Recent comments

  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 10 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Well, at least /I/ was enjoying the conversation! :-) Cheers.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 10 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, "Nope, no desire to get back to the original argument." So, if I'm not there, start without me. ;-)
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 10 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, Well, I think involuntary slavery can still be very possible. A person can still be held by force, and made to perform acts that are not of their own will. However, this is very different than voluntary slavery, which I would assume would be contractual. Think about this, if there was a voluntary contact between the "slave" and the "master" then there would be some kind of governance over the two parties: there would be "rules" for the relationship. Therefore, the master could never have "exclusive rights" or "absolute command" over the slave, because the contract was specifically drawn up to preserve the rights of either party. There is still problem even if the person just tried to sell himself into slavery with no contract, and here is why: In involuntary slavery, the master has chosen to use aggressive force to take the slave, therefore he has abandoned all moral human law to take this slave. This is VERY IMPORTANT to consider when comparing the concepts of voluntary and involuntary slavery. The master has essentially chosen to become a thug, and has chosen to use the way of force and not of reason. Since this is the case, this master has come a little closer to that "absolute command" we were tallking about, since he has already shown himself to be aggressive. But this is much different than the voluntary slave, and here is why... The voluntary slave is basically offering his "services" on the market. We are begging the question if we just assume any potential new master of this so-called slave would be willing to break moral human law(natural law), and take him as a slave with "absolute command", and that is our problem. There has been no crime yet, because there has been no aggression. The master of the involuntary slave has chosen to use aggression to force another to perform acts against their will, so it is not unreasonable to say that this master may severely hurt, rape, or even murder this chattel slave. When the voluntary slave offers his services on the market, he is still assuming that their new master will abide by moral natural law, BECAUSE it does not stand to reason that the voluntary slave would offer their services otherwise. Think about that, why would they? If the new master could potentially severely harm, rape, or murder them, WHY would they ever offer their services on THAT market? The voluntary slave would be offering immorality for sale on the market if they did not assume that the natural law would stay in place as they agreed upon the voluntary slavery conditions. Why would any rational human being enter into a contract where death would forever be a very real possibility? Agreements do not relieve either party from morality. Period. Putting immorality for sale on the market does not make it moral. "Voluntary slavery" is a contradiction in terms, and dig this, voluntary slavery is impossible because involuntary slavery is possible. I hope that makes sense. It's just like the difference between aggression and reason; morality and immorality.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    You are absolutely right, well, not "absolutely" in the strictest sense of the word, about that; just look at what happened to the Doukhobors of Leo Tolstoy's day.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 10 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, Ummm, it didn't become an argument about the Constitution (of these united States), in my opinion. But, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion about this statement from you, ""My Constitution" is just as much yours as it is mine! :-)" If you are not a citizen of the United States, then I must apologize, once again. Not sure what "fallacies" you are referring to. Yes, I am the one that used the phrase, "your Constitution"", followed by "(presuming you are a 14th Amendment citizen)", which admits that you may not be. And, yes, I am the one that used the phrase "or your government", because I didn't know if it was you making the claim that, it was just as much mine as yours, "or your government", if you have one, that was making that claim. Nope, no desire to get back to the original argument. I agree, old Noah's use of the word "absolute" is apparently inappropriate. If we hold that word to its strictest interpretation then there is no such thing as slavery, period. I am absolutely mortified by this...well, not "absolutely", in the strictest sense of the word. :-)
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 10 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Of course they do.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    As individuals, yes I agree - most of them behave in their private capacity much as "civilians." By "government people" I was thinking more of those who form and execute the will of government in their official capacities. For an anarchist enclave to form, there would have to be some kind of secession, right? - a government-free zone. Since 1861, it's been clear that governments do not tolerate those very well. In fact, one might reason that in their own survival interest they _dare_ not tolerate them. Once one such enclave forms and prospers, there will be an insatiable demand for more.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 10 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, How did this just become an argument about the Constitution(of these united States)? Again with the fallacies. You are the one that used the phrases, "your Constitution", and, "your government". Then you accuse me of pushing it on you? Wow. We are now far afield of the original argument, and I have no desire to debate "my constitution" or "my government" with you. Mr. Spooner has already done that for me. Do you have any desire to get back to the original argument?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 10 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." ~ Excerpted from the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants citizenship to everyone born in the US and subject to its [political] jurisdiction. I am not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", because my allegiance is to the natural law, the "laws of nature [the "natural law of the human world"] and nature's God". 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. ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (c.1856)  [Emphasis added] "This law of nature being coeval[1] with mankind[2]" is, of course, "first in time", thus it is "best in law". 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, (c.1851), Part I, Title II, No. 9 ________________________________________________________ [1] COEVAL, a. Of the same age; beginning to exist at the same time; of equal age; usually and properly followed by with. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added] [2] 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Just read your article, Paul, VERY GOOD, but (I know, get your "butt" out of the way), I happened to see this comment or reply before completing it. I am of the opinion that 14th Amendment citizens, i.e. "citizens of the United States", are "employees" of the United States corporation.
