Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 3 days ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    “If the Coal Age promised anything thrilling to the kind of mind which thrives on managing the behavior of others, that promise would best be realized by placing control of everything important—food, clothing, shelter, recreation, the tools of war—in relatively few hands, creating a new race of benevolent, godlike managers, not for their own good but the good of all. Plato had called such benevolent despots "guardians."” ~ Excerpted from The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 3 days ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Does a child have a "right" to life, liberty and property"? The answer to part one of that three-part question, does a child have a "right" to life, is found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1324, where it says a right is, “an interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use, or enjoy it”; that “property”, in this case, being the child's life. There are some that have, (irrationally in my opinion), put forth the idea that a father and/or mother should not be able to tell their child how (s)he can "use, or enjoy" their life, liberty and property. I believe that this is utter nonsense and here is the reasoning behind that belief. Liberty and responsibility go hand-in-hand. For as long as a mother and/or father are responsible for the maintenance of a child's life, (food, water and shelter), and, to some degree, responsible for the child's actions, this child's “just and legal claim to...use, or enjoy” his life, liberty and property can, according to the Law of Nature, be controlled by those who are responsible for him. Some of you may also see this as a metaphorical explanation as to why the government can lawfully control your “just and legal claim to...use, or enjoy” your life, liberty and property.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    English must be this author's second or third language; this was painful to read. But that aside, why is it that virtually all of these advocates of secession fail to take this act to its lowest, (and most moral), common denominator, individual secession? Is it because they are afraid to act alone that these so-called secessionists adopt the modus operandi of statists, which is that of dragging along with them, kicking and screaming, people not desirous of their goal? And, why are the freedom loving individuals, who espouse, live and promote "individual secession", ostracized[1] by those most clamorously claiming to be "secessionists", "individualists", "anarchists", "voluntaryists", and "libertarians"? “To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.” ~ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi [1] Quick definitions from Macmillan (ostracize) verb ▸to stop accepting someone as a member of a group and refuse to talk or listen to them
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    In a word, EXCELLENT!
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 5 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    People who say that the drug war is "unwinnable," or that prohibition has "failed" are misssing the point. Neither prohibition nor its spinoff war was ever meant to reduce drug use. Prohibition is, and always has been, a tool of oppression, and the so-called "war on drugs" is nothing but a vehicle to further the careers of lawmakers and law enforcers by destroying the lives of the people they're elected to serve and sworn to protect. The reason to end prohibition is not that it has failed. The reason to end it is that it has succeeded, beyond anyone's wildest dreams. And every day, with every act of police violence against unarmed civilians, with every preventable overdose death, every new case of needle-borne disease and every dollar enriching the drug cartels, the drug warriors win.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 5 days ago Page Bob Wallace
    Excellent article Bob. I loved this very insightful paragraph: "These people are also ignoring, if they ever understood, the Commandment that reads, "Do not use God's name for vain causes." It's usually mistranslated as, "Do not use God's name in vain." It's got nothing to do with saying bad words if you hit your thumb with a hammer; it has everything to do with people claiming God gave the thumbs up for their tribe to rub out another." The "God is on our side" blather from supposed Christians has always rubbed me the wrong way on so many levels. This and the "shall not have false idols" Commandment are consistantly not only broken, but turned upside down by sanctimonious cretins.
  • undeadvictim's picture
    undeadvictim 4 years 6 days ago Page tzo
    "Accreditation is a means of protecting the student from evil fly-by-night higher education predators that may try to separate the unwary consumer from his money in exchange for an inferior or nonexistent education product." If you've spent any time in college courses then you know this completely false. My fellow students and I spent most of our time in college bemoaning the ridiculousness of our classes, the seeming stupidity of our professors, and especially the incomprehensible $300 textbooks. And this was an accredited institution. Accreditation FAIL and quite miserably at that. If they were supposed to be protecting us from "substandard" education by charlatans, then they missed the mark completely. The state school across town was even worse. The degree is the bullshit tolerance test, but for the day to day employers want hands on, on the job experience. Great article!
