Recent comments

  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Greg, I agree. Drugs do not cause violence. War, by definiton, does. War, regardless of how noble or just the cause, kills people. This particular war is being waged for the noble and just cause of destroying human life and liberty. The good news is that if you support prohibition, and you want someone to blame for the bloodshed, you need look no further than your own mirror.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    A "good news" update regarding SB 510 Senate Bill 510 -- the Food Safety bill -- is *stalled out*. (Dead in the water, possibly for the entire year...) Yep, it has apparently run afoul of a Constitutional provision that means the law must now be kicked back to the Senate for yet another vote. But there may not be time for another vote. Read this fascinating development here: http://www.naturalnews.com/030588_Food_Safety_bill_blue_slip.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago
    Individuals, Secede!
    Page Will Groves
    "Individuals Secede!!" ..."Liberty in your lifetime is not just possible, it's the ultimate do-it-yourself project." ~ Will Groves
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    These are powerful photos about the war on drugs. In perusing the comments, I see that most people lay the blame on drug dealers, illegal gun dealers, and some corrupt cops instead of condemning a system that attempts to control through force what people are allowed to trade.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Finally, one of their so-called courts does something that actually "protects" the individual. But don't expect it to stand...money talks and everyone else walks. As an example of what money can do just look at SB 510. http://www.naturalnews.com/030587_Senate_Bill_510_Food_Safety.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago
    Taxation Is Robbery
    Web link Mike Powers
    Childlike Empress: He doesn't realize that he's already a part of the Neverending Story. Childlike Empress: He doesn't understand that he's the one who has the power to stop it. He simply can't imagine that one little boy [or girl] could be that important. Childlike Empress: Bastian, why don't you do what you dream, Bastian? Bastian: But I can't ! I have to keep my feet on the ground! Bastian: All right, I'll do it. I'll save you. I will do what I dream!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    What an absolute treasure trove of writings!!! http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html I have yet to find one that I don't agree with. Many thanks, Paul. Karen envisions, "A future where any respect for our government is wholly and completely earned, where the state quivers in fear at the fire in our eyes, and worries that at any moment, and for any reason, our consent will be withdrawn." For me and "my closest [only?] ally", that moment has already arrived; our consent has been withdrawn, Karen.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Those remoras of state at CNN, FOXNews, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR and many Congressmen are all wet in their frantic response to Cablegate, and Wikileaks in general. ~ Excerpted from The Proper Response to WikiLeaks by Karen Kwiatkowski Anyone here curious, (like me), as to why, "Those...remoras...are all wet..." Quick definitions from WordNet (remora) ▸ noun: marine fishes with a flattened elongated body and a sucking disk on the head for attaching to large fish or moving objects How appropriate!! Thanks for posting the link to this insightful, delightful "take on it", Paul. And, to top it all off, this "retired USAF lieutenant colonel" is the absolute picture of innocence...just look at her. lol
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "The only thing that really concerns me is that wars throughout history have been started for very trivial reasons (i.e. name calling.)" I wouldn't worry that much. The real reason wars start, is that it is in the interests of the ruling class to start them. A little name-calling doesn't matter at all in this picture. I liked Karen Kwiatkowski's take on it: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski259.html
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 4 years 26 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    If we accept the gov explanation that "they hate us because we are free", then the aftermath of 911 created a win-win result for gov and the terrorists. The gov has used 911 as an excuse to remove what few freedoms we had left transforming the US into a country the terrorists could admire and the statists could rule. Of course, it would be foolish to accept the gov explanation for most things and 911 is no exception. The terrorists don't hate us, they hate our gov because it engages in criminal activities in their countries. We could create a genuine win-win by eliminating the US gov.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I think that the president is upset because WikiLeaks delivered on a campaign promise that he had no real intention of keeping: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/ I am still surprised that so many Americans would be upset with this "leak" of information, which is primarily consistent of embassy communications. There is nothing that I have read thus far nor has been fingered as a specific threat to national security. A lot of what has been released has me thinking of something my mother taught me: If you don't have anything nice to say about someone, don't say it. I guess these ambassadors did not receive the same maternal memo. The only thing that really concerns me is that wars throughout history have been started for very trivial reasons (i.e. name calling.) As soon as people realize that the sins of our government usually get paid for in the blood of the citizenry, the sooner things can change. My message to the leaders of the world would be this: Yep, it is in the open. American leaders are just as paranoid and judgmental as you believe them to be. Of course, they are most likely correct in these assessments because you too are world leaders and, therefore, are of the same self-righteous and paranoid ilk. My advice to all of you is to quit. Go out and get real jobs. Run a company or be a ditch digger. Those are both real and respectable jobs. The days of a handful of people waiting and wondering when to send their loyal subjects off to kill each other for the so-called greater good is over. Our world is a mess. Nothing new there. Quit and return the taxes you have stolen from the citizens. We can all find it within ourselves to cleanup this mess by being proactive about it. There is nothing proactive about government... only reactive.
