Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 41 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Continued from previous post: And, if one is, in truth, a "private person", i.e. not a consenting member, (s)he is not "clothed with [the] office" of "citizen", and therefore CANNOT participate in "political solutions". You might also take notice of the lyrics of the "original" anthem, adopted by the people, Sam, for it had nothing to do with flags or governments. My Country, 'Tis Of Thee, Sweet Land Of Liberty, Of Thee I Sing; Land Where My Fathers Died, Land Of The Pilgrim's Pride, From Ev'ry Mountain Side Let Freedom Ring. My Native Country Thee, Land Of The Noble Free, Thy Name I Love; I Love Thy Rocks And Rills, Thy Woods And Templed Hills; My Heart With Rapture Thrills Like That Above. Let Music Swell The Breeze, And Ring From All The Trees, Sweet Freedom's Song. Let Mortal Tongues Awake; Let All That Breathe Partake; Let Rocks Their Silence Break, The Sound Prolong. Our Father's God! To Thee, Author Of Liberty, To Thee We Sing; Long May Our Land Be Bright With Freedom's Holy Light; Protect Us By Thy Might, Great God, Our King!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 41 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I believe you will find that that's because a "private person" is not a consenting member, (s)he is not "clothed with [the] office" of "citizen". Private. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinguished from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1195
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 42 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Why should I, or Ventura, or any other free thinking individual, fool around in the white man's court system, needing law scholars to sort out the beast's billions (trillions, I suspect) of jots and tittles? Justice? Never happen! At least Ventura, in all his wisdom acquired from holding his Grand Wizard of MN "office", figured one thing out: "If I appeal it, they'll get federally paid judges to squash it." I wrote this over at HaleBobb: Jesse is already coming to understand that "judges" who suck on top teats are duty bound to protect TSA goons who suck on lower (but still stolen milk from the same sets of) teats. There is no such thing as "justice" when all participants are paid from the same booty trunk. I'm reminded of the 70's when I, ignorant sheep that I was, let myself get "assessed" over half million frn's in fines, penalties and back "taxes" (well over a million in today's inflated digital frn's) by agents of the US "Internal Revenue 'Service'". Later they tried to take the farm from my ex wife. My son and a number of other lawyers got her off under a "wounded spouse" clause of some sort. In my blindness I, like Jesse Ventura, became angry. I had gold US and TX flag pins I had worn daily for years as jingoist badges on my suit jacket -- proud and clueless patriot that I was. In rage I took a spray can and painted them black, but continued to wear them covered in black while teaching in government ("public" ha ha) university -- until anarchy caught up with me. Before I declared sovereignty I had to suffer a lot of what is being called "cognitive dissonance". I came to understand that anger toward agents of state ("the government") is playing directly into their hands and providing a clear target on my own back to which they can dutifully and gleefully take aim. My anger would be better directed at foxes for their ill treatment of the chickens. State agents depend upon angry citizens ("home grown terrorists") to carry on their ruse of war "against terrorism". Just like they need drug dealers and pushers and addicts to carry on their egregious drug "war". Wars allow them to maintain such criminal acts as federal reserve to print up counterfeit "funds" to support the various "industrial complexes" that support wars and state agents. It's a vicious cycle in which I no longer play a part. I quietly excuse myself from exercises in state worship (anthems, pledges of allegiance, etc). With all due respect, Jesse (and Dr Paul), political solutions are no solutions. Sam
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 42 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Ventura-TSA-d... Ventura has no standing to use the Constitution. Padleford Case: "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the grounds of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain." In other words, Ventura based his complaint on a violation of "his" constitutional rights as expressed in the Constitution. To which he is not a party to, hence no standing, case tossed. Jesse had his lawyer selling him out here. In this case, Congress determined that the Courts of Appeals get to declare the law void, not the District Courts. J.V. should sue his LIEYER for legal malpractice and file in the proper venue if he is the ''real deal'' and not just a rabble rouser.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The American people should have known something was amiss when their government changed the national anthem from, "America (My Country 'Tis of Thee)", "sweet land of liberty" to the "Star Spangled Banner",with its "rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air", written by a lawyer.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I find your use of the adjective "self-inflated" to be disagreeable. The Chinese people paying me to "teach" (Fuck, there's that word you don't like. You seem to have issues with a lot of words. How about... "explain"? Yes, I am a professional English explainer.) them English are doing all the inflating, I assure you. Competent social engineers don't induce human suffering. For example, I am generally quite good at running my own life and avoiding suffering through my own actions and choices (but hey, we all make mistakes). I am a great engineer over my own life. The way I interpret your use of words means that everyone should either be brain dead or commit suicide to avoid all conscious intervention with reality. We could have a serious problem here and I demand that you use another word to satisfy the way my brain works. I am very concerned. Aren't words with arbitrary connotations fun??????? Did I do okay this time with my words? Haha okay, I lightened up a bit.