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 6 days ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Malcolm X said it a long time ago: "I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those doing the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don't think it will be base on the color of the skin."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 6 days ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "Do not give consent..." ~ Norm Kent Great advice, Norm! I do not consent to be a member of your body politic! Body politic or corporate. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E.2d 413, 414 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 175 [Emphasis added] If you do not want to be "governed by certain laws", withdraw from membership in the group, "dissolve the political bands which have connected [you] with [the body politic] and...assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle [you]". I do not consent to be a member of your body politic!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 1 week ago
    Laughing Terrorists
    Page Paul Hein
    I wonder if the TSA screeners ever ponder the fact that if a suicide bomber gets caught in their net, that he will no doubt set it off right there next to them. Actual TSA job description: Find suicide bombers and get them to blow you up instead of an airplane.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 1 week ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    You know how to tell if a drug warrior is lying? His lips are moving. His majesty the czar says there's no more drug war, but, at least in my world view, when wars end soldiers put down their weapons and prisoners are released. As long as drugwar soldiers (who, oddly enough, call themselves "peace officers") are roaming the streets, armed to the teeth and trolling for victims; as long as my friends, my kids' friends and my friends' kids live in cages, I will assume that the war continues unabated.
  • oregonmagoo's picture
    oregonmagoo 4 years 1 week ago
    Laughing Terrorists
    Page Paul Hein
    Excellent article. The TSA (thousands standing around) has no imagination. There have been no new set of checks for passengers. As the article points out, TSA only checks for methods that have been previously used. Despite the fact that there have been NO threats originating from the domestic side, everyone flying locally continues to be treated as a terriorist. Not to mention that terrorists who are ON the no fly list manage to still board planes and that 3-10 year olds who happen to share terrorist names are barred from flying despite the obvious. The REAL reason all this crap is still going on is that the government is incapable of protecting it's citizens so instead, it treats everyone the same - all flyers are terrorists. STOP FLYING!
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 1 week ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    For what it's worth, Michael Moore just earned a place on my list of personal heroes.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 1 week ago
    Laughing Terrorists
    Page Paul Hein
    Great piece. What you failed to mention is that the reason that people armed with box cutters were able to take over those planes is that for decades, the public, airline employees and passengers alike, were conditioned BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT to give in to the demands of would-be highjackers. (That's what they tell women to do when faced with an armed rapist, too.)
  • Guest's picture
    vivian (not verified) 4 years 1 week ago Web link Derek Henson
    If the Social Security bill could have passed the House, Social Security individuals could have received one $250 check in addition to their regular benefits. Because Social Security won't have a cost-of-living boost, or COLA, in 2011, lawmakers wanted to throw seniors, veterans as well as the handicapped a $250 bone. The GOP prevailed in killing the bill on the grounds that the nation could not afford adding another $14 billion to the deficit.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire As with virtually every other word in the English language, those who wish to LORD it over their fellow man, i.e. wish to play God, have clouded the succinct and simple meaning of the word “right”, when used as a noun. The question of “Who has rights?” is easily answered when we use the correct definition. That definition can be found in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, under RIGHT, n. at positions 5, 6, and 7; and it uses only two words: “Just claim”. Now watch what happens when we apply the correct definition. All living beings have a natural “right”, that is to say, a “just claim”, to their life, liberty and property. This is what makes it “right” [adjective], i.e. “just”, for them to defend these things. These “rights” [just claims] can only “rightfully”, i.e. “lawfully”, be lost by forfeiture. Forfeiture is “the losing of some right, privilege, estate, honor, office or effects, by an offense, crime, breach of condition or other act”; in other words, only by trespassing upon someone else's rights [just claims]. Trespass is defined, in law, as a “violation of another's rights”. But, make no mistake about it, though natural rights are in-alien-able, (except through forfeiture), they most certainly can be trespassed upon, i.e. violated. The men and women of your government prove that “rights” can be trespassed upon every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every week, of every year. Some men prove that “rights” can be trespassed upon when they kill an animal that is not trespassing against them, i.e. one that is not trying to kill them, steal their food, or destroy their property. The “rights” of trees and flowers and vegetables are trespassed upon by nearly all men. Oh, you think that is silly? Is there any reader who can honestly tell me that a tree, or flower, or a vegetable, or a new born baby, or individuals who are mentally deficient or suffering from dementia don't have a “just claim” to their own life, liberty and property, simply because they are unable to defend these “rights”, or are evidently unable to understand these “rights”? Think long and hard, dear reader, before answering that question, because your answer will tell everyone volumes about you.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 1 week ago Page Guest
