Recent comments

  • Guest's picture
    catherix1 (not verified) 4 years 3 weeks ago
    No Pictures!
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Your house is valueble for me. Thanks!… Levitra abiogenetic Viagra schizont Cialis forepleasure
  • Guest's picture
    audreywtt (not verified) 4 years 3 weeks ago Page Mike Wasdin
    It is best to take part in a contest for top-of-the-line blogs on the web. I'll advocate this website! Levitra Expatiation Viagra Forebode Cialis hype
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 3 weeks ago Page tzo
    As I understand it, if we agree with minarchists, that a small, limited government (hopefully run by people like Ron Paul) is going to scare away the bad guys, the next question we ought to ask is, "How?" Minarchists, like us anarchists, don't like the idea of government. That is why they want it small. But they also want it to effectively do what it is supposed to do: protect. How does a small government do that? A small government cannot provide the protective services it promises. A small town of 500 does not need more than one cop, if we are to assume that all minarchists could agree on that. What if two bad guys are initiating coercion against two people in this small town at once, on opposite sides of the town? And once this happens, the hysteria and anger over government's inefficiency will undoubtedly lead to adding one more cop. Thus it grows. The reason it grows is because its foundation is coercion against those who did not ask for it. Small government cannot work for everyone. It will only work for those closest to it that resemble it the most. But at least those who resemble it will feel better.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 3 weeks ago Page tzo
    "I think Minarchrists would argue that some government is a necessary evil, ..." I apologize if I assumed that this was your position when it was not. Perhaps you were only stating the Minarchist position, not actually taking it.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 3 weeks ago Page tzo
    Everyone is perfectly free to choose to have any kind of social organizational agreements, governments included, that they wish. But the agreeing parties can only enforce their laws and rules within the confines of their own combined personal properties. If there is a US government that enforces its laws and rules over the land area that is called the US, this is only valid if the USG is the rightful property owner of all that land. Can someone argue the case for the USG being the rightful and just owner of all the current US land area? If not, it should refrain from imposing its "necessary evil" upon me and my property. Imposing evil upon a peaceful person is the definition of aggression. Michael, you seem to have leaped to that common, yet mysterious, non sequitur that government is the only possible means to enforce law in society. And since society needs order, society needs government, the necessary evil. This ignores the possibility of the voluntary organization of security/adjudication/enforcement services, which have been written about in thousands of pages elsewhere. If the charge of Utopia is the response, then that is to ignore the empirical evidence that is provided by human history, wherein these services all tend to be created on the open market first, and then later expropriated by governments. Because I assume when you say "government" you mean the organization that has been "granted" the power to tax and use force, hence the "necessary evil" label. Any "government" that is purely voluntary would never be referred to as a "necessary evil." And finally, I really do not wish to live within a society of people who believe that it is OK to necessarily and preemptively aggress against human beings in order to achieve the utilitarian benefit of a happy society. One is not justified in raping "just a little" in the attempt to achieve love. Utilitarian arguments imagine a difference between means and ends, but they are the same. The means are merely the ends in progress. One cannot achieve "good" ends with "evil" means, ever.
  • kevindanielbrown's picture
    kevindanielbrown 4 years 4 weeks ago Page tzo
    Michael those that seek to take away the life, liberty, and property of others are ALREADY aggressors so responding with force against them isn't aggression but defense. So no, this is not an example of justified aggression. Also If you restrained government to not taking away anyone's life, liberty, or property it wouldn't be government anymore.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 4 weeks ago Page tzo
    People are often sentimental about these things.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 4 weeks ago Page tzo
    Of course, if everyone could be trusted to behave justly in every instance, there would be no need for laws or people to enforce those laws, but we know that is not the case. I think Minarchrists would argue that some government is a necessary evil, not that it's a positive good. Aggression can be justified against those who seek to take away the life, liberty, and property of others. True, government can also be used to take the life, liberty, and property of others. That's why its power needs to be severely restrained.