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    How appropriate, Paul, "Isaiah's Job". I had never read it before and truly enjoyed it. Thanks. "You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. ... First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. ...You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Actually my concern about your use of that adjective, young man, had nothing whatsoever to do with grammar or semantics, but, rather, everything to do with "actual ideological content". Its use infers that competent social-engineers would not have induced human suffering. And, this; "I'm also against incompetent people in general...", in one of your comments, really stuck in my craw, because we are all "incompetent"...at one task or another. But, then, that probably comes from my leeriness of those calling themselves "teacher", or "pastor", or "rabbi", or other such self-inflated titles. But, please, do not waste any more of your valuable time on me, and I will try to reciprocate.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I'm not terribly offended, I've just dealt with far too many grammar nazis and semantics nitpickers in my short career as a writer and embarrassingly few honest critiques of the actual ideological content of what I say. If anyone was genuinely confused about where my values lie and what I was trying to say, then a valid point is made. Otherwise, I think some people are just bored. Look how much time I've already wasted in defending a split second choice of vocabulary... surely there are other things in this article more worthwhile to discuss. If not, it is either an interesting statement of my abilities as a thinker/writer or of the intellectual character of my audience.
  • LadyLaLa's picture
    LadyLaLa 2 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Excellent article finally we are discussing moves that are steps ahead of the game..... The dissection of their strategy and laying blame exactly where it belongs...is almost revolutionary. However, I do think the comparison between the Chinese who emigrated to America of their own free will and African slaves brought against their will, bought and sold and forced to work with no hope of ever being free -- cannot be compared. Even Native Americans have their Reservation as a refuge. The Chinese were never perceived as slaves [animals] to be bought and sold. The Welfare state to my mind is only wrong in that it does not [intentionally?] strive to teach, rehabilitate or support an individual's self-sufficiency... Interestingly enough... neither does the penal system, which in a more normal society might not even exist. One very striking reason is because this society is predominantly ignorant of how to rehabilitate or help anyone... much less ourselves.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Lightened up.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Please lighten up. I didn't find the adjective terribly disagreeable. Somebody raised the issue, and I thought it was a valid point. That's all.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Well, please, do let me know if you find any other disagreeable adjectives in any of my other articles. I wouldn't want to create the wrong impression and come across as a communist. I'm also against incompetent people in general, so I guess I'm just being ultra redundant today. English be damned.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    No one here is accusing you of supporting interventionism. But we're all STR readers and writers, so we know better. We're thinking of people on the outside, who might not so unreasonably conclude you believe competent social engineering is possible and desirable. "Stupid social engineers" doesn't cut it, either. That's redundant. Just drop the adjective altogether. They're social engineers. They may be competent in their supervisors' eyes. In fact, if they're wreaking havoc on the society at large, you can be sure they are. That's what they're there for: to preserve the disorder.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I agree (and I am confused why people keep thinking I support interventionism in my articles... I would have thought that the very fact that I am posting on STR would imply total anarchism/capitalism). Calling them incompetent social engineers is a redundancy intended for emphasis. Anyone who enters politics for the purposes of improving the world does not know what they are doing, and thus is incompetent. You would be right to be worried if I called them "noble", "brilliant", "benevolent", or any other positive term... Would you feel better if I just said they were stupid? Stupid social engineers! Get out of my society!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I used to think a lot more like this than I do now. Age has brought some perspective: 1) While I had the necessary emotional connection that you mention, in my youth; my intellect pointed in what I now consider the wrong direction to address these problems. So I worked in the wrong direction. Where human affairs are concerned, it is in fact very difficult to be sure, merely by force of intellect, that you are doing the right thing. This is not mathematics. 