  • thebigho111's picture
    thebigho111 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Great stuff!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Julian Assange is my hero.
  • GreenClover's picture
    GreenClover 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    The leaks really tell very little except for a few interesting things that many already knew about. The bigger concern is the ineptness of our government not being able to control classified documents. Well, with that said does anyone now have trust in ObamaCare keeping our medical records secured? Not me!!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "To be clear - such disclosures put at risk our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government." Great, WikiLeaks shouldn't be a problem to an "...open government".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago
    Taxation Is Robbery
    Web link Mike Powers
    Now, there are some "libertarians" and "anarchists" who are working at, (or simply waiting for), their STATE, (or a STATE), to secede from the UNITED STATES. Here is the problem with that, as regards "libertarians" and "anarchists", in my opinion. If we use, for each STATE, the national average, the number of eligible voters who actually vote reportedly fluctuates around 54%. So, even if the entire 54% voted to secede, that means that the 46% who don't vote, for whatever reason, are being "coerced" into seceding by the 54% who do vote. For a "libertarian" or "anarchist" to participate in this, is to violate his own principles, in my opinion, because he would be participating in the very same "coercion" he claims to abhor when his democratic government uses it. For this reason, the only moral secession, for self-proclaimed "libertarians" and "anarchists", in my opinion, is Individual Secession, because it is the only act of secession in which the individual truly decides, ONLY FOR HIMSELF, to VOLUNTARILY withdraw his membership from the political group.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago
    Taxation Is Robbery
    Web link Mike Powers
    Someone here has asked, "What about property taxes?" Here is my answer. "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire Property tax. An ad valorem tax, usually levied by a city or county government, on the value of real or personal property that the TAXPAYER owns on a specified date. The tax is generally expressed as a uniform rate per thousand of valuation. See Ad valorem tax ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1218 [Emphasis added] Ad valorem tax. According to value. A tax imposed on the value of property... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 51 [Emphasis added] The first thing that should jump off the page at us about “property tax” is: “that the TAXPAYER owns”. There's that word, “taxpayer”, again, and what is a “taxpayer”, LEGALLY SPEAKING? In LEGALESE, (which is what we are concerned with here), it is, One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14). ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1462 [Emphasis added] Did you catch that, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax? A “taxpayer”, (legally speaking), is NOT simply someone who pays a tax! Subject to. Liable, subordinate, subservient, inferior, obedient to, governed or affected by; provided that; provided; answerable for. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 302 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1145 [Emphasis added] Liable. Bound or obliged in law or equity; responsible; chargeable; answerable; compellable to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution. Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corp., 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 298 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 915 [Emphasis added] It is a person who is "bound or obliged in law or equity", and thus "compellable to make satisfaction". And, who is "bound or obliged in law or equity", and thus "compellable to make satisfaction"? Answer: A "taxpayer", someone who VOLUNTARILY uses one of the "Taxpayer Identification Numbers". The word “bound” instantly brings to my mind... “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to DISSOLVE THE POLITICAL BANDS which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." [Emphasis added] And this is precisely what Individual Secessionists do, they DISSOLVE THE POLITICAL BANDS which have connected them with another [the political body] and they, as a natural consequence of this dissolution, return to their original state, where they once again assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them!