  • Guest's picture
    COUNTERTHESPIANAGE.COM (not verified) 4 years 4 weeks ago Page tzo
    I LOVE your perspective. CT
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day tzo, Why is it, do you suppose, that this learned man with all those nifty letters after his name didn't begin his treatise with his definition of “rule of law”, so his readers would know precisely which “rule of law”, [“an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts”], he was about to discuss? I believe it is because he is not at all attempting to prove that the “rule of law” is a myth. I opine that what both he and Mark Davis were actually trying to say is that it is a “myth” that their governments, the corporation known as United States and it's subsidiary State governments, are governing by any “rule of law”, and with that I'd have to agree. True law is not based on shifting sands, it is set in stone, that is to say, "an established or permanent rule", or it is no law at all. The Republic is a Fraud precisely because it is not under the "rule of the law", that is to say, the natural law[1] (of man), which is one of the primary reasons why I do not consent to be "associated"[2] with any of them. “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau It is more than mere "disgrace", in at least one man's opinion, Henry; in his opinion it is "absurd" and it is "criminal". "To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal." ~ Excerpted from NATURAL LAW or THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE by Lysander Spooner Individual Secessionist [1] “The natural law is defined by Burlamaqui[a] to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature...” ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694 [a] Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (24 June 1694 – 3 April 1748) was a Swiss legal and political theorist that greatly publicised and popularised a number of ideas propounded by other thinkers. Born in Geneva, at the age of twenty-five he was designated honorary "professor of ethics and the law of nature" at the university of Geneva. “There is in fact a true law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal.” ~ Cicero The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [2] ASSO'CIATED, pp. United in company or in interest; joined ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    And in further support of Mark Davis's observation... http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    G'day Mark Davis, In support of what you said, The rule of law is an ambiguous term that can mean different things in different contexts. In one context the term means rule according to law. No individual can be ordered by the government to pay civil damages or suffer criminal punishment except in strict accordance with well-established and clearly defined laws and procedures. In a second context the term means rule under law. No branch of government is above the law, and no public official may act arbitrarily or unilaterally outside the law. In a third context the term means rule according to a higher law. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms with certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality, and justice that transcend human legal systems. However, as Ayn Rand so succinctly put it, "Without a moral code no proper human society is possible. Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is possible." In this sense, the rule of law is the antithesis (exact opposite) of what Ayn Rand referred to as, the "rule by brute force", which is basically what you have now. That "third context", (highlighted in the 1st paragraph), is the "moral code", which makes human society possible, it is what is commonly called the natural law (of man). It is the only "rule of law" that is not a "myth", notwithstanding that the PTB would have us believe otherwise. The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Broken link...
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    All good points Paul. I would add that the rule of law itself is a myth due to the requirement that it must depend on individual interpretations that often conflict. I loved this line: "It’s like going to court and having the same lawyer on both defense and prosecution!"
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Actually, the date this commenced was in the 1840's, when Horace Mann imported Prussian schooling into America and got it adopted by the Massachusetts legislature: ---------- Beginning about 1840, a group calling itself the Massachusetts School Committee held a series of secret discussions involving many segments of New England political and business leadership.1 Stimulus for these discussions, often led by the politician Horace Mann, was the deterioration of family life that the decline of agriculture was leaving in its wake.2 A peculiar sort of dependency and weakness caused by mass urbanization was acknowledged by all with alarm. The once idyllic American family situation was giving way to widespread industrial serfdom. Novel forms of degradation and vice were appearing. And yet at the same time, a great opportunity was presented. Plato, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Hobbes, Rousseau, and a host of other insightful thinkers, sometimes referred to at the Boston Athenaeum as "The Order of the Quest," all taught that without compulsory universal schooling the idiosyncratic family would never surrender its central hold on society to allow utopia to become reality. Family had to be discouraged from its function as a sentimental haven, pressed into the service of loftier ideals—those of the perfected State.... Mann proclaimed the State must assert itself as primary parent of children. ---------- http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/6d.htm This view was adopted at the federal level shortly thereafter, and made a requirement for admission of states into the Union. Government schooling is the primary tool for destroying families.