  • Xerographica's picture
    Xerographica 5 years 10 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Here's my argument why there's no point to argue for anarcho-capitalism. Let's say that taxpayers were allowed to choose which government organizations received their own, individual, hard earned taxes. If taxpayers were truly satisfied with the private provision of A,B,C then why would they voluntarily allocate any of their own, individual, hard earned taxes to the public provision of A,B,C?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, Let's jump to that last one, first. What is your Constitution? If it is the United States Constitution; from whence did you, or your government, get the lawful authority to compel me to continue one of a political corporation?
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, All I'm saying is that there might be a problem with the "voluntary slavery" theory. I don't think it's possible, if we assume there is some sort of moral law. I want to keep the focus on voluntary slavery; not chattel or forced slavery, because I think we agree on that issue. Let's go back to your definition... >>Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Then you said... "Your master cannot, LAWFULLY, command you to do anything that is unlawful, that is to say, against the "natural law of the human world". If he does, and then forces you to do such an act, he should be held accountable for the act, and not you." This is a contradiction, because you are counting on the slave and the master already agreeing that there is a natural law of the human world, and they have both agreed upon it(implicitly or explicitly). If these two parties have agreed on the governing principles of "natural law" and choose to do business under these laws, then neither party could ever have "absolute command" of each other. Words have meanings, and "absolute" is a big one. One might say that voluntary slavery is possible in the context of the natural law, and the slave owner may have "absolute command" within the context of this law, but then it's not absolute is it? It is wrong to place humans--autonomous, volitional, conceptualizing creatures--in the same context as someone's vehicle as BrianDrake did. No other "property"(as if another human could ACTUALLY be property of another) has the ability to conceptualize morality, and that makes 100% ownership a real bitch. Libertarians tend to be a "either I own it or I don't" bunch, and this is impossible with human beings; we use the law of the excluded middle to show others how taxation is theft; 1% tax is just as wrong as 100% tax; 1% theft is just as wrong as 100% theft. This means I own something 100% or I don't own it at all. Since the voluntary slave has the right to object on moral grounds, or on the grounds of natural law, I don't have "exclusive rights" to the voluntary slave. He retains some rights. If BrianDrake was to sell me that car, he would lose all rights to it, but if he was to sell me a slave, my new "property", the slave, would retain some rights, and that just does not sound right to me. Before we apply libertarian property rights theory to human beings we have to examine the nature of the "property", because it is much different than other property. Do you agree? I also realize I am begging the question assuming the voluntary slave has the right to object on the grounds of morality, but I can make a pretty good case for it, and defend the position if I had to(but it tends to be a long one!). I've heard minarchists reject anarchy on these grounds, so I ran their argument through the logic mill and found some errors. I don't think it's possible. What do you think? Oh and BTW, I am assuming that you are not from this country, but I will tell you this... "My Constitution" is just as much yours as it is mine! :-)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 11 weeks ago Page JGVibes
    Just an FYI. Early on, I don't believe 12 years of "education" was required. In the 1859 Oregon constitution, there is no requirement at all; it only says the state will provide "education". In the Wyoming constitution (1889 I think) there is compulsory education, but only 3 years is required. Of course later (generally unconstitutional) statutes called for longer and longer periods of indoctrination.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Sam, We are not talking about "business and sales" here, we're talking law. ;) Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary Imagine, if you can, someone putting a gun to one of my Grandchild's heads and commanding me to rob a bank for him. I realize that I can still choose to rob or not to rob, but would you say that robbing that bank is something I want to do, or would you say that I am being coerced, "against my will", into doing it?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well, that''s why I wanted to filter out the government employees, thinking they would skew the results. But if you think about it, that makes no sense. For one thing, not all government employees would have a problem with an independent community. They are individuals too. For another thing, government employees affect what happens just as much as (if not more than) everybody else. So they really have to be included.