  • Guest's picture
    McElchap (not verified) 4 years 26 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    I can agree with Bylund's assessment of the American imperial fascist empire threatening all of humanity. And certainly, international bankers conspire to build their global hegemony in both the East and West, as well the Third World, playing off people, institutions, movements, and nations as mere pawns in their arrogant "Grand Chess Game". However.... It takes two to tango, and China plays the North Korean pawn and the USA plays the South Korean Pawn. Yes, Kim Jong Il's dictatorship rules an emaciated starving people isolated from within and without as an international pariah. A desperate animal, a wounded animal, is the most dangerous, and even a bunny rabbit will come out kicking and spitting when it is cornered. I think as Kim nears the end of his life, he is desperate to establish a "glorious leader" legacy like his father. Yes, North Korean people are some of the most abused, brainwashed, and impoverished people on the planet. Cannibalism is not unknown and public executions are gruesomely intended to inflict fear. Kim has invested almost every bit of North Korea's wealth in amassing a huge military force. He is also just crazy enough to use it. Hopefully, the Chinese will use the chokechain on their naughty little dog. Remember, war creates profits for international bankers and their billionaire buddies, while eliminating so many of us pesky "little people" and creating "urban renewal" plans all of taxpayers can pay for. War... what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 26 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    "the word "taxation" is only associated with government...no non-governmental organization calls its fees, or dues, or whatever word they may choose to describe how it funds itself, taxes..." ~ tzo TAXA'TION, n. [L. taxatio.] A taxing; the act of laying a tax, or of imposing taxes on the subjects of a state by government, or on the members of a corporation or company by the proper authority. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Notwithstanding, it would be very difficult, perhaps, to find a "corporation or company" today that actually calls its dues, "taxes", other than so-called governments, which, of course, are, in truth, corporations[1]. ″Despite all the flags fluttering on First Avenue there are no nations any more, only companies; International companies.″ ~ Kuman-Kuman (Character in the movie The Interpreter) Regardless of what we call them, taxes are dues, because they are an "enforced contribution[2]" only upon "taxpayers", i.e. members of the corporation. Non-members cannot lawfully be "forced" to pay taxes or dues. This is why the question was asked here: http://strike-the-root.com/taxation-is-robbery "...if you don't wish to be a "taxpayer", why on Earth would you VOLUNTARILY use any of these [Taxpayer Identification Numbers] and identify yourself as a "taxpayer"?" Of course we all know the answer to that question; it is because those numbers are what identify those persons who are eligible for "member-only" benefits and privileges. Endnotes: [1] CORPORATION, n. A body politic... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [2] "Essential characteristics of a tax are that it is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution..." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1457 [Emphasis added]
  • SensibleSolutions's picture
    SensibleSolutions 4 years 26 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Good article. I do hope people develop independent cooperative networks to help wean themselves from the government/corporate baby-bottle. Under your solution to "prevent a police state with martial law", I would add ending the foreign wars / military bases and prohibition. These are the roots of "terrorism", which is the excuse for the martial law to begin with. Granted, you were speaking of a "food riot" scenario but, with the budget-savings from those two items alone, covering food-stamps while a better infrastructure is developed shouldn't be a problem.