  • nost8r's picture
    nost8r 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Bob, I enjoy your articles, and it is true that the state is inherently anti family. I think the government's increasing involvement in marriage since the 1800s is also a factor. Marriage licenses were originally concocted by racist statists (apologies for the redundancy) who wanted to prevent whites and non-whites from marrying. Now, after decades of government control, the sacred institution of marriage is nothing more than a worthless slip of paper with less meaning than most business contracts.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    A silly notion. "America" cannot be afraid, because "America" is not a thinking entity, but a collection of individuals with different opinions about it. Some of those individuals are afraid, and some of them are thrilled. Yeah, probably most in the ruling class are afraid, as well they should be.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    G'day tzo, You didn't really think I would let this go unanswered, now did you? ;) “And so to sort of answer a question you posed earlier, the short answer is that education is the key to this change. … Lose the government mindset, and civil disobedience will become rampant quite naturally.” ~ tzo So, if I am understanding you correctly, you truly believe that through “education”, (of which, of course, the State has virtually total control of via schools, the mainstream media, entertainment industry, and perhaps soon, even the internet), we can convince a meaningful number of “a populace that has a government mindset” to be rampantly civilly disobedient, “quite naturally”? Good luck on that one, mon frère . “You can have either government or private property, but you cannot have both. If you choose government, you forego private property and hence forego having rights.” ~ tzo So, once again, if I am not misreading you, what you are saying is that because there has never been a government that was, in truth, “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, and whose sole duty was strictly limited to protecting its voluntary members natural rights, there never can be? And, please, my friend, don't hold up the United States as your example of one that failed, because we both know that that was not ever, “in truth”, its purpose. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States, from the preamble on, do we read anything about that government securing to each and every consenting member, his natural/inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and property, the last item of which was intentionally omitted[1] even from their formal notice of secession, popularly called The Declaration of Independence. The omission of the Foundational Stone, the natural right ["just claim"] to individual property, was not some mere oversight by these 56 men (twenty four, of which, were lawyers and jurists), they knew all too well that the other two were impossible without it; the entire "Philosophy of Liberty" is based on the principle of self-ownership, property in the form of one's body and soul.[2] Endnote: [1] Thomas Jefferson ranked John Locke, along with John’s compatriot Algernon Sidney, as the most important thinkers on liberty. John Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” ~ "John Locke Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property" [2]soul NOUN: The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    As long as it doesn't make you sick, Michael? "For all you who continually chow down on such stuff, I'm sorry that you have chosen to leave the party early. But it's your call. ¡Salud!" ~ tzo [Emphasis added] The farmer grinned as he told the visitor, “Watch this!” He called his pigs, which ran frantically towards him to be fed. But when he scooped out corn and threw it on the ground, the pigs sniffed it and then looked up at the farmer with confused expectation. The farmer then scooped corn from another bin and flung it near the pigs, which ran over and quickly devoured it. The farmer said, “The first corn is genetically engineered. They won’t touch it.” Pigs Won't Eat GMO Corn, Are they Smarter than Us?" The Health Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods "The Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods" Seeds of Deception And this is to say nothing about what unleashing these genetically modified organisms may do to the environment. They have already crossed into their wild cousins and we now have "super weeds" You want to understand their agenda, Michael Kleen, well, here it is, straight from the horse's ass, er-r-r mouth, straight from one of the most diabolical gurus[1] of your government. "Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people…" ~ "Henry KISSINGER" While many of us are busy playing politics, which is a King in the deck of cards called life, the ruling elite are playing an Ace, gaining control of the world's food [and water] supply. "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" and subject of this review. It's the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply and why that prospect is chilling. The book's compelling contents are reviewed below in-depth so readers will know the type future Henry Kissinger had in mind in 1970 when he said: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people." Endnote: [1] One observer described Henry KISSINGER, at the time, as "like sludge out of a swamp without a spark of life....no soul, a slip of life, a kind of ghoul (and) a sort of lubricant (to keep the ship of state running)." (Ibid.)