Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 45 weeks ago Page tzo
    Actually it's the other way round... Natural laws are objective and compulsory (they cannot be passed). The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). This market price breakthru came from Mises's 1920 paper refuting Socialism. The Market for Liberty 9781610162456 Morris and Linda Tannehill http://mises.org/resources/6058 Book review--Freedom Naturally http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally Agreed on scaling down the law. There need only be one. The NAP--non aggression principle. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Covenant of Unanimous Consent....A Proposal... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... 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. The Covenant satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand above) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories. (Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers to replace the (much better) Articles of Confederation, while both Jefferson and Adams were in Europe--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize). Excerpts: How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html PS I do agree with Nathanial Branden's First Causes--that he wrote and which Rand edited on infinite regress and reversing existence with causality regarding the question of the existence of a big ghost in heaven.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    In the right hand column of STR I see depictions of two practitioners of non-violent resistance - Thoreau and Gandhi. Gandhi I believe was a moral absolutist on non-violence holding that violence was wrong even in self defense. Thoreau did not preach violence that I'm aware of, but on the other hand he was a fan of Captain John Brown. I take the view that violence can be justified, but only when practical. I hear a lot of loose stupid talk about violence against the state that won't come to any good. I greatly prefer Gandhi to McVeigh even though I am more fundamentally at philosophical odds with the former than the latter.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    During the Vietnam war the anti-war movement was fueled by opposition to the draft. Now with no draft the anti-war movement is weak.
  • tanhadron's picture
    tanhadron 2 years 45 weeks ago Page tzo
    Unfortunately, if one doesn't accept the notion of "God-given" natural law, the whole "positive law is bad, natural law is good" argument is far less useful. There is no "objective" natural law. Sorry, but there just isn't, as much as we want there to be. The best we can do is try to come up with a framework or convincing justification for why one set of laws--or type of laws--is better than another; or why one set or type of behavior MUST be subject to laws and others not. Towards that end, I would say the better discussion or argument, instead of "natural law v. positive law" is that although all laws are positive laws, that those centered around enforcing NEGATIVE RIGHTS are more valid or justified than those centered around POSITIVE RIGHTS. In other words, let's scale the tens of thousands of positive laws "on the books" (most of which presume to protect or enforce or obligate people relative to others' positive rights) down to just a handful of positive laws that instead protect or enforce NEGATIVE rights (with NO obligations on people to provide relative to others' positive "rights").
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "We see this clearly in America, despite “liberty” being the national slogan (it's on our coinage, for crying out loud) and despite our government having been specifically designed as a minarchy." You can't really say that the federal government was designed as a minarchy for two reasons. First, it was designed to replace an existing and functioning weaker government (The government defined by the Articles of Confederation) with a more powerful federal government. That federal government may have been designed to be small, but clearly the movement was away from minimal government. Second, the federal government was not intended to be the only government - the state governments were intended to remain significantly stronger. You could look at today's United Nations as a very weak governing body, an international minarchy if you will, but we still wouldn't think of ourselves as living under minarchy today. At least I wouldn't. The federal government was designed to be a republic, it has collapsed into a national government.