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Chris Dates, I sincerely apologize if I offended you with my use of those two words. Please know that they were not in reference to you, personally. Your master cannot, LAWFULLY, command you to do anything that is unlawful, that is to say, against the "natural law of the human world". If he does, and then forces you to do such an act, he should be held accountable for the act, and not you. The Maxim of Law that a JUDGE, in your jurisdiction, should use in ITS decision is this: Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary Perhaps we all are using the wrong word? The XIII Amendment to your Constitution, (presuming you are a 14th Amendment citizen), is worded in the following way, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The inverse of that is that voluntary servitude may constitutionally "exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Would "voluntary servitude" be a more agreeable phrase, to you? Servitude. The state of a person who is subjected, voluntarily or otherwise, to another person* as his servant. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c. 1991), page 1370 * I believe you will find that the STATE is a "legal person". Involuntary servitude. The condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very creative, Paul! Most interesting result. Am I right in supposing that the views of this gun-rights group would _not_ be echoed by government people, if such an enclave were actually formed?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Guest
    G'day rita, You may, or may not, already know this but if you hold down your control (ctrl) key and at the same time hit, as many times as necessary, the + key on your number pad, it will magnify the page. This makes that page much easier to read. To reverse this, while holding down the ctrl key once more, start poking the - (minus) key on your number pad. Something else that sometimes helps is to hold your left mouse button, and drag your cursor over what you are trying to read (like you are going to "copy" it); this will generally give it a blue background, until you click you mouse button on the page once more.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Guest
    How to keep anyone from ever reading anything you post. White print on a black background. Very effective.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    In the Primary circus, they are spending scores of million of dollars to find answers to your questions, and are still getting them wrong. Nice job, Jakub. (Many apologies for calling you "Tzo" in my first attempt to make this comment. A simple blunder, no malice intended.) You could have written a Very Long Q&A. Thanks for taking the time, as Mark Twain said once he could not, to make it short.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, You are using words like "ridiculous" and "foolishness" then you accuse me of being "aggressive". Please focus on the argument, and not so much on me. I would just like you to defend your definition and your position. >>Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "If we don't take this to ridiculous levels, voluntary slavery is, according to Noah, "when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another". This means he has voluntarily relinquished the "right" to object, nothwithstanding that he still has the "ability" to do so." Are you unwilling to defend the definition you provided? The definition EXPLICITLY states "absolute command". It is "ridiculous" to take it to "absolute" levels? If my master commands me to murder, do I have to follow the command absolutely? Yes or no. Does a voluntary slavery contract exclude either party from morality? If the voluntary slave retains the right to object on moral grounds, then the master does not have "exclusive rights" to the slave. The final arbiter in the matter is the slave.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    An axiom of business and sales is this: Nobody, NOBODY does a thing unless and until s/he wants to do it. (Sort of the sequel to, "The customer is always right) Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Sorry about taking so long to respond; sometimes I forget to revisit these threads. "The moment the liberals and conservatives concede they may only "battle over the election process" with other willing participants, and not those who say no, there is no State..." Your error here is in speaking collectively. What I am talking about is a change of individuals. The State (to speak collectively for the moment) does not do anything it pleases; it must concern itself with legitimacy (or to be more accurate, the appearance of legitimacy). Eventually enough statists will disapprove of state action against anarchists, and then it will stop happening (probably in the same way that Catholics stopped approving of persecution of Protestants, in Catholic majority areas). We don't imagine the Catholic Church has ceased to exist because there is now tolerance of non-Catholics. "But you're wrong, that's the largest change possible for them. Tolerance is the crux of the matter. It is what distinguishes us, the anarchists, from EVERYONE ELSE. Again, if 'just tolerance, that's all' was so simple, we'd already be living in glorious anarchy. " No, I disagree. Most people are actually quite tolerant, and getting more so as time goes on. We no longer kill gays or string up dark people or beat Catholics, for the most part. The people we call "statists" simply have one area of inconsistency in their generally tolerant behavior, an area that has been carefully cultivated by the state through indoctrination camps and the Ministry of Propaganda. It is that simple. The reason we're not living in glorious anarchy is because it is hard to break through that indoctrination, through worldviews implanted by the state. It usually takes some kind of shock to break through - and we certainly face a major shock in the short-term future. As to successes, I actually have been having successes in internet discussions. If for example people want socialized healthcare, instead of arguing against socialism (well, I still do, but try to tone it down) I just tell them I agree they should have it and hope they get it. And even that I will do everything I can to help them get it. But I also say I don't want any part of it myself, neither the "care" nor the taxes to support it. I tell them I want to live in my own way. This really defuses their opposition. But if they decide to agree with me, I'm not going to start calling them an anarchist, any more than Catholics should be called Protestants when they start tolerating Protestants.