Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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!!!
  • Guest's picture
    livefreeretiree (not verified) 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Excellent.
  • Chaeros Galt's picture
    Chaeros Galt 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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 3 years 10 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!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I tried to post a link: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf It did not "fire" as a hyperlink. When I copied and pasted to browser it worked. Sometimes they do, other times they don't. Who knows?? Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Anarchy means "absence of political authority". That's it. It does not imply lack of governance or the means by which to enforce contracts. But the Websters of the world, along with many who claim libertarianism and/or anarchy, simply cannot envision a society without political authority. That is a concept beyond the borders of their capabilities, or mindsets. Thus their references to revolt, or chaos, or confusion when attempting to define "anarchy". It makes up the center point of ideology -- the thaumaturge -- of the slave-master. It allows the "ruling class" to pilfer and suck the productive capacity from the producers, who will never in a hundred years believe they are being beset with parasites. In fact "democracy" is a form of mysticism that gives rise to the belief that each can be part of predation with immunity. The mindless masses are convinced they MUST have rulers for mutual "protection". The individual is incapable of self governance. John Hasnas wrote an excellent treatise on anarchy. I've posted the link before, I'll post it again here: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 10 weeks ago Page tzo
    This article needs links, particularly where it asserts natural law is objective, universal, etc. I know Molyneux has tried to prove that, but while I thought it was a pretty good attempt I was not entirely convinced. I've run into many examples where people in agreement about NAP still could not agree what constitutes aggression. It seems when one applies ethereal principles to gritty reality, subjective judgements start to creep in anyway. "Now, personal philosophies based on personal ethics, also known as morals, are much less universal—in fact, I would venture to guess that no two individuals' personal ethics are identical. This subjectivity explains why any attempt to organize society by implementing personal philosophy can't lead to a coherent and consistent end. Whose personal philosophy shall be used?" Actually, I think it IS possible to organize society in any number of ways that would be acceptable to inhabitants of that society. Most people do not expect their society to be perfectly aligned with their own desires; "close" is good enough. And if anarchists have any sense, they too will adopt this notion, since I think they have hardly more consistent views than non-anarchists have, when we are talking about gritty reality. The point is not to get everyone on a perfectly consistent ethical plane - an obvious impossibility. The point is instead to have people not forced to live against their own subjective values, even if some of us think those values are wrong. It's not our business, is it?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    One of the greatest quotes to ever grace the pages of Strike the Root, "The people cannot delegate to government the power to do anything which would be unlawful for them to do themselves (John Locke)", is based on Natural Rights, that "all men are created equal", that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-alien-able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and [Natural & Justly Acquired] Property.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Here's another one for you, Sam, from the desk of the Not-So-Famous: “Politics is pointless. It is a waste of time, as it is intentionally designed to absorb the enthusiasm, energy, and efforts of every last person who participates in it, thus allowing the system to tick along on the same agenda that is set well outside of the political process. … The Matrix movie trilogy gives us a simple analogy for this: The masses involved in the political process are the sheeple plugged into the Matrix. It merely sucks its power from them, and leaves them with the minimum they need to survive. It keeps them entertained and happy, and totally ignorant of how completely they are controlled.” ~ Caleb, on New Zealand
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Evan, Noah Webster apparently believed that those two terms were interchangeable. AN'ARCH, n. [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion; one who excites revolt. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language AN'ARCHIST, n. An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state. ~ (Ibid.) Furthermore, the definition of the suffix -ist from the online English dictionary from Macmillan Publishers Limited is, "used with the names of some skills and professions to describe a person practicing that skill or profession" [emphasis added], not "advocating that skill or profession".
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    "Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Well at least they're getting it out of the oat meal can in somebody's backpack. Much safer.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    My understanding of terms is that an "anarch" is one who lives without external rulers, whereas an "anarchist" is one who advocates anarchism. They don't necessarily overlap, that is, one may be an anarch without being an anarchist, and one may be an anarchist without being an anarch. Am I using these terms incorrectly?