  • Guest's picture
    donjuancho (not verified) 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Well done Davi!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "The article, by Daniel Sanchez, completely misses the point, seems to me. If syndicalism is such an impossible deal, why spend time and effort worrying about it and arguing against it? A much more reasonable idea would be to let syndicalists, if any can be found, do their own thing." Communism was an impossible deal but that didn't mean communists didn't harm people. Reminds me of a speech of Rothbard's I saw on youtube where he argued that the people of the West were foolish to worry about communism since it was economically destined to fail. To me it seemed to matter quite a bit whether communism collapsed before or after it ruined your life. I doubt North Koreans take much consolation from the fact that communism is an impossible deal.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page tzo
    "The law to which Bastiat referred is the Natural Law, which is the logical discovery of an objective set of rules that define ethical—and thus lawful—human behavior." ~ tzo If my 'friend', Frédéric, could speak to you from the grave, he would say, Mon Dieu, tzo, quel article! Ceci est un exemple parfait de la façon de frapper la racine!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    So in your hypothetical case if A and B hate each other and A's son is killed your natural assumption is that A killed his son to frame B. That doesn't strike me as investigation. Is it your theory that the 19 identified terrorists were not on the four planes on 9/11? That they did not hijack the planes? That they were not muslim radicals?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    But if said unpasteurized fluid crosses a state border, it becomes subject to federal interstate commerce law, and anyone caught in the act is breaking federal law. Goodness, voting privileges may be permanently revoked from such offenders. And if a Vermont farmer comes under suspicion of transporting milk to customers in New Hampshire, the Feds will invade. Actually, all the raids I have read about have been federal, I believe, and not state. Most states probably don't really care too much one way or another, but the feds sure get a kick out of practicing their SWAT tactics. Actually, after all is said and done, the states' opinions don't come into play at all when it comes to food. Here is an example from where I live: http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2008-09-12/671872/
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thank God for benevolent masters!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    A must read article by tzo, regarding the Natural Law.
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    John, I would like to remind you with all due respect, perhaps you did not even noticed, but as plain as I see it 9/11 was exactly a bait to create such Hatred... think what your American Rulers had achieved through that... we all know that economies are the first damaged in a case of impending WAR and with that shrewd maneuvering the powers of US had gained the control of the biggest Petrol reservoir, not to add the simple fact that as well it cutted off the impending risk of the all growing Euro coin... why do I say risk? Because for the economy of US it was such, a threat, and threats must be dealt with. How do I can be certain??? Let´s put it this way, when you know how a criminal works you become a great profiler, thus a great CSI right? Well my point here is: Your family and mine has an issue of mutual hate and all of our neighborhood are well aware of it, right? And let us suppose that with one of mine gone I have the chance to get ridden of you as well, so I kill one of my sons(internal problems) and leave him in the middle of the street to be found by a third party... who will be the first implicated??? The answer is simple, all of your family, and let us entertain that I plant certain evidence around you, not to say certain money to the purpose of cover the truth, who benefits and who gets lost??? That is what I think that happened that day, may we someday know the truth of it. Take a look to certain evidence for instance, the temperature was enough to melt metal and concrete but could not melt the parts of bodies and clothing and weapons which indicated that were muslims??? Do not take it bad, nor personal but it seems a joke to me that none be able to see it, perhaps an external look to this was needed. Kind Regards John!!!
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "There are other examples, some that even libertarians are prone to fall into. Hatred of or sneering at religion is commonplace among libertarians. We (non-religious libertarians) should ask ourselves, ..." As an atheist libertarian I would simply ask what libertarianism has to say about religion. The answer is nothing. So if you're criticizing people for religious beliefs it must be for a reason other than libertarian principles. Which isn't to say such criticism cannot be valid, it's just that there is no valid libertarian criticism of religion.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Most people, while often inconsistent on this point, largely do not seek to impose their will upon us, or can be talked into not imposing on us when they see it is an imposition." That's saying that most people can be talked out of condoning government. Not on this planet, from what I've seen. Do you really find you have a great batting average at persuading people to eschew state coercion? Because I would be astonished to see that demonstrated. If you can do that then libertarian victory is imminent.
  • John T. Kennedy's picture
    John T. Kennedy 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Radical Muslims are not our enemies. While they may be determined to impose on us or harm us, they are not in any realistic sense able." A lot of people think 9/11 was somewhat realistic. Criminals and terrorists may not be my most dangerous enemies but I think it's fair to identify them as enemies. Political movements, like progressivism for instance, certainly have some ability organize violence against me, so what's wrong with identifying members of such amovement as enemies?