2) The older I get the more accepting I get. I look at human problems more as just another force of nature, like hurricanes or tsunamis, that shortens many lives. The human race is very far from perfect, and it contains a percentage of outright sociopaths. It is what it is. It's also self-destructive to care too much. Each of us will die some day, and accepting that is the same as accepting others' deaths. The best one can do, I now think, is focus mostly on the people around you, making life work the best one can. 3) While I am pretty fatalistic about such things, I also think a lot of our problems are cultural, or related to political structure, and that there is definite room for improvement. So I write about that and work on that, even as I accept my probable inability to affect much in the larger picture. But I keep working with the memes out there anyway. One never knows what will catch on, just as one never knows what youtube goes viral. 4) I read Nock's essay "Isaiah's Job" once in a while. It also gives good perspective.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    In a word, precisely.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Because competence is irrelevant. No, it goes beyond that: competence makes the social engineers *more* dangerous. As usual, Mencken put it best: "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we pay for." We don't want social engineers, period.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Terrific meditation on the subject! The artificial divide and animosity between intellect and emotion is at the core of our problems; civil society requires BOTH compassion AND liberty, and the false paradigm of Left/Right politics keeps this destructive division going. I'll add that intellect and emotion are BOTH necessary to guide behavior in healthy and positive directions, and in many ways emotion is even more important than reason or intellect. Plenty of very smart people are sick puppies -- sociopathic and psychopathic, even -- and plenty more are pushed by their old feelings to support the State for a variety of reasons. This is why emotional health (and thus, compassionate and respectful treatment of the young) is so important. Alice Miller's work -- about the role of cruelty to children in creating tyranny and other horrors -- is an excellent resource on the topic.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 2 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good stuff! I've watched the OWS movement as many have and found things to agree and disagree with but when I saw the vid of Peter Schiff with the OWS protester, I got this feeling that Schiff was there not to expand truth or open dialogue but instead for some personal PR sake. Sorry, the video camera present and how it's been spread around the "so-called" freedom and liberty movement was just too convenient for me. Not that Schiff didn't have some points and not that the protester in the vid wasn't the best at making her case but I just questioned the whole motive and this piece above by Paul helps to express in my gut what I was feeling as I watched it. The OWS movement is rightly pointing at crony capitalism so why didn't Schiff approach the protesters on that level while understanding that on other levels there may be disagreement? What if doing so could draw a line from Wall Street to Washington and thus make the OWS folks rethink some of the public demands they've made by bringing another POV? Schiff IMO has only made them dig in deeper and what does that accomplish? Now we're right back to the construct of division Paul laid out so I had to ask myself was Peter's real motive something else indeed or was he an unwitting tool of the tyrants as we've all been at times I'm sure? Thanks again Paul for a thought provoking piece.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Why?
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I will take your feedback to heart, though generally I find that being as precise as possible in my wording provides the greatest clarity to my thinking and therapeutic value. Sometimes I go soft, sometimes hard. I think with this piece I wanted to come on full force and hit as hard as I could.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 2 years 42 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    That might be an interesting idea if there were no spoken language or written language. In human discussion the idea of the threat of the gun is brought up, it isn't a secret threat or uncommunicated threat in the background. Your story is an interesting study in Pavlovian behavioral studies, but it has no bearing on the idea of the social contract to the interaction of beings with language. Also, in our society, we might not get hit directly by the water hose, but you cant missed the highly publicized soaking of others by the paid soakers (the police, military and intelligence establishments). So, once again, interesting story but it has nothing to do with humans or modern society other then pointing out that Pavlovian training is possible on an animal level, which most people already knew.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 2 years 42 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Leftists' first thought is for the unfortunate, and they rightly perceive us libertarians as heartless because that is not our first concern. We begin any discussion with seemingly selfish statements of self-ownership and (negative) rights, and then only as an afterthought add with a hand wave that even the unfortunate would be better off because society overall would be wealthier and charity would be greater. To our leftist adversaries this is utterly unconvincing. If we are not preaching to the choir, we need to take the point of view of our audience. In the case of charity, we need to grab the bull by the horns and admit, *in a voluntary society, there would indeed be a very real problem of under-provision of public goods such as charity, but the problem is tractable*. The US charity industry is amazingly sophisticated, and quite clever at extracting ever more money out of donors. The Internet has enabled whole new approaches, like crowd-funding sites like ChipIn and Kickstarter. Thus last week Jon Stewart and Judge Andrew Napolitano talked past each other, and Jon Stewart won applause by asking about "the free market's losers": http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-27-2011/exclusive---andrew... Napolitano and other libertarians shrug this off as "creative destruction", but Stewart and his audience understood it to mean "the unfortunate crushed and left homeless by cruel capitalism". Do not cede the compassionate high ground to our adversaries.