  • SensibleSolutions's picture
    SensibleSolutions 4 years 26 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Case in point: Part of the Clinton Plan for North Korean nuclear appeasement was to build two "lightwater" nuclear reactors for them. Donald Rumsfeld was on the board of ABB at the time - the company which received the contract to build them. Although the two plants were never built, it was never made clear why US taxpayers needed to pay to build these plants, to: 1.) Help prop up a dictator (or any foreign power). 2.) Fund ABB's dividend-checks and director’s salaries. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3487
  • Guest's picture
    LSDT (not verified) 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaA-5_IjkeE&feature=related Please forgive the link, Just needed to crowbar this in somehow, but ultimately, entwined with this very issue.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Good comment, Paul. I would make a couple of corrections, however. You wrote, "The really important secession should be that of individuals, escaping from their own mental cages." I totally agree that "the really important secession should be that of individuals", and although I concur that individuals must first "[escape] their own mental cages", "escaping [one's] own mental cage" is not, in any way, shape, or form, secession. Secession is "the act of withdrawing from membership in a group".[1] Also, you state, "There will be de-facto secession, but it will come from the bottom up." De facto implies illegality or unlawfulness. A de facto action is one that "must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. ... In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional."[2] [Emphasis added] There is nothing wrongful, illegitimate, unjust, or unconstitutional about individual secession, at least I have never found anything even remotely suggesting that there is, therefore individual secession is, very much, (IMO), a de jure action. [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1351 [2] Ibid., page 416
  • Guest's picture
    RanDomino (not verified) 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    As an Anarchist, your impression of Anarchists is completely wrong, although I'll admit there are a lot of wannabe Che Guevaras whose heads are up their asses. What you expressed in the last paragraphs here is completely compatible with Anarchist philosophy, and could just as easily have been written by an Anarchist with maybe a few cosmetic differences. 19th century-style Revolutionary anarchism has largely been replaced by a strategy of gradual transition and individual liberation rather than class-based action. In fact in my opinion it's gone overboard and become so individualist that it's disorganized and therefore invisible; there are many, many more anarchists than there appear to be, but they have largely decided to stay hidden.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 27 weeks ago
    Taxation Is Robbery
    Web link Mike Powers
    The reason, IN MY OPINION, that only one individual has answered [privately] the above two requests is because most people do not want to openly admit that they are voluntary bondsman, and that they voluntarily remain in that status because they are unwilling to slide their chairs back and leave the ruler's table. Proverbs 23:1 When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: 2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. 3 Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. And, please know that I'm not casting any blame when I state this, because I can certainly understand why most do not want give up the ruler's "dainties"; we have strayed so far from the path of independence, from being "virtually-self-sufficient", that it is very tough indeed to get back to that state, which, of course, is what those-who-wish-to-rule-us wanted in the first place, to make everyone hopelessly dependent upon them. The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp, (author anonymous), http://tinyurl.com/37nuvfm is a fun story to demonstrate this trap to folks. Perhaps someone could even get it posted on STR, if anyone here deems it worthy enough.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    So you are nothing more than a Government-Loving, Statist, Individual-Monarchist? I guess I am as well. :>
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    "Government would have us believe that it is already a voluntary organization (you are free to love it or leave it), and so even though we know it currently is not, we believe that it could be." ~ tzo I beg to differ, my friend, GOVERNMENT, (i.e. those men and women who wish to rule over us), would have us remain ignorant of the fact that it IS a "voluntary organization", that we have the natural right to leave IT, at any time, for any reason. We have always had The Right to Ignore the State http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm "Submission to Authority is always and everywhere voluntary" ~ Rose Wilder Lane But that is not to say that the bullies who wish to rule over us are going to make it easy for us, just like the bully in the schoolyard isn't going to make it easy for anyone to withhold their lunch money, which they have "just claim" to. The last thing that bully wants to see happen is just one little boy or girl say, "F**k you, I'm not giving you my lunch money any more!", because he knows others might just join him or her, and if and when enough do, EVERYONE will see that "the king really doesn't have any clothes", they will ALL see the bully for what he really is. Their "love it or leave it" slogan is a "rope a dope" gesture, it only refers to expatriation, i.e. leaving the land of ones nativity, and is, IMO, meant to distract us from secession, i.e. The Right to Ignore the State. Those who can, should; and those who can't (usually for health reasons) should give support to those who do.