Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "You go girl!"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Probably already does.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 5 years 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 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 23 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    sorry. he was born january 2011.
  • Tsunseyu's picture
    Tsunseyu 5 years 23 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I would agree with your judgment that it is human to be just. As the movie portray's by the sky people, we must be careful what society tells us is just. I also would say, that many people make an almost primal connection with the underdog characters, to a way of living that we used to have.. so simple and free... that has long since died off. You can see people's attempt to return to these simpler times in both the eco and minimalist movement. People are finally starting to revolt against excess consumption and environmental plunder... perhaps we will finally start living.?.?.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 23 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry you were confused, Mark. The "two verbs" were of course "Govern" and "Enslave", in the title. Agreed, treatment of slaves no doubt varied a great deal. But the threat of being whipped was the sanction available, and it was used. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASwhipping.htm has some graphic proof.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 5 years 23 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    "in this country--the most free developed society in the world" [citation needed] By what measure is the USA the "most free?" What compels even radical libertarians to parrot that myth?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very good, Paul. The only thing I might give constructive criticism on is this, "(or not at all, if anarchists)". I may be picking nits ;) but most so-called "anarchists", I have 'met', are lip-service anarchists, and are, in fact, full-fledged members of the STATE. It would be more concise to say, in my opinion, "(or not at all, if one is self-governing)", i.e. in harmony with the "Natural Law of the human world".
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 23 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, the first sentence is a little confusing as self is a noun. I think you were contrasting self-ownership and self-government? The analogy with slaves pre-1861 is closer than you may believe. The Hollywood version of slaves walking out to the fields in chains as drivers whipped them is a myth; obviously they would not be very productive. Of course, some slave owners were cruel just as some owners of livestock are cruel to their animals; but most slaves were considered valuable assets to be taken care of. Many were also brought up as part of the family raising children, etc. But most were left to work plots of land like serfs. On average about 50% of what they produced went to the owners and 50% to the slaves. Some were even able to use their spare time to work for money which was how many were able to purchase their freedom. When chattle slavery ended and the system morphed into "share-cropping", very little changed. The perpetual debt incurred from trying to work leased farms left many former slaves even worse off than before when they couldn't pay rent. If they tried to skip out on the rent then the sherriff went after them. I think this is a very similar situation to today where taxes and debt payments to pay off money created out of thin air is more than 50% of what we produce, on average.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 23 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    I think that it is a matter of semantics. Noah Webster (c.1828) clearly demonstrates that with his definitions. SLAVE, n. 1. A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no will of his own, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. 2. One who has lost the power of resistance; or one who surrenders himself [voluntary] to any power whatever; as a slave to passion, to lust, to ambition. [or to those who call themselves "master"[1]] 3. [Not applicable to our discussion.] 4. A drudge; one who labors like a slave. [for himself, his family, and/or those who call themselves "master"] I believe that Jim is using definition number one, while you and I are using definitions two and/or four, (or a slight variation thereof), when we claim that one can voluntarily become a slave. However, if we were to use only definition number one, in its strictest confines, we would probably agree with Jim. Believing that to be the case, I have given up debating the issue. "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." ~ Ayn Rand ___________________________________________ [1] MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States. Your "...highest or first magistrate [master]...is the President of the United States", IF you are a United States citizen (See the 14th Amendment to your Constitution).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 23 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Scott! And no, I instanced Walter to suggest that somewhere on the 18th and 19th Century cotton fields, there was probably a man with the ability to become an Econ Prof, had he not been enslaved. But I think you knew that :-) Yes, S2, you're right; 100% slavery would mean being "wholly subject to the will of another."