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very good, Paul Bonneau, "he that is not against us is on our part".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    "...incompetent social-engineers..."???? That qualifying adjective makes me very nervous.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 42 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Right on target. People will make up their own minds about every issue, and the worst way to approach them is with a "holier than thou" attitude. Though it's maddeningly slow, the only way to nudge people is in small steps, making respectful suggestions for other ways a particular conundrum could be viewed. If we lose sight of the humanity of those we consider wrong-headed, we will never bridge the gap between us.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 42 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Excellent point, one which deserves to be made more often. Please consider wording your columns using sentences less complicatedly constructed. I had a very hard time parsing many of them.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Thank you, tzo. As a complement to your fine article, I give your readers this. Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my friends, is how group attitude begins. Has anyone here ever really had a gun put to their head?
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 42 weeks ago
    Heartless Libertarians
    Page tzo
    Another excellent essay tzo.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 42 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "...the fact that natural-law theorists derive from the very nature of man a fixed structure of law independent of time and place, or of habit or authority or group norms, makes that law a mighty force for radical change." "The reaction of the State to this theoretical development was [and is] horror..." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 42 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Excellent article, Alex. I love that lawn sign.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 2 years 43 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Based on the signs posted in people's yards in my town, I have decided to cast my vote to, FOR SALE BY OWNER.
  • ELVISNIXON.com's picture
    ELVISNIXON.com 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    http://elvisnixon.com/2011/10/31/guns-and-liberty-.aspx Guns and Liberty Perhaps you believe the threat of tyrannical government is slight, or less severe today than when our republic was formed. There is still another important point our Founders understood. Namely, the demand for police or military to defend us increases in proportion to our inability to defend ourselves. That’s why disarmed societies adopt police-state tactics. Even if a reduced threat of government tyranny no longer required an armed citizenry, an unarmed citizenry could well create the conditions that lead to tyranny. There is plenty of proof in the last century. Gun control laws and anti-gun attitudes formed a key ingredient in genocides of the 20th Century. They assured that only “authorities” had weaponry. They made it difficult, costly, risky or impossible for civilians to own or use firearms. The Soviet Union, China, Uganda, Cambodia, Guatemala, Rwanda, Ottoman Turkey, and Nazi Germany all had tough gun control laws in place before and during their genocidal periods. Those nations alone murdered 70 million of their own disarmed people. Talk about repeating history: the Founders had garnered that same lesson from the ancients. They understood that concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth, and they contrived a variety of checks and balances in the Constitution to divide political power—between the separate branches of government, as well as between the federal government and States. The first ten amendments or Bill of Rights were adopted to keep political power from becoming concentrated, by reserving natural or pre-existing rights to the people. Technically speaking, the Constitution doesn’t actually bestow upon the people a right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon a pre-existing right. The Founders’ knew that an armed man must, in a real sense, be regarded as citizen; an unarmed man is subject. English colonists enjoyed the right to keep and bear arms among their inherited rights as freeborn Englishmen. It was George III’s attempt to seize the colonial militia’s stock of weapons at Lexington and Concord that sparked the American Revolution. I submit to you our Founders took their right to keep and bear arms seriously, well before the Second Amendment. Likewise, they interpreted the king and parliament’s move to control firearms as a direct affront to all their rights and liberty. One of the biggest problems with the English system was that the English constitution was not written or fixed in meaning. Operating on purely common law assumptions, it absorbed precedents leading towards unfettered power. The successful operation of America’s written Constitution and the unrivalled political stability of the United States, stems from the Constitution being fixed and relatively difficult to amend. The risk and potential of American decline is entirely, in my view, related to a failure to live constitutionally. In the United States, we have allowed