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Yeah, I understand perfectly what you suggest Paul, even though you speak as if the thing were that easy, I don´t know exactly how is it in US though how do you treat as individuals those who need to pertain to a group, for as far as I know Christians in general speaks of themselves as a collectivity, it is like treat a self oucasted person as a part of something he does not believe he is or might be... to me it sounds oximoronic at least, have you tried to reason with a hooligan, and tell him that the Manchester United is not his life??? Believe me that he will smash the individuality out of you... A collective exists because the Slave Masters sold them the need to pertain you can try all that you think, but in the end it will take years, or generations and I don't know if do we have such a luxury of time. In Southam things are a bit different perhaps, but let me remember you all that the Filliation sense or collectiveness is a bound almost unbreakable, despite of what you see in the North. I'll wait for your response Paul, regards!!!
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 45 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php It is very informative to look through some of R.Paul's Bill Summary & Status. Most of these so-called 'lawmakers' bills are voluminous lawyer speak written for them by west's publishing lawyers guild. Look over R.Paul's offerings.Many of his bill's seem to be self-authored and few pages long. Also of note,look at the almost non-existent co-sponsors of his bills. Note to worry,The king has no clothes in my eyes. Their is a reason they call it an ACT of CON-gress. An act is a play or a charade, and congress is an euphemism for sex. R.Paul (and nameless others) are hard-core controlled opposition.TPTB use him to gauge how the public relations agenda is working amongst the plebs.If R.Paul gets to many votes,they adjust the knobs and dials.If R.Paul was the real deal and became prez. The puppet masters take him to the whitehouse theater, sits him done ,dims the lights,on comes the Zapruder film. Lights come back on, ''any questions?''
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    With all due respect Darkcrusader's repeating more of the same discredited memes on an anarchist site--no less--is a waste of time. I do not see Ventura as the cause of the inherent tendency for More Control (Chaotic Laws), More of the Matrix (Surplus Order) and More Transfer of Wealth (Looting) but the very same that Darkcrusader refers to as The Law. There is only one entity that can pit the poor against the rich, the young against the old, the white against the black, this country against another and *thrive cancer like thru divide and conquer* . The same entity that commits such cannot pass pixie dust over itself and render Justice. Saying that it can would indeed be demagoguery amongst other things.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "...there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law." Well, of course, there "may well be human beings having no legal rights"; that's because "legal rights" are bestowed, or granted, to consenting (either express or tacit[1]) members (citizens/subjects) of "particular political and legal system[s]" and these "slaves" were not consenting members in the "English law" system. "Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, such as constitutional rights, common law rights, and statutory rights, are bestowed under a particular political and legal system; they are relative to specific cultures and governments. Legal rights are enumerated in constitutions, in statutes (by a legislative body), in case law (especially in countries with a common law tradition), in treaties, and in administrative regulations." ~ Wikipedia __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] 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...
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The issue is which court gets to declare the law void.Congress has said that if you want to appeal a judgment of a U.S. District Court located in New York, you have to go to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals. Jesse 'the body'(?) Ventura has sworn an Oath to defend his CONstitution against all. I guess we now know what his sacred oath is worth.As he was a navy seal and a Governor so it would be no streach to think that he did swear an oath to defend that constitution.The district court rightly ruled. It is up to J.V. to persue his legal remedy and 'go to the mat' for his constitution.So it appears that he is rabble rousing to draw out those who will be instigated to take action. The ultimate purpose? A second (UN)civil-war? That seems to serve TPTB.Kills off a lot of useless eaters and changes the law-forms. http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/index.html Why no one of us has, or ever will, have our Constitutional legal stances admitted nor recognized in any USDC?? This is perhaps the most definitive listing of prior equity contracts existing before the formal US Constitution, which when coupled with myriad subsequent additions-extensions of said equity-maritime contracts shows that any attempt to cause justice to occur within the US Judicial system is absolutely hopeless, other than the rare but purposefully planned-permitted "wins" that are nothing more than mindscrew to convince the unthinking that justice does still exists. Concerning persons> A person is such, not because he is human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to him. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered as having such attributes is what lawyers call a natural person. Pollock, First Book of Jurispr. 