Recent comments

  • KenK's picture
    KenK 6 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    He "lived free" then he died. Just like Carl Drega.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Unreal. Not only that this robotic zombie regards we “citizens” (which we are not, as Marc Stevens so cogently points out in his book, Adventures in Legal Land) as the property of the government, as if we were mere cattle..." ~ Alex R. Knight III Citizen. ..."Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have...submitted themselves to the dominion* of a government... Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 * Dominion is defined, in that same dictionary, as "perfect control in right of ownership". From this we can see that if you consent to be, or remain, "a member of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government", you are, essentially, their "cattle", i.e. their "human resources". Qui tacet consentire videtur. He who is silent appears to consent. Jenk. Cent. 32. TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made; a tacit surrender of a part of our natural rights...&c. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language For the record, I do not voluntarily consent to live "under' your 'particular government", or to "surrender' any part of my 'natural rights"; and Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal. Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, [either vi et armis or vi coactus] is not my act.
  • rita's picture
    rita 6 years 8 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Sadly, anyone who actually wants to protect people IS "psychologically unfit" to be a cop, at least in a police state.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Super job, Alex!
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 6 years 8 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Not sure who gets more PR value out of this, Ted or the Obama Campaign. Maybe both!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 6 years 8 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Actually, the war on poverty has been wildly successful. It has created a giant jobs program for social workers and bureaucrats. It has turned a segment of the population completely dependent. It has spawned hoards of new problems for government to "fix". It has helped the "Divide and Conquer" strategy. It has almost killed private and church charity. I can't think of a program more successful at its actual aims than this one has been, except perhaps for the War on Some Drugs.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 6 years 8 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    Indeed, Dr. Hein. Your writing is wonderful. Frequently, as you obviously know, everyone in the courtroom is on the other team, including the defense, which seeks to minimize the time and trouble you are causing them, by reaching a plea agreement.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Movement Grows
    Web link Don Stacy
    The first paragraph is a good reminder of the error of trying to build a national libertarian organization. After all, liberalism is inherently antinational. The last issue, too has useful insights. http://mises.org/journals/lf/1984/1984_09-12.pdf
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    As usual, virtually all of the disagreement about whether we can be "free", or not, is hinged on the fact that virtually no one takes the time to define the word "free". We just ass-u-me that the reader knows which one we are referring to. Noah Webster, in the only dictionary he personally edited, gave TWENTY DEFINITIONS for the word "free", the modern day Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, 15 DEFINITIONS, the Macmillan Dictionary has no less than A DOZEN, and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, SEVENTEEN, and those are only for the word "free" when used as an adjective[1]. If we took the time to first define, each time we use it, what WE MEAN by "free", there might be little, or no, disagreement. For example, if by the word "free", I mean, "Having political independence[2]", which is to say, "I do not consent to be in association with any man-made governments, at this time", would any rational individual dare disagree with me when I state that I am "free"? Now, we can see, (well most of us anyway), why Voltaire reportedly wrote, "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...", and why I spend so much time "defining my terms". Then, of course, one or more of the "less rational", will make some inane statement such as, "Well, there are certainly other definitions for that word, you know!" Yeah, I know, which is precisely why I took the time to show the reader which one I was referring to. Oh, and, in case there is anyone here who hasn't noticed, I love using their own so-called "law dictionaries" against them, for which I am often criticized. ...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Old Noah miscalled it a "noun". [2] American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language @ 3a
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 6 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Persona non grata: Bread and circuses all over again, eh? :-)
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Movement Grows
    Web link Don Stacy
    It is not just the formal libertarian movement that is growing either. Here in South Africa, there is no formal libertarian movement to speak of. And yet, huge numbers of people prefer to "fly under the radar." See this article, for example, published in a local paper today: http://mg.co.za/article/2012-04-13-taxes-force-startups-underground The South African government has taxed itself into a corner. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco have become so prohibitive that a whole new market for illegal cigarettes and booze has been created (and with it, the attendant criminality of such underground markets, and this in a country already suffering from one of the highest crime rates in the world!) Businesses are taxed into the ground, so they either close down or slip underground. Private citizens increasingly hide as much of their income as they can, including even ones who are not opposed to taxation in a general sort of way, but are just fed up with unduly high tax rates, and the way in which most of that money gets wasted or used to enrich the new elite. Rather strangely though, in election after election, the people vote for the same old parties. Not me though. I will not vote again until such time as the option "none of the above" is explicitly on the ballot.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 6 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    You are missing the point, the "nearly $1 Trillion a Year" isn't being spent to "fight poverty", rather the aid is used as a form of quid pro quo. Which is all the better at keeping the disaffected great unwashed safely ensconced in cheese doodles, NASCAR and Entertainment Tonight (etal), rather then protesting the US governments theft of their property and liberties.