Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 11 hours ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Oh, goody, yet another article about red light cameras. http://strike-the-root.com/search/node/red%20light%20cameras Bet they'd really be scratchin' their heads tryin' to decide who to send a ticket to if their cameras took a picture of a tag that read across the top, STATE OF NATURE, through the middle UNINCORPORATED and across the bottom PERMANENT. ;) Create Your Own http://tinyurl.com/33rdk8n ...but if you do, you'd better BE what you say you are, 'cause it's guaranteed you'll be tested.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 4 years 1 day ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Good point made about the competing differences among anarchists. I sometimes see discussions between anarchists mostly in the economic realm about which theory or method of economics is the perfect way and the emotions become so testy that I wonder if we did realize our "no state" dream if these same people would then turn around and try and enforce their model on everyone else. No ruler means no ruler and at the end of the day what is your economic theory may just not be mine. We thus should be left in a true free market to prove what we believe and let that decide the best course. BTW: I don't believe for all individuals that there is a single pure course that will work for all people and in all cases. Let the Freed market decide! I also greatly appreciate the author pointing out the need to focus our time and efforts on building or redesigning ourselves so that we can begin loosening the state in our own lives and then in concert, mutual interest or cooperation with other like-minded folk, we start actually building that micro stateless world that like single cell life begins to divide and grow into a new self sustaining life form. I commend the author on a well written, very thoughtful and totally refreshing piece on anarchism and where we go forward. the article left me thinking we have found the enemy and the enemy is us! No wonder the state has no reason to fear!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 2 days ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    What a joke. The encryption algorithms are well known, and are not that difficult (I once attended a class that had a public key encryption program as a class project). They can lean on the developers all they want; the black market will provide communication without back doors. The government is as stupid about this as they are about the economy.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 4 years 2 days ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    This link is broken. I don't know how to create a hyper-text link in the comment but if you cut and paste the text below, it should take you to a cahed version of the article. - Greg http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-ATCV0IJrkYJ:www.cl...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    "No one can behave rationally when he is constantly surrounded by threats." ~ tzo [I agree, true threats do make rational behavior very difficult...if not nigh onto impossible, which is why it legally negates voluntary consent.] A threat has been defined to be any menace of such a nature and extent as to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates, and to take away from his acts that free, voluntary action which alone constitutes consent. Abbot. [Benjamin Vaughan Abbott. Dictionary of Terms and Phrases used in American or English Jurisprudence, 1879] ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's 1st c.1891], page 1171
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 2 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    Thank you for your reply, tzo.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 2 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Change. Yeah, right. The sad part is that there are supporters of the current president who actually still believe that he is going to deliver us from evil. Every election has put somebody in office, regardless of political affiliation, who has eroded liberty a little more. Unless people figure out that this insanity called voting is the pain in their collective tails, perhaps then they will be able to say 'no more' and bring on some very real change.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    B conflates government with society, a common enough occurrence that it is almost universal. A goes along with the inaccuracy, and I don't think it makes his point any less valid. These is just two guys talkin' here. Whether A has been feedin' at the trough or not does not matter too much. If he decides to not submit to force, he is justified. I think Brian makes good observations in his post above, in that a contract signed under threat of force is not really a contract. Is it legally binding within government gunshot? Oh, yeah. Would it stand up in a natural law court? Nope. Why would someone sign such a document? Well, perhaps he wants a house, but the government has a monopoly on land titles. He has no choice but to sign if he wants a house. Is he ethically bound to honor such a contract? I say no. If I want to buy food, I have to pay sales tax. If I go into a store and pay for just the food and not the tax, I have not done anything unethical. I am declining to give money to the government. I break no agreement with the store owner. I am not taking anything