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 5 years 23 weeks ago
    To Govern and Enslave
    Page Jim Davies
    This is a very thought-provoking article. Regarding the notion that an individual couldn't be a slave voluntarily, while I believe in free will and your points make me think a little more about the issue, I still believe that, in a voluntary contract between an individual and others with 100% consent from that individual, he could voluntarily be someone else's slave. And yes, re-education is the key to de-brainwashing the servile, obedient, government-schooled masses, to convince them through persuasion that they would probably be happier and more fulfilled in a land of freedom rather than under the dictatorship of central planning that we have now. Also, are you saying that Walter Williams was a slave of the 18th or 19th Century? Is he THAT old? And, you wrote, "Governing brings such a rush of intoxication that men spend fortunes to get elected." Yes, in 2008, Willard Rmoney spent over $42 million of his own personal wealth to lose in the primary, and he's spending more now to lose to Obama in November. And in 2010 in Commiefornia, Meg Whitless spent over $150 million of her own wealth only to lose to her fellow communist, Jerry Moonbeam.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 23 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Interesting, traysea413; you posted the following on July 12, 2010 "I am diligently searching for information that will help assist me in refusing the birth certificate/and or the social security number for the new baby I am having in January." Now you are telling us that your son was born in "january 2010".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 23 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    "People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents..." ~ Wikipedia http://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/1643 Would you mind rewording this question, "are there any statutes or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance"?
  • Xerographica's picture
    Xerographica 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    This is a really great article. If you get a chance I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on allowing people to directly allocate their taxes. By far the most common critique of this proposal is along the lines of other people being idiots. So, given this article, I figured this proposal would be right up your alley. Here are a few especially relevant entries from my blog... http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2012/01/unglamorous-but-important-th... http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2011/12/taxpayer-division-of-labor.html
  • traysea413's picture
    traysea413 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    I do not have a social security number or a birth certificate for my son that was born in january 2010. we live in virginia and i have recieved the laws governing vital statistics. my question is this.... can medicaid deny benefits for him not having a social? also, is there any statutes or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance. any help is much appreciated!! thank you
  • traysea413's picture
    traysea413 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    I do not have a social security number or a birth certificate for my son that was born in january 2010. we live in virginia and i have recieved the laws governing vital statistics. my question is this.... can medicaid deny benefits for him not having a social? also, is there any statutes or laws that can have a private health care deny him insurance. any help is much appreciated!! thank you
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 24 weeks ago
    1492
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Jim Davies, I am not familiar with the chemicals used in this "highly chemical process", so I cannot say, at this time, whether I object or not. But, I can say that I would only object if these growers are violating the natural law, that is to say, if are they contaminating their neighbors, (such as with the highly dangerous "FrankenFoods"[1]), and/or if they are they contaminating their neighbors air and/or water supply. One can only be held to be "harmless", according to the NAP (non-aggression principle), if one, WITHIN REASON, causes no harm, either intentionally or through gross negligence, to one's neighbors, in my opinion. ___________________________________________________________ [1] A little bit of knowledge can be a VERY DANGEROUS thing. I liken "genetic tampering" to teaching a child how to take the safety off and how to pull the trigger, without ever teaching them what the end result might be.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good article Paul. Internet based communities are a good first step but in the end you have to have real-time, meat space communities in the traditional sense of the term. "Boots on the ground" as the military sorts call it. It is better perhaps essential that you have a thousand persons in one place rather than have ten thousand scattered all over the rest of the country. Even radical individualist Stirnerites can't stand alone.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    The answer to your second question seems to be here: 3. We were able to get a passport for our child absent the Slave Surveillance Number and birth certificate by obtaining a "certificate of no found record". We got this by the normal application for a birth certificate from the state department and since it doesn't exist the "certificate of no found record" establishes proof that our child has no state issued birth certificate and therefore is not a ward of the state. In this way you can assert your right to travel for your "American National" (not citizen subject). I say, "seems to be", only because, having never done it, I have no idea if that is correct or not.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 24 weeks ago