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    You can be free, free from complicity. “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated[1] with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau The natural right of "freedom of association" gives each of us, individually, the The Right to Ignore the State. "Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw." ____________________________________________ [1] associated adjective connected ~ Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    “If the people are my adversary, and they pay Mr. Sly, then who pays you, your honor? Can I be guaranteed impartiality when the judge is on the payroll of my accuser?” Those are good questions right there. . . which need to be asked in open court more often.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Again, Sam, you're very generous. I just re-read "Dollar in Peril", and alas that FRN is now lost and gone for ever. You wrote "I don't need their conversion to anarchy and liberty for me to be free. Yet" - and I'm glad you added that "Yet." Might you agree that there are two degrees of freedom, at least; the first we begin to experience the moment it dawns on us that _nobody_ else has the right to run our lives; that their pretended authority is a total bust. Paul Hein has a splendid STRticle out today on one aspect of that kind of freedom; an imaginary defendant punctures the pomposity of a government court. In a real sense, he is free. The enjoyment of that is marred, though (wouldn't you agree?) by the fact that even though they have no _valid_ authority to interfere with us, they do so anyway; by voting, and by everything in the well which voting poisons. To take Paul Hein's example: the defendant was free in the first sense when he realized the court was a fraud; but it put him behind bars anyway. Manifestly, being caged is not being free. My contention therefore is that in order to be properly free and to enjoy all the benefits and pleasures of a free market which many libertarian authors have described, there _must_ be a free society, ie one without government. Once that point is agreed and fixed, one must rationally figure out how to get one, and it should become clear quite quickly that we certainly _do_ need virtually everyone else to accept the principles of anarchism; as "Gulch" reasoned, mere enclaves will not suffice, for they will be snuffed out.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Shadow Boxing
    Page Paul Hein
    "I'd like to cross examine Nebraska, your honor." Superb! You haven't been reading Marc Stevens, have you?
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Sam: "I'm not sure which "ism" it is -- I think perhaps "Agorism" -- that preaches that land cannot be held as "private property", since nobody legitimately had "title" -- it is the providence of "G-d" or some such." It must be some other "ism", Sam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism Agorism is a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III that holds as its ultimate goal the bringing about of a society in which all relations between people are voluntary exchanges by means of counter-economics. Ideology Most agorists consider themselves market anarchists, while some proponents characterize it as a form of left-libertarianism. Agorists generally oppose voting for political candidates and political reform. Instead, agorists stress the importance of alternative strategies rather than politics to achieve a free society. Agorists claim that we can achieve a free society more easily and sooner by employing such alternative methods.[citation needed] Such alternative strategies consist of education, direct action, entrepreneurship, and counter-economics.[citation needed] Agorists advocate promoting awareness of libertarianism and Austrian economics.[citation needed] Best regards, Dennis
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Be safe, brother.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I'm sure you know you and I are "in tune", Suverans2. You've likely often seen me define borders and "state lines" as fictitious lines in the sand -- drawn by sociopaths who seduced hoards to fight and die to create them in their endless "wars" over history -- "boundaries" that are held together with the point of the unacknowledged "gun in the room". I'm not sure which "ism" it is -- I think perhaps "Agorism" -- that preaches that land cannot be held as "private property", since nobody legitimately had "title" -- it is the providence of "G-d" or some such. Although their "theory" makes some sense, it does not work out practically in a political-oriented world. And we DO live in a political-oriented world. Most of us have eaten of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Figure that out some day. It ain't "religious rant". Our old friend, White Indian, actually had this correct -- although I'll admit he tended to skewer his presentation with lots of embedded and repetitive nonsense. Natives here and in other parts of the earth might have defended "territories" (to various locations of which they would migrate with weather and game) in "survival of the fittest" tribal aggregations. But few of them ever considered that they "owned" the land in that sense, and they did not form states. It took the good old white man to transgress "their" land and claim "ownership" and "statehood". And to make "treaties" that they always brazenly and unapologeticly broke at the earliest convenient time. So, I was really pulling your leg by accusing you of not "seeing government roads". They ain't and you're right. Gotta go truckin'. East coast runs. I hate 'em. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Surprisingly, Paul, there may be a small area of agreement between us; for you say "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." Yes, of course. A free society can work with less than 100.0% support. The key is, what's "enough"? Omnipotent-state cultists will never, ever be "tolerant" in the sense of leaving us or anyone else alone. We both know that, because A is not Non-A. One cannot be tolerant and intrusive at the same time, and the instant a cultist casts a vote, he is violating your self-ownership right and mine. Accordingly, that idea is Utopian. "Enough" as I see it is that there are fewer aggressors in the free society than can be handled by its free-market justice system. We could debate whether that is 1% or 3%, but I can see no way it could exceed about 5%. I pick those figures because the existing government "justice" system deals with that many "criminals" - badly. The shorthand for that is that "everybody" in society needs to be re-educated. If they are not (to the extent that they understand what government is, what freedom is, what responsibility for their own lives means - and accept that understanding) they will be numerous enough to sabotage any liberty that has been won; they will form a new kind of government and try to impose it on all, with violence in one form or another. Or if they dominate a society _within which_ libertarians have made some kind of enclave, they will use their government's existing power to destroy it, as reasoned in my article. So both such outcomes are completely unstable, Utopian, naive. But if you'll settle for a figure of around 98% for "enough," we have a deal.