Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 48 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Can this really be?!?! This is just SO hard to believe.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 48 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    Very good, J.G. Vibes!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    The only god that "answereth by fire" these days, unfortunately, is the STATE. ″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god[1].″ ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill _______________________________________________________________________ [1] GOD, n. ...4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation...and honored as the chief good [benefactor]. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "Without justice, what are kingdoms but great robber bands? What are robber bands but small kingdoms? The band is itself made up of men, is ruled by the command of a leader, and is held together by a social pact. Plunder is divided in accordance with an agreed upon law. If this evil increases by the inclusion of dissolute men to the extent that it takes over territory, establishes headquarters, occupies cities, and subdues peoples, it publicly assumes the title of kingdom! "A fitting and true response was once given to Alexander the Great by an apprehended pirate. When asked by the king what he thought he was doing by infesting the sea, he replied with noble insolence, 'What do you think you are doing by infesting the whole world? Because I do it with one puny boat, I am called a pirate; because you do it with a great fleet, you are called an emperor.'" St. Augustine of Hippo (354 A.D.-430 A.D), Doctor of the Church, from his magnum opus *City of God*. It would not appear that St. Augustine left that part out.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Jesus was asked: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. Matt 22:36-40 (Amp) "with all your mind" People always seem to leave that part out.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 48 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, That was said with no animosity, and with just a bit of humor, hence the wink. And, because of our conversation I am now re-reading The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de la Boétie, (one of my favorite authors). There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised. ~ Excerpted from The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de la Boétie And, cheers to you, too.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Man is a religious animal. Conscious of his movement through time, he contemplates his own non-existence. Questions of ultimacy confront him. His religion may be irreligion. He may conclude there is no God, that his destiny lies in worm meat. He may be convinced of it--so much so that he persecutes those who conclude otherwise. What scripture, pray, drove the ancient Roman authorities to throw Christians into amphitheaters filled with large and hungry beasts? To torch them as lamps to illuminate Nero's gardens? Yes, the Christians refused to light incense to Rome's idols. Still, the punishment meted out seems a tad disproportionate to the crime. As happy-go-lucky pagans, they could have exercised a little more tolerance, no? What religious extremism impelled Robespierre's minions in Revolutionary France? Sure, they had no use for that reactionary Church of Rome and her benighted followers. Did they have to wreak havoc through the Vendee countryside, putting priests and faithful peasants to the blade? As apostles of the Enlightment, couldn't they have practiced a little reasonableness and restraint? The fanatic's creed is that his enemies are the enemies of Truth. But belief in God is not the *sine qua non* of fanaticism. History's bloodiest dictatorship was an officially atheist state.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...Same goes for government laws. They’re just arbitrary creations backed up by weaponry to compel the compliance of others, whether those others consent or not..." Ever now and again governmentalists will chant, "...we are a nation of laws, not men..." Empty, empty nonsense. Governments do not exist. Men exist. "...government itself, in any form, is completely illegitimate..." You're gettin' there, Alex! Good essay! Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Yes, right on target.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 48 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day painkilleraz, You might want to look at theses 47 resources to see how many of them equate servitude with slavery. http://www.strike-the-root.com/comment/reply/46156/5403
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 48 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Didnt you read my adjustments, I clearly stated why I changed them- I dont want to offend delicate persons ;) Not dishonest, actually very honest. And clearly shown...described...labeled...outlined...bolded (not sure how you will define those words so it is necessary to add as many similar as possible)