    "Indeed, it’s safe to say that the only truly bipartisan belief in politics today is that the less Americans know, the better." I can not argue with that statement.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 1 week ago Page Guest
    Does Governmental (X) Make Us Safer? No.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 1 week ago Page Paul Bonneau
    There are over half a million prisoners of war in the US doing time for victinless drug crimes. That's not counting those convicted of other crimes whose paroles or probations were revoked for drug use or sentences aggravated for prior drug felonies. That's not counting the children of drug raids, guilty only of being present, condemned to spend their youth in foster homes (where they may or may not be housed with teenaged sex offenders), turned out and forgotten at 18; no one keeps track of how these children, "protected" by the state from drug-using parents, spend their adulthoods. If you're an American, and you're not deeply ashamed of this country's travesty of justice system, you're not paying attention.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    According to the Nevada DMV "DRIVER’S LICENSE or IDENTIFICATION CARD APPLICATION" an SSN IS required. "Information in the box MUST be completed prior to visiting a DMV representative." [No emphasis added] http://www.dmvnv.com/pdfforms/dmv002.pdf I stand corrected, (if you "have never been assigned a Social Security Number"); found this near the bottom... Affidavits and Signatures Must Be Witnessed by an Authorized DMV Representative! Initial _______ AFFIDAVIT – NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER: I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that I have never been assigned a Social Security Number under the provisions of the Social Security Act of the United States. Just above this... DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: The Privacy Act as passed by the United States Congress authorized the use of your Social Security Number for the purpose of verifying your identification. This number must be given and will be used in the administration of driver’s license and motor vehicle registration laws as required by NRS 483.290.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    To the best of my knowledge all insurance companies are corporations, and all corporations are “created by or under the authority of a state”. Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 340 It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. The state creates these corporate/legal entities and they are, therefore, subject to “state laws”, also called "civil law"[1]. Civil law applies only to state creations, and these are called “persons”, in general, and “artificial persons”, in particular. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Calvin (from Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910), page 577 Insurance “corporations” are “artificial persons”, hence they can only have communion, i.e. partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction[2], with other “artificial persons”. To clarify this, in order for a human being to get benefits from an “artificial person”, in this case an insurance “corporation”, that human being must stand surety for an “artificial person” created by, you guessed it, the state. This is why the government can require the “corporation” you work for to require numbers on its “employees” (artificial persons), and their, what is it you called your children (human beings), Renee, ah, yes, your “dependents” (artificial persons). Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by *human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 *Notice that these “artificial persons” are created and devised by HUMAN LAWS. Question, what other kind of laws are there? For the answer to that question see the legal definition for "civil law" in the endnotes. ;-) Anyway, the state numbers all of it's “chattel”, i.e. all of the “artificial persons” it creates, and therefore has dominion over, just as the agents of the state recommend that you put your number on all of your “chattel”. Quick definitions from Macmillan (chattel) noun ▸ something that you own chattel early 13c., chatel "property, goods," from O.Fr. chatel "chattels, goods, wealth, possessions, property; profit; cattle," from L.L. capitale "property" (see cattle, which is the O.N.Fr. form of the same word). Etymology Online CATTLE, n. 1. Beasts...in general, serving for tillage, or other labor... Hence it would appear that the word properly signifies possessions, goods. ...3. In reproach, human beings are called cattle.* ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language *Now, we can better understand why citizens of states are, in reproach, called “sheeple”. The state is not required to provide anything for any human being it doesn't have "dominion"[3] over. So, how did the government gain "dominion" over so many human beings? Read it for yourself. Citizen. ..."Citizens" are members of a political community who...have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of the government..." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 [Emphasis added] They "have...submitted themselves to the dominion of the government..." Hopefully, now you can understand the state requirement for a social security number, your “badge of servitude”, in order to receive benefits and privileges (entitlements) from the corporations it has created. Endnotes: [1] Civil law. That body of law which every particular nation, commonwealth, or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called "municipal" law, to distinguish it from the "law of nature". ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 246 [2] Dr. James Strong's Greek Dictionary [3] Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486 [Emphasis added] ______________________________________________________________________________________ "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    "Are there other insurance companies that will cover them w/o SSNs?" Here's the short answer. In my opinion, no, not if the "Federal Government has a new regulation that require employers to have on record SSNs for everyone enrolled in a group health care plan - including dependents". As I read your question again, I'm wondering if you were referring to getting insurance on your own, apart from your employer. Unfortunately, the answer will still be "no", in my opinion. If you would like to know why, let me know, but be forewarned you aren't going to like the answer. But, maybe someone else here will have a happier answer for you.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You shouldn't sugar-coat it, J Neil Schulman. LOL Well said. I particularly like this one: "Significant and damaging incursions onto someone else's property is almost always regarded as actionable under any conceivable libertarian legal system, minarchist or agorist." Under the "legal system" you describe MONSANTO would be sued by those whose crops are tainted by its genetically modified organisms, and not the other way around. "In the well-known case of Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, pollen from a neighbor's GE canola fields and seeds that blew off trucks on their way to a processing plant ended up contaminating his fields with Monsanto's genetics. The trial court ruled that no matter how the GE plants got there, Schmeiser had infringed on Monsanto's legal rights when he harvested and sold his crop. After a six-year legal battle, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that while Schmeiser had technically infringed on Monsanto's patent, he did not have to pay any penalties. Schmeiser, who spoke at last year's World Social Forum in India, says it cost 400,000 dollars to defend himself. "Monsanto should [be] held legally responsible for the contamination," he said." A "North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley, explains the situation this way: "Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell." Monsanto ”Seed Police” Scrutinize Farmers
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    Where are all the "happy answers"?
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 4 years 1 week ago
    Rainbow Five
    Page Jim Davies
    Can you imagine the response if FDR had heard of a reliable plan to kill Hitler in 1943? He would have told Hitler. As long as Hitler was in charge no surrender would be allowed and that was exactly what FDR wanted. And Truman was no better. He could have saved tens of thousands of lives by telling the army to stand down on the Pacific island campaign and not dropping the bomb. As if a country with no navy or air force was a threat he would not allow their surrender and extended the war needlessly. Even our air force was against the army's Pacific island plan. Generals just love to play "war" with real lives. The lesson learned: Government creates the worst possible destructive scenarios. So why do most people consider a society without it "unthinkable"? Can it be their critical ability has been short-circuited on this topic?
  • J Neil Schulman's picture
    J Neil Schulman 4 years 1 week ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I was referred here by a link in a discussion on my Facebook wall. The reason libertarians are consistently hostile to discussions on environmentalism and the size of human population is that the very premises necessary to be assumed by both are anti-libertarian from the ground up. Libertarians don't acknowledge the concept of "an" environment." The function of private property rights is to create multiple environments, a sphere of control within each of our own property boundaries. Significant and damaging incursions onto someone else's property is almost always regarded as actionable under any conceivable libertarian legal system, minarchist or agorist. The very concept of "population" is collectivist and anathema to the libertarian who regards all human rights as held by individuals. Reproductive rights are a subset of individual rights, and others have no more right to limit someone else's fecundity than they do to demand someone else produce children for them as workers or cannon fodder. The libertarian premise bypasses the entire question of whether there is such a thing as a "right" number of people, just as much as libertarians reject the concept that there is such a thing as too much or too little property, or that the "globe" is the wrong temperature. Then you add in that most of "environmentalism" and "population science" is based on crackpot junk science, and the hostility rises to my statement that these are nothing but evil and nefarious schemes to create a holocaust of the human species itself -- one which makes the Nazis desire merely to kill off people they regarded as racially inferior seem charming by comparison. I've come up with a term for these sort: not Greens, but Gangrenes.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Guest
    Definitely "the majority". If we substituted "United States" wherever this author had "France" and/or "Germany", for the most part he would have still been correct. And, one of us, (don't know if it's he or I), doesn't understand what globalization is. "Political - some use "globalization" to mean the creation of a world government..." (Ibid.)