the letter and intent of the Constitution to be stretched by the Supreme Court which has given the Constitution a “living” interpretation, and this has reinstated a kind of modern version of colonial-era British common law. We have, in the words of Jefferson, made the Constitution “a blank paper by construction.” The solution is to move to recapture the Constitution of original intent, to reestablish it as government’s fixed edifice. Key to recapturing the Constitution of our Fathers is the reinvigoration of the Second Amendment. And while that certainly means we need good statesmen and judges to keep its meaning, it also means we ought and must exercise our right to keep and bear arms. Every time you take your son or daughter hunting. Every time you target practice, or break your weapon down to clean it; every time you travel with your firearm and undergo the inconveniences at the airport to do so—you reinforce the Second Amendment and ensure survival of our right to keep and bear arms and pass the torch to another generation. Why do I tell you this? Because there is a far different course down which this country can slide. Remember I said that our Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms existed before the Constitution. The Founders validated that right, and they intended it to guarantee an individual’s right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation—something Sam Adams called “the first law of nature.” And they also intended firearm ownership and skill in the use of firearms to be general, because the customary American militia necessitated an armed public. The political theory behind that was to stave off tyranny or vindicate liberty when required. Even the position of the Second Amendment in the order of the Bill of Rights underscored its importance. It was the safety valve of the Constitution, affording the means whereby, if parchment barriers proved inadequate, the people could protect their liberties or alter their government. That sounds radical today, but that reasoning was part of William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, the authoritative source concerning English rights in England and the Colonies during the Revolutionary period and after. Indeed, this inherited right of freeborn Englishmen existed in substantive degree in Great Britain until 1920. http://elvisnixon.com/2011/10/31/guns-and-liberty-.aspx
  • scott_free_68's picture
    scott_free_68 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    well vivianC, my perspective is that the government should not have the ability to impose any restrictions and that no one should have to be anyone's patient to self-medicate with an herb. I will always reject the idea that those who know what is best for us must rise and save us from ourselves. control mechanisms already exist to prevent working, driving or attending school under the influence. there is a "litmus paper" test that reveals the prescense of active cannabinoids in one's saliva. this test not only shows if a person is "high" but to what degree they are "high". the pee testing reveals what i may have done 25 days ago in the privacy of my own home. using that type of testing enables a multitude of agencies to descriminate against me. If i choose to drive "high" or choose to go to work "high" i infringe on the rights of others to be safe on the road or in the workplace and that is unacceptable. if i choose to "burn one" before bed, under current law, i am a felon who should have my income taken away along with my right to drive, collect unemployment and/or govt. assistance, or walk the streets a free man. this issue has nothing to do with right and wrong. it is simply a tool used by those in power to perpetuate the empire they control. total legalization is a financial threat to the medical machine, the pharmaceutical machine, the insurance machine, the tax machine, and the justice/incarceration machine. as i said, it would devastate their investment portfolios. it's only about the control of (their) $.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    G'day Tony Pivetta, I realize that you were being facetious, but persons like vivianC, whoever (s)he is, need to know that in my jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of free men, all things are "legal" which the natural law does not forbid. "...That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. IT IS NOT A RULE BINDING UPON MANKIND IN THEIR NATURAL STATE. THERE, EVERY MAN IS INDEPENDENT OF ALL LAWS, EXCEPT THOSE PRESCRIBED BY NATURE. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70 And, once more, for the record, I do not consent. So, vivianC, I don't really care if you "see a problem with it" or not. The simple litmus test, if I am a free man, is to answer the question, "Whose natural rights, e.g. whose right to life, liberty and/or property, have I trespassed upon by doing this act, in this case, smokin' a doob?" If the answer is no one's, then I have a "green light". If, on the other hand, you are not a free man, or woman, then you must seek your master(s) permission before you can "legally" do an act, even if it harms no one but yourself; you must beg 'him' to "legalize" it.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    No doubt Vivian will tell you the same bad effects as the legalization of corrupting political theories, which likewise rends the fabric of society. We have no more right to put bad ideas in our head than we do to put bad plant products in our bodies. The government knows best what we can read or ingest!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Do tell, vivianC, what are the "bad effects" of legalization of marijuana?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Every "man" does have the right to grow, harvest and ingest it, scot-free [#2], scott free 68, but every “person [#6]” does not. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 736 Now all you have to do is find out how, and become, an “unperson”, scott free 68, to grow, harvest and ingest marijuana...well, scot-free. ;)