  • scott_free_68's picture
    scott_free_68 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    awsome link Sueverans2...Setting aside the complexities of the issue, simple math shows an absolute financial basis for abandoning the drug policies regarding marijuana. politicians and law enforcement agencies are feeding the justice machine with the bodies and wallets of anyone they can handcuff. sex offenders are being released to make room for citizens who posess vegetation! people are labled as felons for possesing vegetation. in some cases, taxes are spent providing public assistence to people who are unemployed for having ingested vegetation. How is it that politicians can do the opposite of the will of the people and still get paid? How is it that we have not yet found the way to fire every single one of the liars and bar them from any form of public service? The 99% should be chanting "you're all f'ng liars, and you're all f'ng fired"!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Sam, I find that most "on fire anarchists" are technically not "anarchists" at all, that is to say, they are not "without ruler", they are virtually all "card-carrying-members" of one man-made-STATE, or another, thus technically they are only "proponents of anarchism", or "advocates of anarchism", and not "anarchists", in the purest sense of the word; kind of a "do as I say, not as I do" bunch, it would seem. And, God help the man or woman who heeds their advice and tells them that they have thrown away all these "cards" and have manifestly withdrawn consent to have any man, or group of men, as their ruler(s)...for these "proponents" and "advocates" will either attack them, screaming, "That is not POSSIBLE! My master doesn't 'legally recognize' your right to withdraw consent", or they will, for the most part, patently pretend that these Individual Secessionists do not exist. They most certainly will not support them in any meaningful way. So, why on Earth should anyone listen to them? "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good essay, Paul. Especially items 4 & 5. As I look back, within each level of my 75+ years I see how I have acquired "new truth" -- long prior to ever hearing the term libertarian. In each case I felt a compulsion to evangelize -- and inwardly denigrate anyone who would not or could not pick up my torch and run with it. If there is one thing anarchy has achieved for me it has been the recognition that my freedom and your freedom are different concepts. My beliefs of today are quite different from the beliefs I had just ten years ago -- about the time I first experimented with the internet and free communication with folks around the world whose backgrounds and beliefs were at variance with mine. I hope to be alert and open to new ideas and concepts 25 years from now at 100. Writers like you and many others here and at other forum sites I visit are constantly challenging my "unquestionable sacred ideas" (to use a Delmar England phrase). This is a good encouragement for us "on fire anarchists" to mellow out and let others achieve liberty and freedom at their own pace and in their own time. Sam.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I remember well "My Country 'Tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty..." We sang it in sister school when I was a wee lad, late 30's and early 40's, as a ritual of the morning flag a-raising, along with the "pledge of allegiance" and other state/g-d worship. You probably know the history (and it could be googled easily) of when Star Spangled Banner became U.S. national "anthem". I don't think I ever heard "Spangled" (what an ugly name -- and an ugly tune with NO rhythm) until late 40's or early 50's in high school. Sam.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago
    A Sense of Owingness
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Thank you, for that, Paul.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago
    A Sense of Owingness
    Web link Michael Dunn
    "The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws." ~ Walt Whitman And just what is this "potent Law of Laws"? The answer, as we have posted here twice before is... "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
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago
    A Sense of Owingness
    Web link Michael Dunn
    This column has it exactly backwards. Nobody owes us anything. See Harry Browne's essay: http://harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Political philosophy based on the Natural Law defines ethical behavior and is best summarized by the Non-Aggression Principle." Yes, it does, and yes, it is. Thank you.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    By the way, in "Up From Slavery", Booker T. Washington wrote, "I felt that the Reconstruction policy, so far as it related to my race, was in a large measure on a false foundation, was artificial and forced. In many cases it seemed to me that the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool with which to help white men into office, and that there was an element in the North which wanted to punish the Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions over the heads of Southern whites. I felt that the Negro would be the one to suffer for this in the end."
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    It's not ignorance. It's that it is not in the interest of people working in government to solve problems - which would put them out of work - but to manage problems. It's simply not an accurate reflection of reality to think there is something wrong with the welfare state. It institutionally is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing - degrading its "clients" and providing work for those in government. Anyway it makes no sense to say "society is... ignorant". Society is not a sentient being, but a collection of individuals. Society cannot be ignorant, or intelligent, or anything else that applies only to individuals. As to Chinese and slaves, I didn't write clearly enough. What I meant to say was that at the point immediately after the War of Northern Aggression, they were in roughly similar positions. They were looked down on, thought shifty and not to be trusted, and did not enjoy equal legal rights. For example a Chinese could not testify against a "white" in California, IIRC. I did not mean to imply that the way the Chinese got over here could be compared to the way "blacks" got over here. If anything, the position of American Indians at that point was worse, since the slaughter and starvation and destruction of their culture was about to move into high gear.