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 27 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    TICKET AGENT: Can I help you, sir? FAKE ME: Yes, I'd like to get a round-trip ticket to San Diego. TICKET AGENT: When would you like to leave and return? FAKE ME: I would like to leave tomorrow morning and return on Sunday. TICKET AGENT: Business class or coach? FAKE ME: Coach, please. TICKET AGENT: Okay... That'll be $616. How would you like to pay? FAKE ME: VISA. TICKET AGENT: Okay, thanks. FAKE ME: One more thing. TICKET AGENT: Yes? FAKE ME: I'd like to be treated like a common criminal, to be manhandled and asked intrusive questions ad nauseam. TICKET AGENT: Really? FAKE ME: Yes, it helps me to feel safe. If they treat us all like dirt, I know they're doing their jobs. TICKET AGENT: Oh, okay. Well, I'm sure we can provide that. FAKE ME: Can they look really bored when they're groping my nuts? TICKET AGENT: I'll ask them to throw that in for you. FAKE ME: Thanks. I'm scared to death of terrorists. Having my nuts groped in a bored manner makes me at least FEEL safe, even though I'm probably not; even though it will probably be my fellow passengers who help me out in a pinch, like the underpants and shoe bombers. Stewart Baker says, “Instead of making this Wednesday National Opt-Out Day in which a bunch of self-appointed guardians of liberty slow down the line for everyone by asking for pat-downs, maybe what we need is a day when everyone who goes through the line says, ‘Thanks for what you do.’” As a self-appointed guardian of liberty, Mr. Baker, and in the spirit of the season, I'd like to ask you to shove it. I haven't flown since before 9/11, and I'm not sure I ever will again. Maybe I should become a pilot and buy my own little plane? How much for a two-seater?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    It's so easy for us to get ourselves caught up in semantics and definition games. Here's John Hasnas: "...112 Anarchism/Minarchism Defining Terms and Limitations I am presenting an argument for anarchy in the true sense of the term; that is, a society without government, not a society without governance. There is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no mechanism for bringing order to human existence is oxymoronic; it is not “society” at all. (from "The Obviousness of Anarchy") http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf Now, tzo, I define myself as a "sovereign state" (there's that S-word we all seem to hate). That means I am responsible for my own governance (and my own government I suppose you could say). Since I believe as you believe, I can openly state to you that it is against the law for me to attempt to take something that rightfully belongs to you or to somebody else. Theft, murder, violence -- these are all against the law. For me. I suspect you will agree those acts are also against the law for you, since you write many excellent essays here (as opposed to, say Huffington Post) -- but I can't speak for you. It also means I am responsible for my own freedom. Nobody can grant me freedom. But I am free. I live in "occupied territory" (the state), but all free men and women that I know of live in states. Some free people reside in penitentiaries, since the US has now become a "prison state". Irwin Schiff comes to mind. Be free. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Paul: "...The really important secession should be that of individuals, escaping from their own mental cages. They should stop believing in government, or imagining that government protects them. There will be de-facto secession, but it will come from the bottom up. The state governments might eventually get around to it, but they will be following the crowd, not leading it. Nope, writing a letter to your state legiscritter will not do any good..." ********************************************************* Absolutely. Good comment! I often get the feeling many "anarchists" and "libertarians" who post and/or write essays are implying that "we" ("anarchists"???) must somehow figure out a way to "bring about" anarchy, which further implies "we" must be accessory to imposing our beliefs upon everyone within our "community" ("state"???). Not. I am sovereign -- a "sovereign state", if you will. I have not attempted to impose my statehood upon family members or neighbors or friends. I'm freely and openly declaring my sovereignty to you right now, but you need not take any action to "join my community" if you feel my style of anarchy is not compatible with your lifestyle. I believe the fact you're here reading STR is a likely sign that you and I can be good neighbors even if you adamantly disagree that I can truly be a sovereign state. And when push comes to shove we can trade amicably without aggressive acts toward each other. Anarchistic and libertarian communities will truly come into being from the bottom up. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Here is a Facebook response from a person who uses "Voluntaryist" as his middle name that highlights the confusion that comes out of fuzzy language: "...I have no problem paying taxes for roads because I use them. Although I don't think I should have to pay for registration for my car or a license. We are a free country and it was never intended to make you pay to be able to "legaly" travel somewhere. Taxes should be voluntary if you ask me. If I want to contribute to the high paying salaries of the government it should be up to me to pay it if I want. Dear God I hope Ron Paul runs for president." What does this guy really believe? Hard to tell. I honestly think he does not know himself.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    "Americans had better not allow the DC Leviathan federal government to inflict martial law on us." Well, Americans don't have any say in the matter! It's coming whether you want it or not. It's a slow-motion train wreck, something you can only stand aside and watch. I'm not particularly fearful of martial law. For one thing, you said it yourself, "A martial law situation in America now will be one in which it will be difficult to distinguish the 'officials' from the criminals." Martial law will be difficult for us, but it will also be difficult for the ruling class. Some irate "peons" may well decide to retaliate against the ruling class, and nobody will care when one or another of them gets cut down. "Good riddance!" The violence goes both ways; not just from them to us. I also don't worry about the military too much. You write as if you'd never been in it. For every sadist in the military, there are 10 men and women who know the government has screwed them. Even the Soviet Union couldn't keep all its military units in line at the end; how much less will the American ruling class? And think of all the ex-military who can handle a rifle just fine... Secession is a good thing, but don't put too much hope in state governments. They are slimebags only moderately less objectionable than the federal slimebags. The really important secession should be that of individuals, escaping from their own mental cages. They should stop believing in government, or imagining that government protects them. There will be de-facto secession, but it will come from the bottom up. The state governments might eventually get around to it, but they will be following the crowd, not leading it. Nope, writing a letter to your state legiscritter will not do any good. The real difficulty, post-crash, will not be martial law, but keeping economic life going. The way to do that is form associations with the more worthy of your neighbors, business associates and relatives.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    A neighborhood can set up an organization they want to call the neighborhood's "government," in which various aspects of the neighborhood are "governed," such as trash collection, policing etc, with the funding of such an organization being voluntary, and with any resident in the neighborhood having the ability to opt out. At least in theory. I prefer to define the "State" as "compulsory government," because, regardless of what the dictionary says, a "government" isn't necessarily compulsory, but a State is usually an organization that assumes control over a territory, regardless of any individual's right of self-ownership and regardless of private property within that territory.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Scott: [If by “government” the minarchist means a (small) state, then it is criminal and unlibertarian. If by “government” they mean merely the non-state institutions of law and justice in a free society, then we are not opposed to it because such institutions are not inherently aggressive. In other words, when minarchists talk about government, the question is not how we classify it or what the best words are for state, government, etc., semantically: but rather: the question is: does the “government” that “minarchists” (?) favor engage in institutionalized aggression, or not? If not, it’s not a state, and it’s not unlibertarian. If it does, it’s merely a type of state.] The above paragraph shows that Mr. Kinsella allows the concept of "voluntary government" to exist, with the "state" being the word that designates whether a system is voluntary or not. Look up any definition of a state, and you will see the word government. Now follow the logic: Wherever there is a state, there is a government. If a government can be voluntary, then a state based on such a government would be be voluntary. If one allows for voluntary government, then one allows for voluntary states, and all meaning is lost in the words being used. Then throw the word "anarchy" in the garbage, because if you allow voluntary governments, then anarchy can have no meaning whatsoever. Mr. Kinsella hates the state. He should also hate government, because it is synonymous with the state in that it always denotes aggression. If a person believes in 100% voluntary organization and association, then he needs to acknowledge that the government and the state are unethical, and that he is in fact an anarchist. Say the words