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Suverans2, I was not meaning to be aggressive in my posts, and I apologize if my tone could have been taken as such. Let's get back to the issue. When phrases and words like "exclusive right", and "absolute command" are used, I will challenge these things, because if I don't then it is assumed that these things are true, and the argument will begin from there. I will not let you get away with begging the question, sorry. If it is possible for another human to have "exclusive rights" over another human, fine, prove it without using logical fallacies. I have exclusive rights and absolute command over my car. If I put a brick on the gas pedal and run my car into a group of people, then I am responsible for my acts. If I tell my slave to go and slaughter that same group of people, and he does, HE is responsible for it. He can only be responsible if he has ownership of his acts, and in order for him to have ownership of his acts, he has to have ownership of himself, and this can never be sold. A human being cannot disown their consequences. Period. Therefore, they cannot sell themselves into slavery. It's impossible. So we don't commit anymore fallacies, what does "self" mean to you? We've defined ownership, now let us define "self". Jim Davies is right in his essay.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Why, of course, buying bulk foods to increase the probability of surviving a terrorist attack, is a "potential terrorist activity". Round and round we go, and where we stop, nobody knows.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Aggressive, aren't we Chris Dates. Sorry about the typo, and I will try not to bother you again. Have a great day.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "...it is just deception, a ruse, a tool to obtain power on the part of the government, just a part of the process of stripping away as many of our rights as possible." ~ Sharon Secor Absolutely! Those in power are trying to give validity to what they are doing, so as not to stampede the herd. "Disagreeing with anything we say or do is terrorism", is what it is slowly(?) coming down to.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    >>Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language If we don't take this to ridiculous levels, voluntary slavery is, according to Noah, "when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another". This means he has voluntarily relinquished the "right" to object, nothwithstanding that he still has the "ability" to do so. Ummm...you are wrong. The slave did NOT relinquish the "right" to object because the slave is still part of the morality pool. Get it? If I sold myself into slavery, and my master commanded me to murder, I would still have the RIGHT(yes the freakin' RIGHT) to object, because it's morally wrong to murder. Do you get that? It's not ridiculous, you are just failing to grasp the deeper philosophical point I am trying to make. So, again, he has the ability as well as the RIGHT, to object on the grounds of morality, because the slave did not relieve himself from morality when he signed his foolish contract. Do you at least agree with this? I don't care what Noah has to say about it. The only way the master can have "absolute command" of another is if he assumes all responsibility for the slave's acts. Hence my argument here wich you charged as utter foolishness.... >>"If I were to sell myself into slavery, I would make sure the contract explicitly stated that I am now relieved of all things moral, and only my master would pay the price for my acts. Then I would just turn and kill my so-called master. Now who's the sucker?" Chris Date ...is utter foolishness, (only a fool would agree to such a "contract"), and as such, deserves only this response. And my last name is not "Date" please correct your error.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "You go girl!"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    "Since the slave retains the ability and the RIGHT to object, the master will never have the "exclusive right" to control." ~ Chris Dates First: Slavery is also voluntary or involuntary; voluntary, when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another; involuntary, when he is placed under the absolute power of another without his own consent. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language If we don't take this to ridiculous levels, voluntary slavery is, according to Noah, "when a person sells or yields his own person to the absolute command of another". This means he has voluntarily relinquished the "right" to object, nothwithstanding that he still has the "ability" to do so. Involuntary slavery is theft, which is why it is called "man stealing". Manstealing, n. The act or business of stealing or kidnaping human beings, especially with a view to eslave them. ~ Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition, page 892 Theft does not effect the "right" of ownership, only the "ability" to control the thing, or person, that has been stolen. And this, in my opinion... "If I were to sell myself into slavery, I would make sure the contract explicitly stated that I am now relieved of all things moral, and only my master would pay the price for my acts. Then I would just turn and kill my so-called master. Now who's the sucker?" Chris Date ...is utter foolishness, (only a fool would agree to such a "contract"), and as such, deserves only this response.