  • Renee's picture
    Renee 4 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    Yes, my 4 children also do not have SSNs. One currently drives (Nevada does not require SSNs for your license) and all of them are attending a local community college or state university. But now I have a real problem..... The Federal Government has a new regulation that require employers to have on record SSNs for everyone enrolled in a group health care plan - including dependents. The note states that 'This is part of the government's effort to determine the Medicare status of all plan participants." This act is the Medicare/Medicaid Coverage Act Extension of 2007 - or something to that affect. Get this - there are 3 exceptions to this regulation - if your dependent is not a US citizen, if your dependent is still in the adoption process, and I don't remember the third. My dependent could have coverage w/o an SSN IF they are not a US citizen!!!! Unbelievable! Now - I can go into the Medicare system and ascertain the Medicare status of my dependents - and the system states that they are not eligible for Medicare coverage - but this is not adequate information for my company. If they do not have SSNs in the system by 12/31, they will be dropped. What can I do? Are there other insurance companies that will cover them w/o SSNs?
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 4 years 1 week ago Page Guest
    Excellent essay, but don't give Americans too much credit. You may be surprised that some of the ideas you mention are shared by a great many Americans. (probably the majority)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    "Pinpointing the most prevailingly pernicious among them should make it far easier for the supporters of freedom to counter their symptoms and fight their root causes successfully." ~ Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski Yup, now that we have pinpointed Ten Reasons Why Statism Is (Nearly) Universally Accepted it should "make it far easier" to counter [stop or reduce the negative effects of] the "statized education system", the "antics of..celebrities", "Stockholm Syndrome" ["the phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to his or her captor"], "self-deception", "simple ignorance", "fear", "laziness", "envy", "lust for power", "habituation" ["being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming"], and "resignation". How, you might ask? "We must become the change we want to see[1]," because, "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say[2]." [1] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi [2] Ralph Waldo Emerson
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 1 week ago
    Acid Test
    Page Jim Davies
    Thus far, Wiki-Leaks has done nothing put egg on the face of the US State Department. We are not talking about "plans for super weapons" or "strategic locations of troops". The results of this SHOULD be lifting any doubt of whether or not these state officials are 'our employees' as we have been taught to believe by government schools, or that they are 'our rulers' as they are revealing themselves to be. Hence, the myth of the "We the People" perfect government has been debunked. As long as we (unfortunately) have a government, I am going to make any effort I am able to as to hold them to account. If they are living off of OUR tax money, then we ARE the employer. However, we are living in a THUG-ocracy. Give them your money and they protect you with guns. If you don't give us the money, we will use said guns to get it from you. Is any of this that difficult to figure out?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 1 week ago
    Acid Test
    Page Jim Davies
    A good way to pick your associates, would be to discover their take on Wikileaks. It gets entirely beyond the usual left-right paradigm, to the basic question: do you believe in the supremacy of the state? The everyday politician appears to be nothing but a ravenous beast. Anyone who had delusions about Glen Beck is now disabused.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 4 years 1 week ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    It is worth considering how a number of these items (at least #1, 2, 7, and 8) are closely tied in to the human tendency toward establishing social hierarchies. This tendency is innate and cannot be undone. In the context of voluntary undertakings, it can serve useful purposes, to be sure, but it can also undermine us, as these foundations of statism remind us. As long as we look up to politicians, (corrupted) intellectuals, and (corrupted) religious authorities, we will be prone to statism.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 4 years 1 week ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    Concise, well-written, downright lovely. This article ought to be disseminated widely.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 1 week ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    Excellent article.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 1 week ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    When I got done reading this, I felt as if I were reading Cliff Notes on Dante's "The Divine Comedy" and the parallels between statism and sin are striking, even if they are obvious. Regardless of whether or not one is a person of faith, most would agree that sin defines those things that we as civil individuals should either avoid or not do all together in order to prevent our self destruction. Based on some of these arguments, one might draw the conclusion that statism=sin. Leo Tolstoy would most likely have approved of your column.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    "When coercion becomes integrated and accepted in society, and there are advantages to participating in the coercion, and the coercion can be in some way justified (however thinly and cheaply), then unethical behavior increases to the detriment of human society." ~ tzo Being a voting member of a group whose modus operandi[1] is coercion is to be a "participating"[2] accomplice to the coercion. Being a non-voting member of a group whose modus operandi is coercion is to be a participatory[3] accomplice to the coercion. Which is why Henry said: “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated[4] with it." Definitions: [1] "...a method of procedure; especially : a distinct pattern or method of operation..." [2] participating - taking part in an activity; "an active member of the [country] club"; "he was politically active" [3] participatory ▸ adjective: affording the opportunity for individual participation ("Participatory democracy") [4] ASSO'CIATED, pp. United in company or in interest; joined