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 48 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Mark 16 and Ivan Panin. ( Ivan Panin, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, B-761, Bible Numerics, Suite 206, 121 Willowdale Ave., Willowdale, Ontario, M2N 6A3, (406) 221-7424. ) The Heptadic Structure of Scripture Everyone who explores their Bible quickly discovers the pervasiveness of Seven: there are over 600 explicit occurrences of "sevens" throughout both the Old and New Testaments. As many of our readers are aware, there are also prevalent evidences of design hidden behind the text. The "Heptadic" (sevenfold) structure of Biblical text is one of the remarkable characteristics of its authenticity. What about these disputed 12 verses? There are 175 (7 x 25) words in the Greek text of Mark 16:9-20. Curious. These words use a total vocabulary of 98 different words (7 x 14), also an exact multiple of seven. That's also rather striking. Try constructing a passage in which both the number of words and the number of letters are precisely divisible by seven (with no remainder)! The random chance of a number being precisely divisible by 7 is one chance in seven. In seven tries, there will be an average of six failures. The chance of two numbers both being divisible by 7 exactly is one in 7^2, or one in 49. (This is a convenient simplification; some mathematical statisticians would argue the chance is one in 91.) This still might be viewed as an accidental occurrence, or the casual contrivance of a clever scribe. But let's look further. The number of letters in this passage is 553, also a precise multiple of seven (7 x 79). This is getting a bit more tricky. The chance of three numbers accidentally being precisely divisible by seven is one in 7^3, or one in 343. This increasingly appears to be suspiciously deliberate. In fact, the number of vowels is 294 (7 x 42); and the number of consonants is 259 (7 x 37). Do you sense that someone has gone through a lot of trouble to hide a design or signature behind this text? As we examine the vocabulary of those 98 (7 x 14) words: 84 (7 x 12) are found before in Mark; 14 (7 x 2) are found only here. 42 (7 x 6) are found in the Lord's address (vv.15-18); 56 (7 x 8) are not part of His vocabulary here. This is, conspicuously, not random chance at work, but highly skillful design. But just how skillful? With 10 such heptadic features, it would take 7^10, or 282,475,249 attempts for these to occur by chance alone. How long would it take the composer to redraft an alternative attempt to obtain the result he was looking for? If he could accomplish an attempt in only 10 minutes, working 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, these would take him over 23,540 years! It gets worse. Greek, like Hebrew, has assigned numerical values to each letter of its alphabet. Thus, each word also has a numerical ("gematrical") value. The total numerical value of the passage is 103,656 (7 x 14,808). The value of v.9 is 11,795 (7 x 1,685); v.10 is 5,418 (7 x 774); v.11 is 11,795 (7 x 1,685); vv.12-20, 86,450 (7 x 12,350). In verse 10, the first word is 98 (7 x 14), the middle word is 4,529 (7 x 647), and the last word is 791 (7 x 113). The value of the total word forms is 89,663 (7 x 12,809). And so on. This all is among the legendary results of the work by Dr. Ivan Panin. In fact, he identified 75 heptadic features of the last 12 verses of Mark. We have highlighted only 34 heptadic features. If a supercomputer could be programmed to attempt 400 million attempts/second, working day and night, it would take one million of them over four million years to identify a combination of 7^34 heptadic features by unaided chance alone. Authentication Codes Just as we encounter coding devices in our high technology environments, here we have an automatic security system that monitors every letter of every word, that never rusts or wears out, and has remained in service for almost two thousand years! It is a signature that can't be erased and which counterfeiters can't simulate. Why are we surprised? God has declared that He "has magnified His word even above His name!" We can, indeed, have confidence that, in fact, the Bible is God's Holy Word, despite the errors man has introduced and the abuse it has suffered throughout the centuries. It is our most precious possession-individually as well as collectively. And it never ceases to unveil surprises to anyone that diligently inquires into it. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/201/
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 48 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Just for the record, Jesse--you called me out by name--in your first post on this specific thread. And stop going back and adding to your posts after I have already responded, because THAT is dishonest. I'm done.
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 48 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    I am accusing you of inconsistent approaches not dishonesty. The ** thing generally shows that it is in addition too, and not the main point, and after thought if you will. Since most (liberty minds) arguments regarding slavery and voting tend to come back to whichever dead scholar they appreciate most. ;) It has nothing to do with you directly or your argument, more a suggestion given. Pps, Chris, this is why I left the forums, I tire of the insolent bullshit from many there. I know you are a good person, but honestly, I tire of the bullshit. Stop misinterpreting what I am saying, or at least apologize when you get caught doing it.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 4 years 48 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    "**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?" WHAT???? You accuse me of borrowing others ideas??? Do you know how long it took me to work on the "voluntary slavery" argument, and how I showed it was fallacious? Why don't you stop talking about it, and produce evidence that I stole someone else's idea? How dare you accuse me of being dishonest without proof! Who's the dishonest one? That argument is mine, I thought that up.
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 4 years 48 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 48 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 49 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 49 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 49 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    Evan, it looks like someone got da-boot.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Well, at least /I/ was enjoying the conversation! :-) Cheers.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 49 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 49 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 49 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.