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim Davies: I think you refer to a few web pages I wrote five or six years ago, still at http://TakeLifeBack.com/tdaw That's the one! Many thanks! I suspect I may have accidentally overwritten your essay in my M/S "Word" file. Lew Rockwell had a more recent essay with the same title. It's one of the first of yours I encountered that caused me to recognize you as among the premier libertarian writers on the web. Another, which I'll attempt to emulate before this summer is over, is your "A Dollar In Peril". Although you and I have not met in person, you wrote that with such lucidity I could actually see you and your serious, concerned expression as you conversed with the crusty old New England statist in the post office line, and I could hear the sincere cadence of your voice. Same with the later scene in the barber shop. Never sell yourself short, Jim. I think you're already providing what I sense is your overarching frustration: that an adequate abundance of others are not "coming to see the light" quickly enough for any of us to be free. I'll side with Paul on this: I don't need their conversion to anarchy and liberty for me to be free. Yet. I often end my rants with: You can be free. Yes, you can. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Hello Liberal in LA, fair question. I was using the word in para 5, 6 and 7 to mean a focus on enhancing the one thing we each have, ie our own lives. In a free market, that life can be enhanced by bringing pleasure to someone else, in exchange. One need not worry about greed and moderation except to make sure that the sum total of one's own enjoyment is served well. "Needs" are what the life's owner determines, nobody else - so nobody else is entitled to criticize. Rationally he will take a long term view; eg balancing the pleasure of a drinking binge with the horrors of a hangover and any permanent harm it does to health. This is really radical. It says there is no virtue, in itself, in helping another person. However in most cases helping someone else brings pleasure to the _helper_, and therefore he will do it. I've often noticed that rich folk love to give money away - because it makes them feel good. But if he chooses not to, no blame attaches. Having created wealth, on this basis there's no way to prevent it benefiting others. He may give some away, as above. Or if he uses it in further trade, on the Misesian subjective theory of value that trade will benefit the other party trading (or else he wouldn't trade.) Or if he saves the money, it will be put to good use as capital to expand commerce, create jobs and new goodies. Or even if he hoards it in the mattress, that takes money out of circulation and therefore causes a general reduction in prices. Only government can destroy wealth, because only government can "trade" with someone against his will.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Re-posted as a Reply
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Please clarify what, exactly, you mean by the word selfish. Unfortunately, many people use it as if it were a synonym for greediness or self-absorption, but I think that such usage is scurrilous. One eats because one is selfish, and there's nothing inappropriate about eating when done in moderation and consistent with the needs of the person.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Sam, Sorry, if I upset you, my friend; you know that was not my intent. Just thought that people should know that, even according to their own law, the government does not own the highways, i.e. "public roadways' and 'streets", therefore I never give them the satisfaction of acknowledging them as "government roads". And, just because highwaymen[1] sometime accost me on a "free and public roadway, or street; one which every person [even natural persons[2]] has a right to use"; it doesn't change the fact that the artificial entity[3] known as government does not own the roads. And, for the record, I have been lookin', Sam; it's just that we all see what we want to see, some of us see "government roads", and some of us see a "free and public roadway, or street; one which every person, has a right to use". "...the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.” ~ יהושׁוּע _____________________________________________________________ [1] HIGHWA'YMAN, n. One who robs on the public road, or lurks in the highway for the purpose of robbing. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [2] NATURAL PERSONS. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations, formed by human laws for purposes of society and government. Wharton. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 802 [3] Artificial. As opposed to "natural", means created or produced by man ["human laws"*]. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 * See Artificial persons
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Thunderbolt, it's surprising that such support is so thin in this forum; one is reminded of William Safire's felicitous phrase about "nattering nabobs of negativism" who seem to be forming themselves into "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history." I'm also reminded of Jonah. According to Jonah 3:4 at the Lord's command "he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown" - so going way out on a limb. But Ninevehans repented of their evil ways (I forget what they were) leaving Jonah up a creek without a paddle; and he pouted mightily, and sulked real sore. "It displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry" (4:1.) The answer came in vv 10, 11: "Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night; And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?" Intriguing phrase, that "also much cattle." Had the cattle also repented? - if so, what _had_ they been up to? Whether this tale is fact or fiction, Jonah failed utterly to get the big picture. The purpose of his preaching against the wickedness of the city was not to prove himself right, but to rescue its residents. Perhaps he was the first Nattering Nabob. If I may, though, a correction: the only approach I see as feasible is one of _persuasion_, one by one, of everybody. You know why and how that can work and is working. But violence has no part in it. It's very tempting to visualize assassinating the bad guys at the top, and I must admit that if that had been done at key points in history millions of other lives would have been saved. But that doesn't persuade anyone, hence the paradigm of ruling and stealing would remain. The aim must be to strike at that root, at the disease infecting all society, not just at its soi-disant "leaders."