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 4 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Tzo, Excellent work. I have always wanted to learn just how this scam of accreditation works. Of course the government funding grants also do wonders for ensuring that "quality" research takes place at our higher places of learning. My question is in regard to one of your comments: "Government seems to be an engine of irreversible and increasing coercion, guaranteeing an eventual breakdown of society and/or government. People starve, kill each other in civil wars, kill furriners in international wars, get imprisoned, and all kinds of things that a society is supposed to prevent." Now this strikes me as a very accurate depiction of U.S. history. Yet I also know that there have been some recent examples of blessed retrenchment in state power. There was a recent article at the Reason blog on such instances, for Canada and New Zealand. So it seems as though it is sometimes possible to gain at least a temporary reprieve from the destruction. I have not seen any evidence that the U.S. state is capable of such a thing, at least not at this point in time. One commenter at the Hit and Run blog attributed this to the structure of our system; it is simply impossible to make these types of changes with all of the players involved, versus a parliamentary system. What do you think? Mind you, I would much rather see a market anarchy develop, but I would prefer to see retrenchment compared to the escalation in tyranny that we see each day.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 2 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    There was this great comment after Greenwald's article: "It's pretty bad that I've gone from majoring in print journalism in the US, to viewing any major US news source as a last resort, after international media, independent sites, and even blog posts, when I want full and accurate information on world events."
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 2 weeks ago Page tzo
    If an individual truly desires death, then he will kill himself. As long as he continues to live, however, he is choosing life. By doing so, he must respect the fact that there is an ethical standard for human interaction that must be respected if the human race is to successfully continue on. As much as a person lives (chooses life) and yet supports unethical behavior, is the extent to which he is a defective human being (and we all are to some extent). "Humans respond to incentives" is a great summary of human behavior. When coercion becomes integrated and accepted in society, and there are advantages to participating in the coercion, and the coercion can be in some way justified (however thinly and cheaply), then unethical behavior increases to the detriment of human society. Government seems to be an engine of irreversible and increasing coercion, guaranteeing an eventual breakdown of society and/or government. People starve, kill each other in civil wars, kill furriners in international wars, get imprisoned, and all kinds of things that a society is supposed to prevent. Society is built in order for individuals to be able to acquire what they could not acquire acting alone, a positive intention. When large portions of society suffer, then it is a fail, even if it continues to limp along. And the link posted by Suverans2 also addresses your question, I believe.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 weeks ago Page tzo
    http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity Written by...you guessed it...tzo.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 2 weeks ago Page tzo
    Thank you for pointing out how entrenched our favored system of coercion has become. All of these rules and regulations, of course, have also served to artificially increase the price of education. That could be another article entirely. However, I would like to see an article explaining the following sentence: "They learn that ethics is a subjective field of study." Are ethics objective, or subject to whether an individual desires life or death?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 weeks ago Page tzo
    Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr Well done, tzo, well done.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    That quote was from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, written by B. Traven, the pen name of a German novelist, whose real name, nationality, date and place of birth and details of biography are all subject to dispute. How appropriate is that? Those who are not numbered do not "legally" exist...they are considered "nonpersons" or "unpersons"[1], that is to say, they are not "persons". Homo vocabulum est naturate; persona juris civilis – Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. ~ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), “Maxim,” page 2136 PERSON. 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. no. 137. ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 892 [Emphasis added] It's all about "entitlements" and "duties". Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Endnotes [1] Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English – Third College Edition non per-son (nan’ per’ sen) n. UNPERSON; specif. one who is officially ignored by the government un-per-son (un’per’sen) n. a person completely ignored, as if non-existent Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary & Thesaurus Main Entry: non.per.son Pronunciation: 'nän-'p&r-s[^&]n Function: noun Date: circa 1909 : a person who is regarded as nonexistent: as a : UNPERSON b : one having no social or legal status Main Entry: un.per.son Pronunciation: '&n-'p&r-s[^&]n, -"p&r- Function: noun Date: 1949 : an individual who usually for political or ideological reasons is removed completely from recognition or consideration yourDictionary.com non·per·son A person whose existence is systematically ignored or concealed, especially one whose removal from the attention and memory of the public is sought for reasons of ideological or political deviation. un·per·son (un′pʉr′sən) noun a person who is completely ignored, as if he or she does not exist; specif., such a person officially ignored by his or her own government [Emphasis added]