110. Gray, Nature and Sources of Law, ch. II. Source: Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. Persons are the subject of rights and duties; and, as a subject of a right, the person is the object of the correlative duty, and conversely. The subject of a right has been called, the person of inherence; the subject of a duty, the person of incidence. "Entitled" and "bound" are the terms in common use in English and for most purposes they are adequate. Every full citizen is a person; other human beings, namely, subjects who are not citizens, may be persons. But not every human being is necessarily a person, for a person is capable of rights and duties, and there may well be human beings having no legal rights, as was the case with slaves in English law.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well, I think the first thing we should realize is that most people are victims of the system; most are hosts to the parasite class. The parasites profit from various groups fighting amongst each other. There is no profit for us in this fighting; although occasionally the fight is unavoidable, we must always remember who gets the benefit from our doing it. You write, "we think and they feel". Perhaps that is so. Still, the best way to deal with that is to disengage, or find some lower common denominator that will take you out of conflict with them. And I am suggesting giving up evangelism not to be nice, but because giving it up yields a better outcome in the long run. I of course disagree completely with your point, if I understand it correctly, that no Catholic is to be trusted. Treat people as individuals. Don't be a collectivist. Every time you fight with someone not a member of the ruling class, when that fight is reasonably avoidable, it is as if you are a marionette with strings manipulated by the rulers.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I agree, Sam, "society" is most certainly "reified", i.e. (something abstract) regarded as a material or concrete thing, by the most people.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 45 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Re: Ventura has no standing to use the Constitution... Actually, that is so– *at least to Our Rulers*. And not just because they’re evil tyrants who spit on the Constitution. They are and they do, but what Mr. Ventura bumped up against is monstrously worse, something far more dangerous, entrenched, and systemic. Yet it remains so incognito and unsuspected that *our hero* might want to investigate it for his series, Conspiracy Theory, on TruTV. The culprit is a totalitarian nightmare known as "administrative law." And when we victims assume the Constitution reigns supreme, Our Rulers laugh: they *legally (even if unconstitutionally) replaced it* about a century ago with Administrative law. Ventura’s Venture Against the TSA by Becky Akers http://lewrockwell.com/akers/akers170.html Re: Ventura as "the real deal" Indeed! Good for Ventura! How good is the Constitution if it has allowed or cannot stop what we have? Yet it also remains so incognito and unsuspected that *our hero* might want to investigate it too for his series, Conspiracy Facts to go with The Theory, on TruTV. Re-Ventura as "not just a rabble rouser" At the same time the typical American is so conditioned to Authority that he will not even dare to defy a road sign – even when it’s out in the middle of nowhere and there’s essentially zero chance of any repercussions. Anything that looks official, anyone in a uniform of any kind – even if it’s not an official uniform and the wearer has no gun or actual authority to do anything – the average American will, without a murmur, sit quietly – and obey. What’s Gonna Get Us by Eric Peters http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e108.html I think this rings more true than Darkcrusdader's administrative concerns. Ventura comes across--to me--more as a hero surrounded by smirking button pushing cowards.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Suverans2, "society" is indeed a pseudonym (reification, I think, might be a better word). You exist -- I exist -- those we love exist. Good analysis, Alex! "...as if willful blindness is hailed as a kind of virtue. As if deceit, both from without, and self-deception, are to be regarded as virtues rather than serious impediments to rational judgement..." Lately I've felt compelled to default to Delmar England's rather difficult to read but salient treatise on reification and its effect upon those of us attempting to lead a free and anarchic lifestyle. As a Sovereign State I can only look upon the Peter Heeds of the world, as well as the Blacks (who presumed to define "legality"), as members of a criminal gang -- far more dangerous than non-government criminals. Non-government criminals do not generally attempt to lend legitimacy to their actions. They may make excuses for their behaviors, but they don't believe -- nor do they try to convince me -- that what they do is legal. They seek my resources -- not my support. Non-government gangsters expect no pledges of allegiance. The danger of government criminals is in their sincerity (to wit: Ron Paul). You've discovered that reliance for a definition upon an individual so steeped in the "legitimacy of state" as is Heed is futile. Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion — Edward Abbey Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day Alex R. Knight III, "...when used in pleadings and other documents in our Court system..." is the qualifier. Is Elmer Fudd a pseudonym or does 'he' have substance? Elmer Fudd, when used in a Bugs Bunny cartoon, is not a pseudonym and does have substance. Like the State of New Hampshire, Elmer Fudd is an artificial person, which, in the case of State of New Hampshire, is a person, "created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons[1]", (who are created by nature and do have substance, [as this word is commonly understood]). Is "Society" a pseudonym or does it have substance? Cute. LOL _____________________________________________________________________________ [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    "...even at its best, politics can never cut it..." I've often said, "...political solutions are no solutions.." I've changed that. All political solutions will always have results that are far more egregious than no solutions at all. Free individual actions are the only real solutions to "problems". I always look forward to your essays, Jim. This was one of the better ones. Sam