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    "I guess what bothers me the most about this is that this law firm is choosing to pursue a ridiculous issue rather than something more useful to the general public, like concerns about health and safety." ~ Michael Kleen "Food safety and public health issues aren't considered vital if they conflict with profits. So the entire population is being used as lab rats for these completely new, untested and potentially hazardous products. And leading the effort to develop them is a company with a "long record of fraud, cover-up, bribery," deceit and disdain for the public interest - Monsanto." ~ Stephen Lendman excerpted from his review of Seeds Of Destruction by F. William Engdahl for rense.com
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    oops!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    "but i dont understand. they aren't allowed to make the box say 0 calories if there are really four right? "
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    I dunno, I really liked this one because it shows how clueless people are and how betrayed they feel when they accidentally discover something like this. That and all the people who think they have the right answers.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    Well said! (Great links, too! Well, all but this one http://caloriecount.about.com/oh-god-splenda-calories-packet-ft44937) Thanks
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    In a society lobotomized by government nannyism, trust in FDA- and USDA-approved labeling is a given. http://consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/tropicana.html http://caloriecount.about.com/oh-god-splenda-calories-packet-ft44937 http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-information.html http://www.joyfulaging.com/excitotoxins.htm http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm This is simply government merging with corporations to rip off people who trust the government experts. If the law says that Taco Bell can call it beef if it contains 10% beef, then that is OK as well? 5%? 1% Well, fruit juice drinks only need to have 10% fruit juice, so why not? The reason why it says beef on the label is that they know that 99% of everyone will think it is 100% beef. The law allows them to deceive and make money off of floor sweepings. I do not believe that this would emerge in a free market. People used to get run out of town for adding sugar to beer or watering down milk. But now we have the government to watch out for us, so we don't have to worry. Just make it yummy, please! And thanks for the nifty lobotomy! If it were legal to have a touch of arsenic in each serving, would that be OK? Still tastes yummy, and you don't get immediately sick. Sure, it'll kill you in the long run, but, well, I don't know how to finish that sentence. But arsenic is a known poison, and therefore cannot be put into the food supply, like, say, fluoride. Gee, I guess I got carried away with my analogy there. Sorry. For all you who continually chow down on such stuff, I'm sorry that you have chosen to leave the party early. But it's your call. ¡Salud!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    Well, one might imagine that the law firm was nudged into action by someone like, oh, Burger King, in an attempt to use political power to fight competition. I also believe most law firms exist to make money, not help society. Just like Taco Bell.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    Well said, Merrick. I guess what bothers me the most about this is that this law firm is choosing to pursue a ridiculous issue rather than something more useful to the general public, like concerns about health and safety. I don't think the people who eat at Taco Bell care what percentage meat is in their taco filling, as long as it tastes good, it's cheap, and it doesn't make them sick. I know I don't.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    I don't see what the big deal about a 35% ratio is. Most politicians' heads are only 35% meat. :) In all seriousness, and in complete agreement with Suverans2, I must say that I have eaten and enjoyed Taco Bell many times in the past, even after I heard a rumor about some rather disgusting conditions that I will not repeat, since I can't substantiate it. I believe much of what is said about how hot dogs are prepared, how food is mishandled, and I've probably eaten in more than one restaurant where my food was dropped in the kitchen, or where some waitress perhaps spit on it. These thoughts are frequently in my head, right along with the fact that every carrot I eat comes out of soil made of dead people, animals, excrement, insects, and plants. Food is gross. What happens to it after we eat it is even grosser. But Suverans2 is right. An ounce of prevention. Unfortunately for me, I HATE shopping and I HATE preparing food. I'll probably eat some unhealthy Taco Bell again. And again and again. AND I WILL ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES AS MY OWN.