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 4 years 2 weeks ago Page tzo
    Another great article by tzo. Not much I didn't already know but he expresses it so clearly.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    "The Social Security number is issued to American citizens, permanent residents and working residents--it is needed to seek legal employment in the United States or to receive Social Security benefits." [Emphasis added] Notice that it's apparently not "needed" to seek employment, it is only "needed" to seek legal employment. So, what is "legal employment"? Basically, it means employment that is "legally recognized" by THEIR CORPORATE LAW. A person with a social security number is "legally recognized" as what? As a "taxpayer", i.e. "one who is subject to a tax". Have we not seen, elsewhere, that the social security number is a "taxpayer identification number"? http://strike-the-root.com/taxation-is-robbery So, why would a free man, i.e. one who is not a member of that voluntary association, want his employment "legally recognized" by that corporation? Answer: He wouldn't!! The social security number is a charagma, a badge of servitude! "Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact, we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges, you god-damned cabrón and ching' tu madre! Come out from that shit-hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 2 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    It was interesting but somewhat frustrating to me, to listen to this. Interesting because he seems to be trying to separate non-violent struggle from pacifism, frustrating because there were a fair number of straw men in his comments. In fact I don't even like the term "non-violent struggle" because it implies its opposite is "violent struggle", and everybody has a knee-jerk reaction against violence. In fact he was implying its opposite was military action! I prefer non-cooperation, which doesn't rule out defensive action. If a mob is coming to hang me from the nearest tree, my pulling out a gun to stop them (best case) or at least to take a few of them with me before I die (worst case) is neither "non-violent struggle" nor is it "military action". It is defense. It may well be that "non-violent struggle" is more efficient in terms of lives not lost than military action, in the big picture. But the big picture is irrelevant when you, now, are about to be killed. The other problem with this notion is that it discounts the utility of non-cooperation of armed individuals. Just because we are armed, doesn't mean we need to engage in military action. And an armed population may well escape the worst outrages, that a disarmed population would not, because the thugs will be killed off or deterred if they try it. Unfortunately, "non-violent struggle" almost needs the worst outrages to happen, in order to mobilize the great masses of people. People who individually resist with arms don't need the masses to be awakened. Finally he was a bit too enamored with democracy. As he put it, in Czechoslovakia the people came out of the jails and became the government. But there was still a government! They were just kinder, gentler thugs.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 weeks ago
    Individuals, Secede!
    Page Will Groves
    Some of you here may recognize what I have highlighted. "What is most deceptive in trying to fix this characteristic conformity is the introduction of an apparently libertarian note of free choice into the narrative equation. Modern characters are encouraged to self-start and to proceed on what appears to be an independent course. But upon closer inspection, that course is always toward a centrally prescribed social goal, never toward personal solutions to life’s dilemmas. Freedom of choice in this formulation arises from the feeling that you have freedom, not from its actual possession. Thus social planners get the best of both worlds: a large measure of control without any kicking at the traces." Sound familiar?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 weeks ago
    Individuals, Secede!
    Page Will Groves
    Gleaned this unsavory morsel from one of Will's recommended "places to start". "The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of the government." Mercein v. People (c.1840 opinion from Connecticut’s Justice Paige) This is from Chapter Six, The Parens Patriae Powers, where John is explaining that "Judicial discretion in custody cases was the first salvo in a barrage of poorly understood court rulings in which American courts made law rather than interpreted it". "Paige further explained "with the coming of civil society the father’s sovereign power passed to the chief or government of the nation." A part of this power was then transferred back to both parents for the convenience of the State. But their guardianship was limited to the legal duty of maintenance and education, while absolute sovereignty remained with the State." In order to "strike the root", the "root" must first be located.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 2 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Sick bastards.