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 2 years 46 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    It is a very interesting way to approach the issue on a free society building the one you propose, and in certain way I do agree, but I must point, that it is hate while you ignore your enemy, and that is what the RULING JERKS instill on the herd... sometimes I've heard CNN refering to certain latin governments and its people as Drugaddicts, for chewing Coca that has a certain purpose given the regions, or to us Argentines for drink Mate which is moreso like your coffee, but simply the most of US populations does know nothing of our social uses, they simply are outraged by what our governments say against your exterior politics, and are driven to zealotry and this is an example of hate, or the Argentines hating the UK for Falklands, and that is stupid, is the blind hate of the masses driven by politics to absurd extents, my point is that if I know my enemy I don't hate him, just his behavior and that behavior is what most of us attack, for example a Catholic is very well known to be lead by bigotry and phisically violent most of the times that his/her credo is put in question, and most of us don't even be concerned by their slaughter upon many of us for centuries, we always were more tollerant than them and them as the Rulers later did, always manifested through force... so if they evangelize, why don't we??? Some buddhist schools may say that a demon might be combated as a demon, if well is not bad that what you suggests, it sounds me as put the other cheek, maybe I got it wrong, and i can't do just that. To respond in kind is not hatred, to say what you think is TRUE is not attack either way, that is the only way to fight the LIES that they are, to break the psychic yoke that they imposed on us two millennia ago, because part of this discurse to which to certain extent I adhere is that a remnant of the yoke above mentioned, to go easy on people who never went so is naïve. And we are RIGHT and they are WRONG because we think and they feel, we rationalize and are able to see and they are blind with faith... a mystics tool. I am much more inclined to Sam's view of it, we still stick ourselves by concepts created and developed by the slave masters. Kind regards!!!
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    ReverendDraco, as usual Tzo has hit the nail succinctly on the head. Thanks Tzo! The analogy doesn't hold because government does not and cannot legitimately own property. Everything to which it lays claim, it stole. "Property" is something with a legitimate owner. The subject is explored a bit at http://strike-the-root.com/content/worlds-biggest-oxymoron and at http://TinyURL.com/ZGBlog/10A102.htm
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    Mikehauncho, I think the article confirms my agreement that Ron has been very good about fending off the gun-grabbers. That part of his platform is probably his best. However you may be mistaken about the police not being able to take from you a home he "protects." If the protection is by contract, that would be so; and such may be quite common in the coming free society. But today unfortunately the policeman is an employee of a group of thugs who are NOT bound by contract, despite the ubiquity of "To Serve and Protect" slogans; if they want your house (because for example you decline to pay them protection money) they will send those same "protectors" precisely and expressly to take it from you. The myth is that they serve and protect _us_; the reality is that they serve and protect government. Again, as the article says, gun (and all other) rights are natural rights, not subject to government granting or with-holding - so it's a pity Ron uses its language, as if it did have such powers.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 46 weeks ago Page tzo
    I'm not necessarily claiming to have all the definitive definitions to everything here, just pointing out that discussions on freedom probably need to touch upon all these words and phrases, and the people in the discussion should take time to ensure that they understand each other by agreeing on meanings. I find that when you really begin to nail things down and don't allow glossing over and vague hand waving, most people are forced to agree to the simplicity and correctness of many freedom arguments. It's a start, anyway.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    Your assumption that the US government is the rightful property owner of the entire geographic area it claims, analogous to a human being who may be occupying and rightfully controlling a piece of property, is suspect. You give the government the right to kick every person off its property, you included. You live and exist only due to the permission given to you by the US government? That's how it works?