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    Sam, thank you for those very kind words. By "Your Tax Dollars at Work" I think you refer to a few web pages I wrote five or six years ago, still at http://TakeLifeBack.com/tdaw The numbers are out of date, but the proportions are still mostly valid.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    "I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself." ~ Aldous Huxley Found on Strike the Root, 2012-April-15
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 9 weeks ago
    The Gulch, Revisited
    Page Jim Davies
    You have a unique ability to get the troops thinking, Jim. Another good article. I agree Galt's Gulch left a lot to the imagination. Many of us will agree Ayn Rand merely opened the door to a host of libertarian/anarchist thought, shortly before the advent of the web. Neither she nor any of us really know how a "free society" is going to actually play out. Rand came out of a nightmare of totalitarianism to a relatively "free" part of the world to write a successful novel that forebode how socialism would ensnare a "free" economy, and how "revolutions" might develop. Who knows -- the Ron Paul "Revolution" might be the forerunner of a 21st century Galt's Gulch. These kids right now see government as serving a socially useful purpose if they can just work hard enough and inspire enough "voters" to elect Ron Paul. They don't think far enough downstream to understand they'd have to "elect" a thousand Ron Paul's immediately to do the equivalent of creating a silk purse out of a sow's ear -- and even that would turn sour in time -- but not to mind. These youngsters are about where I was in 1964 with my ardent support of Barry Goldwater. I have never registered or voted since. But I had to go through Goldwater to get to Sovereignty. Few of us were born anarchist. I take that back -- we were probably born anarchist, but quickly found ourselves inundated with governmentalist ideas and mentality, which had to be exorcised for us to become anarchist. Over time. Not immediately. Line upon line. I look back at my early exposure to some of your articles, Jim. You and Robert Higgs were probably my greatest influence in my acquisition of a state of sovereignty. Perhaps it has to do with us all being in the same age group. You wrote an essay I've linked to often. I think it was titled, "Your Tax Dollars At Work". I know it's buried on my hard drive somewhere. I'm sure I'll find it if I surf "Take Life Back". It was several pages long, had charts comparing the malevolence and high cost of various government actions with free market alternatives. My point is this: I wonder if you give yourself adequate credit for the influence you've already shown many of us in our quest for liberty. In looking for your article I surfed the "On The Other Hand" section of "Take Your Life Back" and thought, it would take HOURS to just peruse a part of the many, many articles and essays you've written. There's a thing going around -- it's called "The Serenity Prayer" -- everybody's probably heard it. And I think even "believers" will agree The Book denigrates the idea of out-loud, public prayers; and I wouldn't want to proselytize or force prayers on anybody even if I believed in them. But the idea is good: I hope to always carry the attitude to have: The serenity to accept the things I can not change The courage to change the things I can And the wisdom to know the difference. I'll weigh in with Mass Outrage, Paul, Mark, Atlas and the others who believe it's time for us to shrug like Atlas Shrugged. I can change only one individual at a time -- and I can't change him or her much, that's for sure. But I can put forth my very best effort. I can have the courage to resist state incursions wherever possible. I can set good examples of sovereignty and liberty. And I can be free. Right here. Right now. Sam . .
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 6 years 9 weeks ago
    Where's My Contract?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL, Sam!!! Dennis
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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) 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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) 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 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 6 years 9 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The days of brick and mortar are waning. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 6 years 9 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 6 years 10 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 6 years 10 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 6 years 10 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.