  • Peter McCandless's picture
    Peter McCandless 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    John Stossel seems to be getting closer and closer to being a true voluntaryist. Maybe he'll eventually come over to our side. j
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Yeppers, Paul; our rule of thumb is if their lips are moving...well, you know the rest.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 43 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for the tip. I will look at that when he comes out with the ebook. He's sold out on the hardcopy, according to his website.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Vouchers are just another government program, funded by dollars stolen from taxpayers at the point of a gun. Their side effects will be to destroy independent schooling (which is probably their real aim - the ruling class does not really care about these kids). I'd trust Marshall Fritz' opinion on vouchers before I'd trust the phony libertarians at reason.com.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Just part of a very old tradition among cops, "testilying".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 43 weeks ago
    In Defense of the 1%
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Thanks for that link Suverans. That's the best exposition I've ever seen on the issue, and I think it is more on target than Schiff himself (I think it is a mistake to make TOO much of a distinction between Washington and Wall St - there is a revolving door between them).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I don't believe that it was the Patriot Acts that stripped "citizens" of their "free-speech rights". "Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. ~ Herriot v. City of Seattle, 81 Wash.2d 48, 5000 P.2d 101, 109 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., C.A.Tex., 522 F.2d 1299, 1307 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486 Conclusion, if you are a member of a political community, you have, most times ignorantly, submitted yourself to the dominion of a government. If you happen to be one of those who claim that this "social contract" doesn't meet all the criteria of a contract, you very well may be right. However... Contract. ...Express or implied. ...An implied contract is one not created or evidenced by the explicit agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law [government], as a matter of reason and justice from their [your] acts or conduct, the circumstances indicating that he expects [you expect] to be paid therefor, and defendant, knowing such circumstances, avails himself of benefits of those services. Chem-Tronix Laboratories, Inc. v. Solocast Co., A.D., 5 Conn.Cir. 533 , 258 A.2d 110, 113. It is an agreement which legitimately can be inferred from intention of parties as evidenced by circumstances and ordinary course of dealing and common understanding of men. Martin v. Little, Brown & Co., 304 Pa.Super. 424, 450 A2d. 984, 987 Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 323 ...if one fails to manifestly rebut that "rebuttable presumption[1]", once he discovers the "mistake" he has made, he will remain under this "implied contract", regardless of how much he may moan and groan about it. Mistake. Some unintentional act, omission, or error arising from ignorance, surprise, imposition, or misplaced confidence. A state of mind not in accord with reality. A mistake exists when a person, under some erroneous conviction of law or fact, does, or omits to do, some act which, but for the erroneous conviction, he would not have done or omitted. It may arise either from unconsciousness, ignorance, forgetfulness, imposition, or misplaced confidence. Salazar v. Steelman, 22 cal.App.2d 402, 71 P.2d 79, 82 See also Error; Ignorance. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1001 And, instead of crying that there is no such thing as an "implied contract", why not simply rebut the presumption and be done with it. But, I suspect that many of us here already know most of this. ______________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Rebuttable presumption. In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence. Otherwise called a "disputable" presumption. A species of legal presumption which holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced. Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co., Mo.App., 48 S.W.2d 213, 215. It shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S.Ct. 358, 362, 76 L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of further evidence, and presumption provides prima facie case which shifts to defendant the burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla., 174 So.2d 26, 28. And which standing alone will support a finding against contradictory evidence. Lieber v. Rigby, 34 Cal.App.2d 582, 94 P.2d 49, 50. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1267
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago
    In Defense of the 1%
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    “An Open Message to the 99% (Occupy Wall Street)” Found it on “The Rule of Freedom” Facebook
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    This is for rita. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=188072631240640&set=a.1880701945... She'll know how to use it. ;)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/313315_240327869348...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 43 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    A little more on the law of free men and women. "...there are those libertarians who would simply and uncritically adopt the common law, despite its many anti-libertarian flaws." ~ Introduction to Natural Law by Murray N. Rothbard