and nature's God". Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (c.1856)  [Emphasis added] "This law of nature being coeval[1] with mankind[2]" is, of course, "first in time", thus it is "best in law". 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, (c.1851), Part I, Title II, No. 9 ________________________________________________________ [1] COEVAL, a. Of the same age; beginning to exist at the same time; of equal age; usually and properly followed by with. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added] [2] 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Just read your article, Paul, VERY GOOD, but (I know, get your "butt" out of the way), I happened to see this comment or reply before completing it. I am of the opinion that 14th Amendment citizens, i.e. "citizens of the United States", are "employees" of the United States corporation.
  • Xerographica's picture
    Xerographica 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Here's my argument why there's no point to argue for anarcho-capitalism. Let's say that taxpayers were allowed to choose which government organizations received their own, individual, hard earned taxes. If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of A,B,C then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of A,B,C?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, Let's jump to that last one, first. What is your Constitution? If it is the United States Constitution; from whence did you, or your government, get the lawful authority to compel me to continue one of a political corporation?
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, All I'm saying is that there might be a problem with the "voluntary slavery" theory. I don't think it's possible, if we assume there is some sort of moral law. I want to keep the focus on voluntary slavery; not chattel or forced slavery, because I think we agree on that issue. Let's go back to your definition... >>Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Then you said... "Your master cannot, LAWFULLY, command you to do anything that is unlawful, that is to say, against the "natural law of the human world". If he does, and then forces you to do such an act, he should be held accountable for the act, and not you." This is a contradiction, because you are counting on the slave and the master already agreeing that there is a natural law of the human world, and they have both agreed upon it(implicitly or explicitly). If these two parties have agreed on the governing principles of "natural law" and choose to do business under these laws, then neither party could ever have "absolute command" of each other. Words have meanings, and "absolute" is a big one. One might say that voluntary slavery is possible in the context of the natural law, and the slave owner may have "absolute command" within the context of this law, but then it's not absolute is it? It is wrong to place humans--autonomous, volitional, conceptualizing creatures--in the same context as someone's vehicle as BrianDrake did. No other "property"(as if another human could ACTUALLY be property of another) has the ability to conceptualize morality, and that makes 100% ownership a real bitch. Libertarians tend to be a "either I own it or I don't" bunch, and this is impossible with human beings; we use the law of the excluded middle to show others how taxation is theft; 1% tax is just as wrong as 100% tax; 1% theft is just as wrong as 100% theft. This means I own something 100% or I don't own it at all. Since the voluntary slave has the right to object on moral grounds, or on the grounds of natural law, I don't have "exclusive rights" to the voluntary slave. He retains some rights. If BrianDrake was to sell me that car, he would lose all rights to it, but if he was to sell me a slave, my new "property", the slave, would retain some rights, and that just does not sound right to me. Before we apply libertarian property rights theory to human beings we have to examine the nature of the "property", because it is much different than other property. Do you agree? I also realize I am begging the question assuming the voluntary slave has the right to object on the grounds of morality, but I can make a pretty good case for it, and defend the position if I had to(but it tends to be a long one!). I've heard minarchists reject anarchy on these grounds, so I ran their argument through the logic mill and found some errors. I don't think it's possible. What do you think? Oh and BTW, I am assuming that you are not from this country, but I will tell you this... "My Constitution" is just as much yours as it is mine! :-)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    Just an FYI. Early on, I don't believe 12 years of "education" was required. In the 1859 Oregon constitution, there is no requirement at all; it only says the state will provide "education". In the Wyoming constitution (1889 I think) there is compulsory education, but only 3 years is required. Of course later (generally unconstitutional) statutes called for longer and longer periods of indoctrination.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Sam, We are not talking about "business and sales" here, we're talking law. ;) Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary Imagine, if you can, someone putting a gun to one of my Grandchild's heads and commanding me to rob a bank for him. I realize that I can still choose to rob or not to rob, but would you say that robbing that bank is something I want to do, or would you say that I am being coerced, "against my will", into doing it?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well, that''s why I wanted to filter out the government employees, thinking they would skew the results. But if you think about it, that makes no sense. For one thing, not all government employees would have a problem with an independent community. They are individuals too. For another thing, government employees affect what happens just as much as (if not more than) everybody else. So they really have to be included.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, I sincerely apologize if I offended you with my use of those two words. Please know that they were not in reference to you, personally. Your master cannot, LAWFULLY, command you to do anything that is unlawful, that is to say, against the "natural law of the human world". If he does, and then forces you to do such an act, he should be held accountable for the act, and not you. The Maxim of Law that a JUDGE, in your jurisdiction, should use in ITS decision is this: Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary Perhaps we all are using the wrong word? The XIII Amendment to your Constitution, (presuming you are a 14th Amendment citizen), is worded in the following way, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The inverse of that is that voluntary servitude may constitutionally "exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Would "voluntary servitude" be a more agreeable phrase, to you? Servitude. The state of a person who is subjected, voluntarily or otherwise, to another person* as his servant. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c. 1991), page 1370 * I believe you will find that the STATE is a "legal person". Involuntary servitude. The condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very creative, Paul! Most interesting result. Am I right in supposing that the views of this gun-rights group would _not_ be echoed by government people, if such an enclave were actually formed?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 42 weeks ago Web link Guest
    G'day rita, You may, or may not, already know this but if you hold down your control (ctrl) key and at the same time hit, as many times as necessary, the + key on your number pad, it will magnify the page. This makes that page much easier to read. To reverse this, while holding down the ctrl key once more, start poking the - (minus) key on your number pad. Something else that sometimes helps is to hold your left mouse button, and drag your cursor over what you are trying to read (like you are going to "copy" it); this will generally give it a blue background, until you click you mouse button on the page once more.