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    I've noticed that many Libertarians seem to equate Immigration with walking across the street. . . and it simply isn't so. Jumping a fence is jumping a fence - be it surrounding a "Gated Community," your back yard. . . or the US border. ALL are criminal acts, unless the person in question has permission to do so. Don't believe me? Go find a Gated Community - a nice one, don't want to live in a ghetto, right? Jump the fence, and go set up a tent in someone's back yard. When they complain, simply explain that you'll only be there for about 6 months while you're working, but then you'll jump back over the fence and leave. Oh, and also let them know that they'll be required to pay for your kids to go to school, and for their health care, and for their food. . . When they call the police - call your friends & family who are living in other people's back yards in the Community, and march and protest, DEMANDING that your crime be made retroactively legal or that you be given Amnesty and allowed to continue living on someone else's property. . . When you get out of jail, let me know how that worked out.
  • mikehauncho's picture
    mikehauncho 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    "Ron Paul has been a leader in the fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment" and ends with a promise to "continue protecting your Second Amendment rights as President." Now analyze what that means: the gun-owner's rights are set by government permission?" You seem to be making some logic jumps that don't seem to be there. All he is saying is that he will protect the right not that he has any power over it. A police man protects your home but he can't take it from you.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Jim Davies, Thank you for your time and effort in writing this article. Isn't the bottom line that Ron Paul, (and I love listening to him, mainly because he seems so sincere), is just one man, and common sense tells us that one man cannot "alter, [to any great degree] or abolish" the UNITED STATES corporation[1]? "If education is our aim--and I think it should be--" ~ Jim Davies Who, precisely, are you trying to 'educate', and, for what purpose? Speaking only for myself, I am trying to 'teach' others that I, and they, individually, have a natural right to secede, i.e. to withdraw from membership in a group, in this case a body politic, or corporation, and to return to their original state, which is that of a natural man, with natural rights and natural liberty, "without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature". "The Right to Work is a tricky subject, because if, in a free society, some employer should choose to bind his firm to a monopoly supplier of labor--a closed shop--he would be free to do so." ~ Jim Davies Well, of course, "he would be free to do so", if as you indicate it is "his firm". The reason it seems like a "tricky subject", to you, is because you seem to be confusing a Right to Work with a Right to a Job. A 'right', as you no doubt know, is a 'just claim', and each of us had a 'just claim', or 'right', to his own labor, and the product(s) thereof, but we do not have a 'just claim', or 'right', to another man's labor, or the product(s) thereof, (which, in this scenario is, "his firm"), without his consent. "What one creates, one controls", or to be more precise, has the 'right' to control. __________________________________________________________________________ [1] US CODE: Title 28 § 3002 (15): (15) “United States” means— (A) a Federal corporation
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    Right with you, Scott, so long as you mean by "decentralize" to decentralize rule all the way down to the individual. By the self-ownership axiom, the only valid government is self government. When evaluating Ron, it seems to me fair to accept that he's trying to wind the state down gradually, and therefore will not propose to abolish everything at the outset; I don't agree with that gradualist approach but can see it does have some merit. Hey, so long as we get there soon, without using force, the method is not a big deal. Even Harry Browne proposed to leave office with a $100B/yr Federal spend still in place (after spending his 8 years scrapping the other 93%!) But as the article shows, the real problem with Ron Paul is that he doesn't have a credible plan even for winding it down gradually. The promises he does make (by his fine slogans, for instance) are not repeated in what's the nearest thing to a draft contract: his web site's "Issues" section. Hence my conclusion that even at its best, politics can never cut it. Education will.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Ron, Reviewed