    1492
    Page Jim Davies
    No, S2, I'd not call this one a "nit" :-) I don't have figures so could be wrong but my impression about the relation between government and the organics fad is opposite to yours. I see organic veggies being "pushed" at high prices in supermarkets, and the wealthier the neighborhood the harder the push. I have the firm impression that limousine liberals are promoting it, and they are in bed with government. A year or two back I made a foray into the fruit trade and explored importing some from central America. One eager exporter there after another was quick to assure me that his plant practised "sustained" agriculture - as if I cared. All that mattered to me as a prospective importer was quality and price. Other growers told me that they had offered organic products but could not sell them into the US - the demand was not such as to compensate them for the much less efficient growing needed. So yes, it may well be that Big Ag favors chemical assistance, but I have no problem with that - on the contrary, it seems to me what has enabled the Earth to feed a dramatically growing population, and which will continue to do so. My fingers are far from green, but I understand that a very efficient way to grow things is by hydroponics; a controlled environment (eg plastic greenhouses) and growing beds of gravel through which water is circulated, in which are dissolved specific nutrients. Clean healthy food results - but it's a highly chemical process. Any objection to that?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    NATIONAL A person owing permanent allegiance to a state. 8 USC [Title 8 of the United States Code] ~ Lectric Law Library's Lexicon
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Definition of NATIONAL 1 : one that owes allegiance to or is under the protection of a nation without regard to the more formal status of citizen or subject ~ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition The word "or" makes this definition a little intriguing, to me. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that the following three words are synonyms for each other, so I am wary of all of them. "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." SYNONYMS: citizen, national, subject These nouns denote a person owing allegiance to a nation or state and entitled to its protection: an American citizen; a British national; a French subject. As an individual secessionist, I consider myself an "American, since America was, (according to my Father and Mother et al, the land of my nativity, but I am not a U.S. citizen". Earthling has a nice ring to it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    G'day Akkarin, According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), at page 1024, a "national" is... A person owing permanent allegiance to a state. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 The term "national" as used in the phrase "national of the United States" is broader than the term "citizen". Brassert v. Biddle, D.C.Conn., 59 F.Supp 457, 462. Not much help at all, I'm afraid. If I find anything more definitive I'll pass it along.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Exactly, jd-in-georgia, I don't, for one moment, believe that the so-called BIBLE is "The Word of God"; but I refuse, as so many do, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are still pearls in those books, even after the CHURCH thought that they had "sanitized" it enough for the commoners.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 5 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I have seen that lame TV program Dallas SWAT and I have always been appalled at the way they casually do thousands of dollars of damage to people's homes. Okay I get that they are looking for fugitives; quite dangerous ones in some case. But even so on their own TV show which they control to show themselves in the best possible light the tapes shows regularly hitting a suspect's girlfriend's mother's house, or an empty house and busting out all the windows or pulling the doors out of the wall with their armored vehicle, only to discover that their informant's tip was BS. The person they were looking for isn't or wasn't there at all. I can't even watch that show i get too angry.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 24 weeks ago
    Origins
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim makes an interesting point about defenders vs attackers http://www.strike-the-root.com/1492#comment-5381 which referred me to this article. And following on Jim's "Based on the precedent of the Slippery Slope, my advice to anyone reading this in, say, 2079 is to be very wary of the word "we." I concur Do not discount the "I". Challenge the premise of "We". Oui! There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 5 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    It is funny, Sam, how the church DID want obedient followers yet at the same time DID NOT want people to know how to read. Otherwise the "sheep" may come across something like this: For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it. ~Ecclesiastes 7:12 KJV or better yet, this verse is very pertinent to the evils of copyrighting: The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit. ~Proverbs 14:8 KJV I know not what others may believe, nor am I attempting to evangelize. But as far as I can tell, God wants us to read unhindered so we can decide for ourselves what to like and dislike, and to believe or not believe.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 5 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The best things in life are free... especially ideas. Imagine if everyone could think for themselves? As long as there is a manipulative monopoly on information dissemination, real progress will always be flowing with the rapidity of a glacier.