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    BrianDrake, If you were to sell me that car you mentioned, I would have the exclusive right to all that makes up that car; every single nut & bolt, all the wiring, and the engine and drivetrain, etc. You would be transferring 100% ownership over to me; everything that makes up that car is now mine. This is not the case with human beings, because you will never own 100% of what makes me, well.....me. A slave can still object to the will of the master, the car can't. Since the slave retains the ability and the RIGHT to object, the master will never have the "exclusive right" to control. Can the slave still be held responsible for his acts? Would the slave be relieved of all things moral? Would the master be held responsible for the acts of the slave? No? Then the master does not have the "exclusive right", and this is why ownership of yourself cannot be transferred. Let's go back to your example of the car. If you loaned your car to a friend and your friend killed someone with it, then your friend would be at fault. If you loaned your slave to a friend, and your slave killed someone, who would be at fault? Of course the slave would. This is why the example of the car is not right. The slave can never be relieved of the consequences of his acts, good or bad, they are HIS acts, HE OWNS them. They cannot be transferred to anyone else. If I were to sell myself into slavery, I would make sure the contract explicitly stated that I am now relieved of all things moral, and only my master would pay the price for my acts. Then I would just turn and kill my so-called master. Now who's the sucker?
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    BrianDrake, Your example of the owning a vehicle is inadequate in this context. If you own a vehicle, YOU do, indeed, have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to control it. Meaning that you have the FINAL say in the matters that involve your vehicle. This is not the case involving the slave, because the slave has still retained the exclusive right to control his body; he is still the supreme authority of his domain; his body. You even admit to as much. When you use the phrase "exclusive right", we can clearly see that it is, in fact, impossible to sell yourself into slavery, because the new owner of you will never have the "exclusive right to contol" you. That's why "self-ownership" is different than the ownership of other objects. "Self" is more than just the human body. Your example of the vehicle is correct when giving examples of "the exclusive right to control", but when it's placed in the context of an actual human, you are begging the question.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Hopefully what you have written here will help to clear up, for some, at least, the confusion between "rights" and "abilities". Thank you, Brian Drake. "I had the right to remain silent... but I didn't have the ability." ~ Ron White
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    I'm not anti-government, I'm just PRO-SELF-GOVERNMENT. "Every man...possesses the right of self-government." ~ Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, It seems that you are defining ownership as the ability to control, when the more common definition used among libertarians is that ownership is the exclusive RIGHT to control. I may own my car (disregard the state for this example), and thus have a right (i.e., it would be unjust to interfere with me) to get inside it and directly control it to drive where I want. If I lend my car to a friend for a long-distance trip, I still own the car, but since it is now outside my direct control, I don't have the ability to control it. If I change my mind, I can call my friend and request the car returned (since, as the owner, I have the right to control the car; i.e., I have the final authority over its use), but until I am physically behind the wheel again, I do not have the ability to control the car. With a simple example like this, it seems clear to me that "ability to control" is an inferior definition of ownership and that "exclusive right to control" is more accurate and useful. So, barring literal mind-control like "The Manchurian Candidate", everyone realizes that the body still responds to the direct control of the slave's mind. No master or concentration camp guard ever claimed the "ability to control" the slave/prisoner's body. Instead, the essence of slavery is that the master, by claiming ownership of the slave, claims the exclusive RIGHT to control the slave (i.e., that he may not be justly prevented from enforcing his authority over that person). Self-ownership is not a declaration/recognition of function ("only I can wiggle my toes"), it is a declaration/recognition of jurisdiction ("I alone am the final authority on the use of my body".) Since no slave master ever (to my knowledge) possessed the ability to directly control the slave's body in contradiction to the slave's mind, if ownership is "the ability control", then there has never been such a thing as slavery. If a "slave" was presented with the choice "obey the master or be whipped", it was still the "slave" that chose to move his body to obey. But instead, if you accept that ownership is the exclusive right to control, then slavery is meaningful. Recognizing self-ownership means you recognize that a person may have final authority over their body and that any interference with that authority would be unjust. Recognizing slavery would be to consider unjust any interference (which includes disobedience) with the master's orders regarding the slave's body. In this light, I