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    Yes, I think it is an important first step to get people to realize that the USG claims to own every square inch of its domain. There is no public or private property, only government property. Step two, which must logically follow, is for people to realize that no human being has any rights under such an ownership assumption. Everyone here is a USG houseguest, and if you do not follow the rules, you must leave. Step three is that people realize that every square inch of the planet is government property, and so no human being has the right to anything on the planet. There is only existence by permission. Step four is the action taken by people who do not go along with the government ownership assumption. Ideally, this action spreads far and wide and takes as its primary form the ignoring of government rules, and not as violent retaliation. And so to sort of answer a question you posed earlier, the short answer is that education is the key to this change. That is not to say that action such as this civil disobedience is not important, because it is essential, but civil disobedience presented to a populace that has a government mindset will never work. Lose the government mindset, and civil disobedience will become rampant quite naturally. Positive feedback loop. And I see that you agree with the importance of education, as you are placing the above CD actions in proper context for the people who have observed and commented on it. Alice views the actions taken against Pete as unjust, but she is viewing everything through her government goggles, and the end result is that she is wishing for the government to relent and give people permission to wear hats in court. It is "our" public property and "they" the government should let us do what "we" want but it is "our" government and so "we" have decided to not allow hats. "We" should change this but apparently, "we" don't want to. "We" are so confused. Public property reduces directly down to government property. So does private property. http://strike-the-root.com/92/tzo/tzo2.html You can have either government or private property, but you cannot have both. If you choose government, you forego private property and hence forego having rights.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    Avoiding gmo's is made even more difficult because your government's FDA says it's subsidiary corporations, (the food manufacturers), do not have to disclose these genetically modified organisms, as such, to the end users, as most, (if not all), European food processors voluntarily do. If we are to have "free choice" in whether to eat this sh*t or not, truthful labeling is a necessity.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Where's the Beef?
    Page Michael Kleen
    Perhaps a better way to say it, Michael Kleen, would be to say that "it is no more harmful than virtually any other fast food restaurant". What little beef they do use has been fed genetically modified organisms (particularly corn and soy) and rgBH/rBST growth hormones, and has had a steady diet of antibiotics since its nativity because of the unsanitary conditions in which the cattle are housed (CAFO), and the whole thing is seasoned with monosodium glutamate (msg). And, the soy they use as a filler is also a genetically modified organism. If you trust the government, (which gives you subsidized health care), their FDA says all this stuff is harmless. If you are not eligible for government entitlements, such as subsidized health care, as we are not, you might want to do your utmost to avoid this toxic nightmare. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Generally, it is mice and/or rats, the number of which can be exacerbated by unclean humans.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Violence, against the state, particularly individual violence, will, after the state "spin doctors" are through with it, be used, by the state, as license to "retaliate with violence", without raising a "public outcry". Hence, "violence begets violence". The first shot fired by the men of South Carolina, at Fort Sumter, was used in precisely this manner. Had the South Carolinians held their fire, and not succumbed to firing that first shot, which was looked at, (after the state "spin doctors" were through with it), as "initiating violence", the war against lawful (peaceful) secession might never have taken place. We must also keep in mind that force and violence are not ALWAYS the same thing. And, please, don't take this comment to mean that I believe one should not defend their life, liberty and justly acquired property, I am only saying violence should be the ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, in my opinion.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    Here is some of the dialogue we are in at the moment. Suverans2 26. Jan, 2011 at 2:23 pm # However, that COURTROOM is their “house”, and it should be treated like anyone else’s “house”. If you VOLUNTARILY enter into that house you should, according to the natural law, obey the “house rules”. If you know the rules to that “house”, and don’t like those rules, do not VOLUNTARILY enter that house; or if, after entering, you discover the rules, after VOLUNTARILY entering, secede [withdraw peacefully] from that “house”, if you choose not to consent to those rules. _______________________________________________________ Alice Lillie 28. Jan, 2011 at 3:03 am # This “house” is public. Therefore he had every right to wear the hat. If courts were privatized, they could enforce no-hat or other rules. But this is a dilemma when you have public property. Nobody owns it, so nobody has the right to make rules. So, Pete was right. _______________________________________________________ Suverans2 28. Jan, 2011 at 11:49 am # G’day Alice Lillie, Thanks for the reply. First let me say, as an individual secessionist, I appreciate very much what Mike, Ademo, Pete, you, and everyone else involved in the struggle for freedom, are doing, so keep in mind I am only trying to give constructive criticisms, which of course you all are free to ignore, at your own peril. The language of their so-called law is called “legalese”, it is Legal Pig Latin (LPL), an artificial language designed to fool us. This word “public”, and the phrase “public property” are not exceptions. The word “public”, as in “public property”, can mean, in LPL (Legal Pig Latin), “Pertaining to the state, nation or whole community…” That’s from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1227. Note that first one, “pertaining to the state”. Now, “public property”, from this same dictionary, can mean, in LPL, “those things which are publici juris (q.v.), [of public right] and therefore considered as being owned by “the public,” the entire state or community and not restricted to the dominion of a private person. It may also apply to the any subject of property owned by the state, nation, or municipal corporation as such. See also State property, below.” Now the LPL definition of “State property” my shock you, so we’ll save that for another day. Suffice to say that COURTHOUSE is “public property”, defined as “property owned by the state", which makes it “their house”, as I was trying to explain to our freedom fighting friends. You should also note the phrase “corporation as such” in that definition of “public property”. Corporations are artificial persons, which makes their law “private law”, that is to say it only applies to members of the corporation, and “citizens” are members of the corporation. 2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you… Hope this will help to un-muddy the waters.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Wild populations go where the food is. What is the food supply for all those snakes?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Government Will Die
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    I think we have a long haul before what Alex is envisioning comes about. Better to focus on short term survival of anarchism. We have to live side by side with statists for a long time, but we don't have to be dominated by them: http://www.strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists Anarchism is not going to "win" (that sounds too dominating to me). People will just tire of statism when they realize it is not needed. BTW I think of minarchists as anarchists-in-training.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, "violence begets violence" is just a slogan. Often, violence (more accurately, defense) ends violence. But for the rest of it, yeah. I like Jon Stewart's take on it: http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/01/jon-stewart-glock-sales-double/
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    Thanks for the clarifications, tzo, much appreciated. "Rights are what they grant citizens[1], and if he isn't a citizen, then he has no rights"....ACCORDING TO THE CAPTORS, (as you indicate above), because if they did "recognize" a man's Natural Rights[2] they would, as a consequence, be negating all of their de facto authority. (De jure authority can only be delegated by the author.) Endnotes: [1] Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. [2]In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. ~ Wikipedia [Emphasis added] “...the primal rights [natural rights] pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently [prior] to their recognition by positive law.” ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 1044 Note: “primal rights” are first rights, and an human being's first rights are his natural rights, because they are inherent, i.e. “implanted by nature” at the time of his creation.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    Pete and Adam (Ademo on FB) are making a serious and needed point. They've had much "questioning" from people who either (1) are of an older generation that did not suffer the kind of government monster and its impact on the economy and one's job prospects (including the taint of the war on drug freedom) and (2) younger people who don't realize that the "conventional" methods are no longer working because a high percentage of the American public has no conscience or is simply numb from the government machine. These two are heroic. Get the word out. I plan to write more on this in the future, but I'm under the gun on a project now. Please encourage the other large freedom websites to mention them. I notice the dearth in far too many of them!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    "Perhaps he isn't. Perhaps he's a furriner. Perhaps he's a terrorist. Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them." I meant these to be the thoughts crawling through the brains of the captors. Rights are what they grant citizens, and if he isn't a citizen, then he has no rights. Government logic. And this government, while dangerous even to its citizens, is essentially merciless to non-citizens. And for the record, I will label him brave because he is certainly not naive. He knows exactly what he has stepped into. One of these actions will eventually be a spark that ignites the unpeaceful times, and that is good. And bad. And inevitable.
