Recent comments

You're right as usual, but I still have a warm spot in my heart for Ron Paul. I see him as a portal through which more people might discover the likes of Spooner, Rothbard, and Tzo.

Standing and applauding! Encore! Encore! I'll have your horse saddled and ready, sir.

I agree with you Rita. But I fully expect someone to post a Mises/Rothbard/Randanista explanation of how it's the moral thing to do to let the poor starve.

Seems that Noah Webster wasn't the only one who knows that a "right" is a "just claim". From "Word Magic Translation Software" we find these: just claim Noun Plural: just claims 1. derecho, reclamación justa; Synonyms: right, individual right... ___________________________________________________________________________________ de·re·cho Masculine - Noun - Singular Plural: derechos Feminine: derecha Plural and Feminine: derechas 1. right, individual right, just claim... __________________________________________________________________________________ re·cla·ma·ción jus·ta Feminine - Noun - Singular Plural: reclamaciones justas 1. just claim; Synonyms: derecho

The prologue to The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible by Ken Schoolland My philosophy is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it. A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn't do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves. At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without willful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles. You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf. You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself. Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow. Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical. Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history. Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act - especially when it is easier to do nothing.

People have to start telling the bureaucrats to take a hike, that's all. It will eventually come down to war, I'm sure. That or slavery; take your pick.

G'day Sam, You're right about that, my friend, I never, ever, voluntarily enter the white man's "court" system, because they do not "recognize" my law, just as I do not "recognize" their law. "I understand", means, to their so-called JUDGES, "I consent". And, I guaran-fricken-tee you, you don't "understand" their law, even if you think you do. (Not meaning you, personally, Sam.) Those who think that they do are in for a very rude awakening, sooner or later. Quick definitions from Macmillan Dictionary (recognize)▸to accept the authority or status of someone or something

Kudos to Mr. Monson. He concerns himself less in his role as the as prize fighter and more that of the Martial Artist. Peace advocacy and civil disobedience, thank you very much sir. The government is engaging in illegal warfare. An anarchist recognizes no higher authority than their own conscience. Engaging in non-consensual combat violates the warrior’s code. It is nice to see someone who claims to be a fighter showing a little personal courage and self sacrifice and saying and doing something to oppose this Thomas Paine called his pamphlet “Common Sense” because anarchy .is simple. Two things are called to question, “social hierarchy and social injustice”. When Mr. Munson says these killers are not his leaders and that they should stop murdering people, he sounds very much the humanitarian to me. I have grown old as a practitioner and disciple of the Art. The Art as I know it is a path of personal development comprised of a trinity made up of the body, mind and spirit. Part of that training is self-defense, assuming responsibility for protecting the temple that houses your spirit. Rather than spectator sport, the emphasis is on the reality that a man must stomp his own snakes. Mr. Munson has his priorities right. Tournament play can be fun and prizefighting a more honesty way to make a buck than many but that is not where you will find as the song says “the fight of my life”. A man known by the strength of his rhetoric and when Mr. Munson calls for peace he is saying the right thing. He then does something about what he says. He says what he means and he does what he says. Life is simple. Once again thank you very much. I rarely watched MMA but I’ll be checking the schedule and viewing to support Jeff Monson. I’m calling and emailing my friends, family and fellow martial artist asking them to do the same. Fight the good fight. Best regards, Master Ellison

Why would one call this "an incredible (literally) prediction" when the notice from Forex.com is real? This is a credible (literally) situation! The action by Forex.com is based on the Dodd-Frank Act, which is real. According to the reading by Forex.com, individuals cannot trade in the silver and gold OTC market. (This does not prevent them from buying and selling with dealers.) It is the removal of one more freedom.