see it as being inaccurate to talk about "degrees of slavery" (and inversely, "degrees of liberty"). If we're talking about the "ability" to control, then the degree of slavery is basically always 0%, since the "slave's" mind still has 100% control over their body. But if we're talking about the exclusive right to control, then you cannot be partially enslaved and partially self-owning. Someone has the final authority (i.e., interference with this authority would be unjust). If it is you, then you have liberty (self-ownership). If it is not you, then you are a slave. Liberty/slavery clearly seem to me to be binary and mutually exclusive (antithetical - Slavery = not liberty. Liberty = not slavery). The degree of leniency of the master does not diminish that the final authority is still his, not yours. You don't have "2/7 liberty" if the master gives you the weekends off. He may be affording you some "freedom", or granting you "liberties", but as long as the final authority over you is the master, you have ZERO liberty. Likewise, the degree of leniency of a state does not diminish the state's claim of final authority over all those within its declared jurisdiction; i.e., that the state owns them. When boiled down to the essence of the matter, I think it is absolutely accurate to recognize statism as slavery. In fact, since slave masters were themselves subjects ("citizens") of states, they themselves were slaves. The "private" ownership of slaves under statism is thus exposed as a false concept, since the claimed final authority within a state's territory is the state. If I have final authority over you, and you buy a slave, I ultimately have final authority over him too and it cannot be said that you truly own him, since you are already owned yourself. "Slavery" was simply the allowance, by the state, for some state-owned-slaves to have more direct authority over other state-owned-slaves. Can you sell yourself into slavery? If you are talking about transferring the "right to control", then I think this is clearly possible. If you are talking about transferring the "ability to control", it does not seem that technology is at that point...yet.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Probably already does.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Wow... it is with amazement that I watch the evolution of the definition of terrorist until it encompasses me.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking shows the USA as #10 out of 179. All such measures have a subjective component; Singapore is mean about drugs and Hong Kong is very crowded. Australia has its merits but Heritage may not feel as strongly as I do about New Zealand's arrest of Mr Dotcom last month. I've heard well of Chile, but - unlike parrots - am a terrible linguist. Perhaps I should have written "one of the most free developed societies in the world." I've lived in four developed countries and visited eleven others (twelve, if http://lewrockwell.com/reed/reed226.html satisfies you that Mexico is developed) and will stick with my opinion.
  • Akkarin's picture
    Akkarin 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Thanks again for the information Suverans2, you always have detailed explanations even I can understand coupled with great footnotes. I really appreciate you sharing your knowledge and research with me. I'll have to meditate on this more, but it definitely feels true and seems logical.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    G'day Akkarin, I'm not certain that that is true. And, I doubt seriously that anything I will tell you here could be considered "proof". It is only common sense, and not much more. Who is the third party in a STATE sanctioned marriage? And, which of those three parties [persons] is the master? (Hint: The master is not required to seek permission [license] from the servant.) So right out of the chute a man who seeks permission [license] to marry is voluntarily admitting that he ALREADY IS a servant. And, who controls the servant's money, food, children, et cetera? The master, right? Look at it this way. If man is not a member, i.e. a citizen/subject[1], of a body politic, his status is that of, "sovereign without subjects", and in this state [condition], who would be the "competent authority[2]" that he would be required to seek before betrothing and marrying a maiden? Probably the maiden's Father, right? Why because as long as the maiden is a member of her Father's "household" he is the responsible party. Now, if she marries a man and they choose to remain members of her Father's household, who has the right to tell both of them what they can and cannot do...with their money, their food, their children, et cetera? If your Father, was anything like mine, he may have 'suggested' something to you along these lines; "As long as you are under my roof [protection], you will do as I say." That is just another way of saying, "As long as I am responsible for you, you will do as I say"; which, of course, (in my opinion), just makes [common] sense. On the other hand, if this maiden should leave her Father's household, before marrying, she is no long a citizen/subject of his household; she then becomes a free being, because she is now responsible for her own welfare, and, accordingly, is no longer required to seek her Father's permission, or obey his 'household law' [private law], though she still may, if she respects his wisdom, (presuming he has some). Now, if she marries, with or without her Father's permission, her man becomes the husbandman[3] of their new household, presuming, of course, that this arrangement is agreed to by her. In some households the woman is the agreed-upon "master of the family" and in others they agree to a "joint-tenancy" of the "throne". Simply substitute the word "government", or "state", if you prefer, in the appropriate places to better understand what is happening in your 'world' at this time. ____________________________________________________________ [1] Look up the word "subject" in your copy of Black's Fifth, and I believe you will find this, "Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy [legal] rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws." [The word "legal" was added for clarification by me. The STATE does not issue natural rights; they are inherent.]' [2] You will find these words under "License" in your copy of Black's Fifth. [3] HUS'BANDMAN, n. ...1. The master of a family. ... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    In my relatively small town, where you're more likely to be killed by a cop than by your fellow citizens, a "dwindling police force" would be a blessing.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Re: question number one I don't know. I, personally, do not answer to any of these: citizen, national, or subject. Re: question number two First, we must look at what a "person" is, in legalese. person In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary A voluntary nonperson is someone who does not consent to be a member of the civil society[1], which means, he is not a "legal entity", which in turn, means, he does not have "all the [legal] rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes". Nonpersons do, however, possess all their natural rights, so it is unlawful to violate their right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. The only duty this status imposes is to respect the natural rights of others. ____________________________________________________________________ SOCIETY ...3. By civil society is usually understood a state, (q. v.) a nation, (q. v.) or a body politic. (q. v.) Rutherf. Inst. c. 1 and 2. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary
  • Akkarin's picture
    Akkarin 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Where can I find proof that the following is true as it certainly isn't in Black's Law 5th edition: " The fact that a certificate for a married couple is commercial paper that can be used to pledge the future expenditure of labor of the married couple against the State’s borrowed money was only half the equation. By entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ultimate control of their children or marriage-related property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae." According to Black’s Law, 5th edition: I am really trying to figure out how the state gets parens patriae over our children. Yes I've heard that the marriage license/Birth Certificate are the sole things, but honestly I can not find any evidence to that fact.
  • Akkarin's picture
    Akkarin 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    I am confused, does this mean you are subjected to the same laws as a citizen without the added benefits? How does one become a non-person, or is that just not getting a SSN?
  • Akkarin's picture
    Akkarin 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    I did read that but he only mentioned the certificate of no record found. You need more documents then this. I was wondering about all the documents he might have submitted. Thank you for trying to answer for me.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    G'day traysea413, No problem, regarding your son's nativity year mix-up. What you are asking, if I understand you correctly, is, "Are there any statutes or laws that can FORCE a private health care provider to deny him insurance?" I should think that the answer is to that question would probably be no, but that is only a guess. That being said there may be some kind of "incentive(s)" for corporations, which are married to the STATE, to deal only with fellow members of their body politic. Pretty much if your son remains completely un-numbered he is an nonperson. non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government ~ New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition
  • Chris Dates's picture
    Chris Dates 5 years 11 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim's on to something when he says it's impossible to voluntarily sell yourself into slavery. I witness some debates here, and WhiteIndian likes to beg the question, because he assumes "self ownership" only refers to the human body, but it's so much more than that. Like Jim says it's also the human mind, but it's also owning all of the actions that the body and mind create; it's owning the consequences of those actions. NOTHING will ever change that. Nothing. Hey WhiteIndian, why are you making slavery sound so bad? Tell me, if I sell myself into slavery, therefore transferring ownership of all that is ME over to the new owner, what's to stop me from killing the new owner of me? How would that not be suicide? Hell, I'd do that ALL day long! Quick way to make a buck I'd say. Oh that doesn't sound right to you? Well, you might say I still retain ownership of the actions and consequences. Ahhhh...now you see exactly why it's impossible to sell yourself into slavery.
  • traysea413's picture
    traysea413 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    ok.. are there any statues or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance? thank you for the correction.
  • traysea413's picture
    traysea413 5 years 11 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    sorry. he was born january 2011.