  • Guest's picture
    COUNTERTHESPIANAGE.COM (not verified) 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    As a former Xtian, I actually took time to read the manual (RTFM) and see the questions that were preposterous in their possible answers. Anyone accepting Xtianity at face value, is no different from anyone accepting that a FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE is money... (Vox included) Genius only goes so far. Thanks Jim, for the article!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    G'day tzo, You asked, “Why did he do it? Is it a strategy? Has he considered the risk/reward? Or is he simply doing what he feels he needs to do?” Perhaps ”THIS” will answer your questions. I'm not certain whether Pete was, in this instance, standing up for “what is right”, or not, my friend, but I do like to see young people [my nativity was reportedly in the Winter of '48] peacefully challenging the status quo, looking for chinks in Goliath's “legal armor”. And, for your information, a man can “identify” himself without identifying himself as a person[1], i.e. a consenting member of your, or any other, man-made fictitious political community. I have already written to these young people about that very thing, giving them a general overview of how to go about it, since your government, in recent years, has begun charging individuals with “FAILURE TO IDENTIFY”. You wrote: “Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them.” What on Earth prompted you to pull that rabbit out of the hat? Do you have evidence that Pete is not willing to claim his natural rights? My “faith” in your government following any set of fundamental rules is based on my own personal experience as an individual secessionist over the last eleven years, but, as I have written elsewhere on this alternative news site, I have no delusions that this will continue forever. However, when those desiring dominion over their fellow man no longer “allow” a peaceful, lawful remedy for individuals who do not wish to be dominated by them, it will mark the beginning of a very unpeaceful one. Yes, my friend, the “animating contest for freedom”, actually doing something besides just talking about it, can be “Dangerous stuff”, just ask the ”56 signers of the American Declaration of Independence”. Endnotes: [1] Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 2136 “This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.” “A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” ~ American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910 [Emphasis added]
  • Guest's picture
    COUNTERTHESPIANAGE.COM (not verified) 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Government Will Die
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thank you for this perspective. It truly is a failing proposition to attempt to overpower them. The only way to win is to embarrass the hell out of them.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    I respect anyone who stands up for what is right, as has Pete. Why did he do it? Is it a strategy? Has he considered the risk/reward? Or is he simply doing what he feels he needs to do? I worry for his safety, because I do not share the faith that you have in the system following any set of rules. A video on this website cites a case of another individual who refused to identify himself and was held for almost 60 days. Perhaps the judge will follow the "law," or perhaps not. And now that the entire world is a battlefield in the war on terrorism, officially, what might the police state make of an individual who refuses to identify himself as being one of the "good guy" citizens? Perhaps he isn't. Perhaps he's a furriner. Perhaps he's a terrorist. Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them. Dangerous stuff.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago
    Free Pete Eyre!