    Page Jim Davies
    I want to hear Ron Paul state the truth that the only way to rehabilitate America is to abolish the federal government and decentralize everything. Central planning doesn't work, it can't work, and it won't work, in ANY area of life. I think Dr. Paul already knows this, and, frankly, I am just very disappointed with his compromises for the sake of avoiding offending certain voters, particularly conservatives and other neanderthals.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    I'm not clear as to which story Gwardion refers -- Suveran2's or tzo's -- but I think it must be Suveran2's monkey analogy. I can't see where the presence of "...spoken language or written language..." has any bearing on the idea that human beings conditioned by government ("public" ha ha) education and propaganda might respond in mass with ignorance of the gun in the room. Respond, in fact, with anger toward an individual who attempts to point out the gun in the room. Patriotic supporters of state are duty-bound to deny the fact that all acts of all agents of state are always backed by threats of violence upon s/he who dares to question compliance. That denial is exactly like a group of monkeys denying that it's OK for one monkey to climb up the ladder and enjoy the banana. I've signed no "social contract" that I'm aware of, and I do speak a few languages. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Some of you may enjoy this, but be forewarned, do not read this with food or drink in your mouth. A Prayer of Gratitude to Our Benevolent Masters For the Gift of Roads Wise Overlords, Great Ones, unto you our thanks. We prostrate and abase ourselves before you in great thankfulness and humility for your roads, the mighty thoroughfares you upon us do bestow. Hear our praise! For if not for your compassion where should we walk or ride? Truly is your mercy great. And wither shall our feet tread, and unto what desolate shore or rocky hillock shall we wander, should you guide us not, and show us not the way? Truly, as I walk, the highway shall resound with songs of great gladness, great gladness! Wise Overlords, Great Ones, unto you our thanks shall we give, for thou art great. Thou art the Builders, the Masters. The Road Makers. Amen http://www.economicsjunkie.com/private-citizens-perform-4-million-road-r...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Yeah, they are both 'vegetables', one with its head in the air, the other with its head in the sand, but both 'vegetables' nonetheless. And, that's okay, I suppose, as long as you want a 'vegetable' representing you. As for me and my house, we do not consent to having 'vegetables' represent us.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    The initial question was worded wrong. The question to be decided, for the card-carrying-members of the Country Club only, is, "Can a cop, legally, put a tracking device on a card-carrying-member's car without a warrant?" The answer, of course, may be 'yes' or 'no', dependent upon their peculiar law. On the other hand, if we ask the question, "Can a cop, legally, or lawfully, i.e. rightfully, put a tracking device on a non-member's car without that non-member's permission*?", the answer is an emphatic, and resounding, NO! [*If we accept that 'permission' can also be given by 'silence' (failure to rebut), and 'forfeiture' (by trespassing on another man's equal rights).] Whether the 'cop' has the physical ability to do it, is quite another question, of course. But, if he does do it to a non-member's car without that non-member's permission, he then becomes, as Sam rightly pointed out, nothing more than an "armed robber", with or without his master's "warrant"[1], because he has now violated the Law of Nature, that is to say, the Natural Law of Man. "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 Why is it "superior"? Because, "the law of nature [is] coeval with man[2]", and "what comes first in time, is best in law[3]". That, my friends, is the Cornerstone that is missing in all of your so-called governments. _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves" ~ John Locke [2] 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41 [3] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347.