And, top o' the day to you too, Tony Pivetta, Didn't you mean, "a similar fate awaits me if I adopt his [Irwin Schiff's] line of defense"? Quite frankly, I am familiar with little more than his name and that he was a tax protester, which, obviously, I am not. I think all "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" should pay their dues (income tax). A 14th Amendment citizen is a United States citizen, and a United States citizen is a TAXPAYER with a TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Notice that it does NOT say, All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, [and] are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. So, the question that you need to answer correctly is, Why am I "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?", keeping in mind that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that it is not merely being "born...in the United States" that makes one a "citizen of the United States". That is a very important question to answer because, that same 14th Amendment, in it's so-called Due Process Clause, allows state and local governments to deprive persons[1] of life, liberty, or property (natural rights) with certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. ____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] "Scope and delineation of term [person] is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution affords PROTECTION since this Amendment expressly applies to "person"." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1142 [Emphasis added] Notice that "this Amendment" does not simply apply to "person", but, rather, it "expressly applies to "person"". Expressly. In an express manner; in direct or unmistakable terms; explicitly; definitely; directly. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Hill 336 Mo 17, 76 S.W.2d 685, 689. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 581 Why such strong legal language, inquiring minds should like to know?

I tried to edit and add, "Hope you have a great day", but it triggered the spam filter.

Pretty bad when even an institution like IMF starts sounding the alarms...

Yay! Even Conservatives are signing on. Not much time left for this rotten empire, I think.

You seem to be arguing semantics, Suverans2. I did *not* trade in my natural rights for the State's protection (such as it is), but I find myself in the same position as those who did. If I assert my natural rights too enthusiastically by, say, refusing to pay my taxes, I face the same fate as those who refuse to pay but accept taxes as the price they pay for civilization. The State is no less likely to sic its agents on me for refusal to pay. In fact, it's more likely, insofar as the State lives in perpetual fear of mass resistance movements. Do the State's armed thugs "take away" or merely "trespass" against my natural rights? I'll let the metaphysicians (and semanticists) decide that one. I agree with the metaphysicians that the State has no moral right to behave this way. In other words, the State ought not to inflict or threaten me with violence for pursuing my natural rights to life and property. But inflict and threaten it does, in early 21st century American sensory-sensual space-time.

In discussing inalienable rights, one must take care to differentiate between what *ought to be* and what *is*. When John Adams says we have "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws," he means they *ought not to be* repealed or restrained. *Operationally*, however, they are routinely repealed and restrained. Armed thugs, whether freelance or on government-payroll, *do* take away our "inalienable" rights--to life, liberty, property, free speech, religion, etc.--by threatening or inflicting violence on those of us who try to exercise them. Adams himself signed into law the Alien and Sedition Act, thereby repealing Americans' right to criticize their government in *sensory-sensual space-time*, as Robert Anton Wilson tagged the here-and-now. Americans may well have retained the right in some Platonic realm. The fact remains they risked great bodily injury up to and including death if they presumed to exercise that right under the territorial monopoly of force we call the Adams administration. That's the paradox as I see it. What *is* conflicts with what *ought to be*. We can withdraw our consent to be governed. We can free our minds, recognizing the State for Rothbard's "band of criminals writ large" that it is. The insight in itself is worthwhile. Nevertheless, if you evade its taxes or resist its edicts, the State may well sic its agents on you. You may get away with it. But the threat remains. You risk fine, imprisonment or worse. That's the reality.

What's really pathetic about this article and the comments regarding it is that for decades, these filthy beasts have been gunning down human beings suspected of using and/or selling certain, arbitrarily banned substances, and no one in America seemed to mind at all. No, it takes the killing of DOGS to properly enrage the public. Kill our children, if you must, the the puppy? Oh, my God; not the puppy!

Good day tzo, Curious, what is the "paradox" in the below statement? "Well, what a stupid fecking game. I quit. I am a human being, not a Citizen. I was born to be sovereign upon the face of the Earth, and I do not relinquish this inalienable status (paradox noted) in order to participate in a rigged shell game." I ask this because, according to the natural law, as I understand it, one can consent (express), or appear to consent (implied/tacit), to "relinquish" one's "inalienable status". The reason our natural rights are called "inalienable" is because they cannot, rightfully, be taken by the so-called laws of men. "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams I don't see no stinking "paradox".