    Web link strike
    Pay attention, you two members of the STATE who gave this story a one-star rating. While you two are probably hacking at the branches, or more likely doing nothing at all, these young people are testing their cage, and they found a crack. "Afterward, when Burke [the man in the black dress] had finally entered the courtroom, he called the LEGAL NAME I despise, and appreciate silence regarding, so I informed him that he could call me slave, which he called nonsense. ... During my trial, I was declared...guilty for refusal to process, but with time served, there was no further statist retribution for peaceful actions." "he could call me" is not the same as giving a them a name, and "time served" is their cover-up for what actually took place in that COURT, so, hopefully, the other "monkeys", watching or reading, don't figure it out. "Pete, as he’s not identifying, probably won’t receive mail." That is correct, he won't, in fact, he won't be able to get any "benefits" until he gives that so-called COURT a "LEGAL NAME", and he's being held in solitary confinement if that man wearing the black dress knows what he's doing. Do you two "one-voters" know why Pete must acknowledge himself as a "LEGAL PERSON" before that so-called JUDGE can proceed? And, further, I predict that if Pete does not acknowledge himself as a "LEGAL PERSON" he will be released sometime during his 3rd day of incarceration, probably with the same "time served" excuse. We need to encourage these young freedom fighters. I give them a big TEN-STAR RATING for actually doing something.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 5 weeks ago
    Government Will Die
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Things must look different from rural Vermont; People in Michigan want lots more government than they have already.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 5 weeks ago Page Guest
    Rita's post above was right on the money. The main goal of trade unions is to extort a privileged position for their members by toadying to the violent actions of government. They will sell out the entirety of peaceful society to obtain their advantages. They hate the judgment of the free marketplace as much as any corporate welfare hound seeking privileges backed by the guns of government. They try to pose as the "voice of the worker," but that is merely a Machiavellian trick. Instead, they oppose the peaceful and voluntary acts of people who willingly trade with one other. They substitute an economic hold-up job by licking the backside of the government. Then their union members extort artificially high prices from all other consumers. The idiocy of unionism can be shown if you simply ask yourself what would happen if everyone hired the criminals in government to give them an advantage enforced at gunpoint. No, unions are essentially seeking monopoly price control at artificially high rates. But if the tables were turned, they would oppose what they themselves do to the rest of us. For example, since they are "selling labor" at an artificially high price, what would they say if landlords ganged up and began to "sell leases" at an artificially rigged high price backed by government guns? The union stoolies would cry "cartel," and go into fits of drooling rage. Yet too many people buy their load of nonsense and accept the lower standard of living that unions impose. Companies that are afflicted with unions, such as US car companies, follow the union example and then bribe governments to "protect" their industries by imposing tariffs -- which passes on the "love" (of unearned money) to the hapless consumer. This enables the company to charge higher prices than overseas competitors to keep the pockets of the union members stuffed with unearned wealth while impoverishing all other consumers. Consequently, the unionized companies have a co-dependent relationship as a kind of Siamese-twin parasite on the body of consumers at large. They are the enemies of consumers everywhere, but they know that as long as other people don't get wise to their trick, they will be able to enjoy an artificially high status by trampling on the heads of all others for as long as their trick goes undetected by the people who are bombarded by propaganda from their pals in government indoctrination centers (the unionized public schools). Unions are just another way for people to toady up to GovCo entities for special privileges -- turning the rest of us into second-class citizen slaves.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago
    Life Without Rights
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "...one of the most revealing things about the lawyers’ trade is the unanimous inability or unwillingness, or both, on the part of the lawyers to explain their brand of professional pig Latin to men who are not lawyers." ~ Woe Unto You Lawyers by Fred Rodell, Professor of Law, Yale University (Written in 1939) Thank you, yet again, Counter Thespianage!
  • Guest's picture
    Cristian Gherasim (not verified) 4 years 5 weeks ago Page Guest
    well, the truth is in the details: the unions didn't say no to the governments but to any reform of an already bloated bureaucratic ssytem. and, regarding tunisia, i think that you've mistaken trade unions for civil society. it's the civil society than made a difference, and i honestly can't image how in a country where a bloody coup is need in order to have political change, trade unions could be more than simply state agencies, let alone act independently of political command
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Two things, interconnected, have happened: 1) A larger percentage of individuals classified as "young voters" are better informed and see the futility of protests: "Our time would be better spent protesting foxes to quit eating chickens..." The advent of the "Ron Paul" movement and it's ancillary groups is an example. These are the people who still see "government" as providing a socially useful purpose if "we" can just elect a higher class of shysters. 2) More and more (present writer included) look at "protests" to employees of state (of wars or anything else) as only serving to augment legitimacy to the empire. The leopard cannot change its spots. Justice ain't. Samarami