out loud and mean them because he understands exactly where he stands. Stratispho: I agree with you 100%, but I have had many discussions where it has been difficult to determine just what a person truly believes because of the vagueness that has become inherent in many of the pertinent terms. To discuss this subject accurately, we need objective terms every bit as much as a physicist needs them. Anarchy, capitalism, democracy, government, and ethics do not carry the same precision as do the words atoms, quarks, momentum, and gravity. "Language is emergent, and word meanings change depending upon how people use the words and how they are defined in the dictionary" is a common excuse for corrupting language. It may seem like I am quibbling over semantics, but I think it is very important that specific words actually correspond to specific concepts, or else effective communication becomes, like little Ralphie says, unpossible.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Agree. If it's voluntary, it is not government. It's the market. One could talk of "associations" handling functions that are routinely usurped by the state, but it would be too confusing and misleading to talk about a voluntary government. A dog is not a cat, and you can't make it into one.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 27 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    "Are you saying that in your opinion that it is impossible to create a "government" without "flutter", a "government" based on the laws of nature, with the natural law (of man) as its foundation, a "government" whose sole duty is to protect the natural rights of its voluntary members?" I think it is possible to create such a thing, but that it is very unlikely it will remain so limited for long. The longer it exists, the more money will flow toward it, and the more you will see mission creep and empire-building. That is what humans in power do, even if their power base is initially voluntary. In the long run, the protectors will become the tramplers. "Protection implies submission." "Are you certain that people slaughtering each other over trifles to the benefit of a few is not "natural law"? It may well be a natural law. However humans are not as limited as other organisms. We have culture, technology, science, communication. In effect, we can modify natural law. That is why tyranny today does not look like the tyranny of the Assyrians; the parasite class has had to evolve to stay ahead of technology and culture. It's not a given that they will always stay ahead; in fact the trend appears to be in our direction. If everyone would just get on the Internet and buy a battle rifle, they'd be done. :-)
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Stephan Kinsella had this great post regarding the State, and compulsory vs. voluntary government. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-l...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Good one Michael! I agree, looks like the utility of mass gatherings is at an end. Although, if we got a hundred thousand people with battle rifles on the mall, as some have suggested, it might make an impression. :-) I do like Jon Stewart, though.
  • Stratispho's picture
    Stratispho 4 years 27 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Tzo, as someone that proclaims to be a voluntaryist I don't want any government, and I don't know any anarchists or voluntaryists that do want a "voluntary government". The term is contradictory in concept as there is no such thing as a voluntary government. Voluntaryists are looking to create a society free of force without a group of people having a monopoly on violence. Not sure how that would work by having a government.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 27 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    For decades, the vast majority of Americans stood by silence while the rest of us, including our children, were subjected to violent intrusion of our most private places in the name of "protecting" the country from drugs. The only difference between TSA groping and drugwar groping is that drugwar groping takes place at gunpoint in the privacy of our homes. Oh, and the fact that, unlike the drugs in my urine, the gun in your pocket can actually do another person harm. Here's my proposition: Let the "protectors" put their money where their hands are. If I submit to your "Rape-i-Scan," or agree to let you watch me urinate, or allow your drug dog to get anywhere near my child, and the plane blows up or my child becomes a mule for my drug dealer anyway, I want compensation. I want accountability from the people whose wages I pay. The "war on terror," like the so-called "war on drugs," is a forever war. And We, the People, are the enemy.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 27 weeks ago
    'Moon'
    Web link Robert Kaercher