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    An excellent tractatum, though the first of questions to my mind is why there are wretches, of course they are convenient to the established power, in the roman age they did not constitute a moral problem, the romans were heartless??? Maybe it was so, but they were far from libertarianism, even so I don't want to go that far, if for the answer to that is so far, in the begining of Christendom, who were but a militia of helpless and poor wretches claiming for right such as those we grant today. I think moreso like you all, and I feel that ostracism applied on my person, even though I persevere in the opening of minds, the widening of gazes. I agree whit this post totally
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Excellent answer my friend, I was to say something alike, but is of no need now!!!
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Excellent.
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 2 years 46 weeks ago
    CIA 'Ninja Librarians'
    Web link Westernerd
    It is sincerely scaring how so a terrible force like the apparatus of US Intelligence grows through the seeding of chaos, inventing enemies outside its door, not to see that they're the only foe to liberty and always has been, not that the foreign governments are less scary, just a lo less powerful, though it amuses me to hear the american media to refer to other countries authorities as Dictators, simply because some of the counter the dicatates of US... so if a country dictates pretending the others to follow, is that not a dictator??? I advocate for a non governmental force of any kind, just people deciding for themselves, this kind of intelligence/ counter intel stuff is good to the movies, but trully harmful to reality. Thank you all
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Can a cop put a tracking device on your car without a warrant? This question is now before the Supreme Court as they decide whether GPS tracking devices can be placed on vehicles to track suspects without a judge’s approval. It really does not matter. The "cop" is a dangerously armed parasitic robber of state in or out of costume. S/he'll do what s/he pleases. And the court "judge", paid out of the same booty-bag, will agree. It's like asking, "can an armed robber put a tracking devise on your car?" (So s/he can meet you with a gun and relieve you of your billfold when you come out of a restaurant). Well, if s/he has a gun, and you don't want to gamble as to whether it's loaded or s/he has the cojones to pull the trigger, then the answer is yes. The advantage, of course, with the latter (non-government robber) is s/he knows s/he is a robber. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    [Republican Sen. Lamar] Alexander said Tennessee could use the extra money to improve education, reduce tuition at public colleges and universities, or lower the state’s sales tax rate - currently the highest in the nation, according to the Tax Foundation. It will also help ensure that Tennessee doesn’t implement a state income tax, he said. “If some purchasers and some sellers continue to avoid state taxes, why, it makes it more likely that Tennessee would have a state income tax.” I predict that tuition at Tennessee public colleges and universities does NOT go down and that the state's sales tax rate is NOT lowered, and that there WILL BE, eventually, a Tennessee state income tax implemented. Anyone wanna take a $1.00 bet against that prediction? Furthermore, the proposal has backing from Amazon, Walmart and Best Buy, so I am seriously considering boycotting these three giants.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago
    Power Play No Game
    Web link Michael Kleen
    What makes you think that it's "your car"? Do you have the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin (MCO), also known as a Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin (MSO), the true title to that car, signed by the DEALER and notarized by a Notary Public? If the MCO/MSO, isn't the true title to that car, why does it have to be signed by the DEALER, who is the Author-ized Representative of the Manufacturer, and notarized by a Notary Public? And, if it is not the true title to that car, why does the STATE want it so badly? Try paying cash for a new car and telling the DEALER that you want to keep the MCO/MSO after it is signed and notarized. I mean, once it's paid for, you think it is YOUR car, right? Think again. If you are a citizen/subject of a STATE, then the STATE is your Master. And... Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327. "The ultimate ownership of all property[1] is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." ~ U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (c.1933) (Brown v. Welch supra) ________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Property. ...The word is also commonly used to denote everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal, incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1216 Need we say more?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 46 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Yeah, I'm the taxman... (if you drive a car, car;) - I’ll tax the street; (if you try to sit, sit;) - I’ll tax your seat; (if you get too cold, cold;) - I’ll tax the heat; (if you take a walk, walk;) - I'll tax your feet. Yeah, I’m the taxman. And you're working for no one but me. Taxman!
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 46 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    And that, friend, effectively summarizes the paradigm shift required for individuals to participate in a voluntary and prosperous society based upon principles of human nature and sans enforcement. Well said.