Sorens invited me to work on this study since I had helped expand the Free State Project spreadsheet, but I declined because I had other priorities. Also, I had come to the conclusion (though I really like spreadsheet work) that spreadsheets don't come close to giving you the whole picture. It's pretty amusing Sorens lives in the state that placed last in his study.

I grew up in Central New York. They have had a housing bust since the 90s. Big, gorgeous, old, wooden houses going for $35,000. Everybody's leaving. Raise taxes and businesses leave. Businesses leave and people leave with them. People leave empty houses that they're desperate to get rid of. If I were rich, I'd move back to Central New York in a heartbeat. Cheap, big, gorgeous, old, wooden houses. Very sad. Sadder still, everybody still clings to government, which is why they'll get more of the same.

"Serious controversy"? The department is facing a serious controversy? For murdering a man? Welcome to the United Police States of America. Some people call cops "heroes." Some people call them "law enforcement officers." (Oddly enough, they call THEMSELVES "Peace Officers.") But the truth is that they are nothing but greedy, self-serving thugs who have been elevated by the media to the status of gods.

Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.~ Frederic Bastiat Regardless of what the natural man may design, God has instructed all men through His Spirit to "judge all things by His Word." And: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20 We know that man's laws and governments act beyond their humble task; it has little to do with law and much to do with religion--Mammon and Hedonism. What one worships, one imitates, and one's law is that imitation. Given enough time, all systems of man's law self-destructs in a fit of tyranny. God's Law is Truth and Eternal, so when the Truth provokes all of us, and it does, be diligent and remain grounded in the Word of God. All your life you have probably been told what you are allowed to know, and we have all been guided down the primrose path of half-truths which are lies. Maybe you have or have not really considered all things--why we exist; what our purpose is; what is real and what is not? Would you like to know the Truth of these things? It is said, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse." That does not refer to the over 60 million laws of men on the books in America, but it refers to God's Law. Our Heavenly Father, the Creator of all, has written His Law not only in Scripture through His prophets and apostles, but also on every man's heart; that is why you ultimately know what is just, what is right, what is good and what is evil. That is why we are warned that: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Romans 1:18-23 The Truth that He has written on all of our hearts is the inherent gift to man from our Heavenly Father. But, through the spirit of the world, those truths become perverted when one takes his eyes off of God's Truth. So, in all of the issues in your life, you have the choice to be diligent, to believe, to trust, and to walk according to the ways of God, in faith! Or, through the help of many around us who serve the prince of this world, there is the choice to be influenced to turn your back on God through reason and compromise following men and their false images. Throughout history, the spirit of the world has woven an intricate web around the disobedient and ignorant, influencing them by their temporal surroundings and lusts of the flesh to be "recreated" in the image of man. In Matthew 15:3, Jesus warned us of how man's traditions, i.e. denominations, family traditions, etc., nullify the Word of God, "my parents are I grew up a and I'll always be a" Too many will continue to cling feverishly and relentlessly to a tradition rather than obey the Word of God. Our Lord said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14). And: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever." 1 John 2:15-17 As seekers of the Truth, we must be cognizant of how powerfully blinding traditions can be, in that they can rob one of the Truth. In other words, many "Christians" say in their hearts, "Don't confuse me with the Truth because God's Grace is sufficientmy mind is already made upand besides that, God knows my heart" In Truth, what they are admitting: "I don't care what the Word of God says, I know my pastor, teacher, parents, loved ones, peers, media, government, schools, doctors, and lawyers, are all correct in their understanding and beliefs, and they would never lie to me. An a priori law would be the fundamental economic axiom "humans act". An empirical "law" would be the law of gravity. The former is known to be absolutely true, just by considering it. The latter must be proved, and can never be known to be absolutely true.

G'day jd-in-georgia, Yeah, their new MOTTO is a wee bit different.

And for you "game pieces" that believe the artificial entity known as the United States Government "owns" the approximately two trillion, four hundred and twenty-five billion, six hundred million acres of land commonly miscalled "the United States", you would do well to remember Richard Belzar's famous line, "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap".

Thanks! "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." King James usually sez it best. Sam