    I like this one too.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    "so, to avoid paying taxes?" No. "you are owned by your country..." No, YOU are owned by your "country", i.e. the government, because YOU have apparently "submitted yourself to the dominion of the government", that is to say, YOU are evidently a "citizen", i.e. "subject"[1], which makes YOU one of their voluntary servants; I choose not to be owned by anyone other than myself. "you can't be a slave to yourself." That is correct, coreystreet, "you can't be a slave to yourself." "the only way you have a right to abstain from taxpaying is if you SOMEHOW avoid utilizing any of the services that our country provides." Fascinating! "Services", what an interesting choice of words. Do you work for the government, corystreet, I mean, in addition to being one of its "subjects". The legal definition of services is, "Things purchased by consumers that do not have physical characteristics (e.g., services of doctors, lawyers, dentists, repair personnel)."[2] That aside, your statement leads me to think that you believe that YOUR government is your "provider". Which of those "services" do you think YOUR "government", an artificial entity, "provides" for you? The only "service" that a de jure (rightful) government can lawfully provide is "protection" of its members individual natural rights, their right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you say YOUR government is doing protecting those rights for you, coreystreet? And, just so you know, the only benefits and privileges one must "SOMEHOW avoid" are "member-only" benefits/privileges, and that is easier than you may have imagined, coreystreet. An individual is not "entitled" to any of these "member-only" benefits/privileges without the master's chattel number, just like the rancher may choose not to feed cattle that don't belong to him, that don't have his number in their ear, the state isn't required to "feed" persons that don't belong to it. "if you are just protesting where our tax dollars are being spent then i suppose that is a different situation." You "suppose that is a different situation"? Please, do explain what you mean by that, different from what, coreystreet? One last question for you, "do you believe that every man has the natural right of voluntary association?" “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 ____________________________________________________________ [1] Subject. ...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1425 [2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1369
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 4 years 27 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    I wonder if you could help me with something. You wrote: "When societies organize themselves with governments in charge, they inevitably fail. This is an observable, universal, repeatable and predictive phenomenon" When has a "society" ever failed-and define "fail"? I can't think of one. Governments might be said to "fail", but where, with the possible exception of Somalia, has a government ever actually ceased to exist? It certainly did not in the former USSR. India still has a powerful government, despite shift from british rule, as does Pakistan. They change names, they shift form, they might de-centralize-but they keep going, someone will always take the reigns and reinstate the shattered bureaucracy. Are you certain that people slaughtering each other over trifles to the benefit of a few is not "natural law"? Apes maintain rather brutal hierarchies, after all. I've always thought "natural" ought to be a thing to get away from-it is after all in many ways truly red in tooth and claw....rather like government.
  • Guest's picture
    coreystreet (not verified) 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    so, to avoid paying taxes? you are owned by your country, which you are a part of. you can't be a slave to yourself. the only way you have a right to abstain from taxpaying is if you SOMEHOW avoid utilizing any of the services that our country provides. if you are just protesting where our tax dollars are being spent then i suppose that is a different situation.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    In the United States it is one of the five "Taxpayer Identification Numbers" (http://tinyurl.com/3c6yb), it is a chattel number, the number of a "bondsman". BONDS'MAN, n. [bond and man.] A slave. 1. A surety; one who is bound, or who gives security, for another. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    To say nothing of the real holocaust, via firebombing, FDR perpetrated on German civilians--and on Eastern Europeans seeking refuge in Germany from the Soviets. Then FDR's successor perpetrated firebombing and atomic holocaust on the Japanese. The Good War: never before or since have the forces for Good been so clearly aligned against the forces of Evil.
  • Guest's picture
    coreystreet (not verified) 4 years 27 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    shocker the fact that we still punish law breakers financially blows my mind. consequences with disproportionate impacts, such as fines, are where all the judicial problems begin.
  • Guest's picture
    coreystreet (not verified) 4 years 27 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    i'm missing what the benefits of refusing a social security number would be...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 27 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Article was scant on details. Is there any ventilation? It could get real hot in there or you could suffocate. Privacy issues too, if you're at a camp ground.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 27 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    I shall try harder in the future. My apologies.