from him, unless you consider that he will incur a real loss because the government is going to extract tax by force whether I pay or not, and so the store owner will, with the same government's help, use force to extract the tax from me. He will screw me because he does not want to be screwed, which is reasonable behavior under the circumstances. If you work and fill out 1040s, you are signing a contract to pay taxes. There is nothing unethical about breaking that invalid contract whenever you want. Lying on your tax form, even after you swear in writing that all information is true to the best of your knowledge, is not unethical. No government interaction is ever binding in any way. They are coercive thugs playing at being honest human beings. None of it is voluntary, even if you "voluntarily" sign on the dotted line. Fark 'em. No one can behave rationally when he is constantly surrounded by threats.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    G'day tzo, I'm afraid, my friend, I must once again take exception to way you've used the word "society". It is not "society" that is taking A's home, it is the "government". "Society" can't agree to anything, it is the particular individual men and women of a society who agree to this, because they want the "carrot at the end of the stick", the benefits and privileges of membership, i.e. "citizenship". In your little play, you never informed us, has A voluntarily "submitted himself to the dominion of the government", has he consented to be a "citizen" so he can partake of the slop in the trough? "When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat." And, if indeed there was a clause in that paperwork that obliged the buyer to pay a PROPERTY TAX, why on earth did A enter into that agreement; in your play A never had "a man standing behind him with a gun pressed to his spine", he was free to withhold his consent.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    As I recall it, the example in my mind was rather simple. The seller had (when he bought the house he was selling) contracted to pay prop-tax, or thought he had. Now he was selling it, he wanted contractual assurance that the buyer would relieve him of that obligation. In other words, yes: he feared the possibility that if I didn't pay prop-taxes, the Town gunmen might come after him, unless he had a contract that said I would pay them in his stead. One can understand the seller's concern. If the anarchist buyer is unwilling to make a promise to pay prop-taxes, such deals might well collapse. Then all AnCaps would have to live in tents. So again, is there legal wording that would assure the seller without committing the buyer?
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    Great article TZO, and while I find such sample conversations useful, I'm discouraged that I've yet to see one like that in real life. Most "B"s start throwing up chaff (red herrings) much earlier in the conversation as though they realize, even subconsciously, where this is all going. Perhaps it's a failure of me as an "A", but I also wonder how many suitable "B"s really exist. Most appear to be too dishonest, or too dumbed down to respond in the manner you present.
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    That's a good point Jim. But who is the contract between? The buyer and the seller or the buyer and the lawyer? Obviously, if the lawyer is the agent of the seller, then his action would count as the seller's will (to the degree he is operating within the power contractually assigned him). So when the seller instructs the lawyer, "draw up a contract that will comply with the law" (or rather, the lawyer will probably promise to do this when hired for the task), the "comply with the law" part is ultimately a concession to the threat of force (the law) by the seller. Thus, is it not an invalid part of the contract? Have we not established in law and reason that agreements made under coercion are not enforceable agreements? For what is a contract but an agreement between the parties transferring title? If the seller is acting under coercion, is it really his will that the buyer is agreeing to? Imagine the buyer and seller standing in the same room, but the seller has a man standing behind him with a gun pressed to the his spine. The gun man commands the seller "in the contract, require the buyer to pay me money". When the buyer signs the contract, he now has an agreement with the seller (not the gunman) to comply with its conditions in exchange for the house. Yet the part about paying the gunman was an addendum that was not truly the seller's will (otherwise, no threat of force was needed). So if the buyer refuses the gunman payoff, has he defrauded the seller? If the gunman kept the seller hostage, then I would think yes. For the seller parted with the house and included the gunman payoff as a measure to relieve himself of the threat of force. If the gunman stays, and the buyer refuses the payoff, then the threat of force against the seller may be realized when the gunman fails to receive his payoff. So to the seller, the buyer has not fulfilled the contract (i.e., attained the house by fraud) because it was the seller's expectation in trade that the threat be satisfied. This illustration is the case with sales taxes, as I understand them. If you pay only the listed price of an item, then refuse to pay the sales tax and maintain possession of the item, it is the store owner who will be penalized and thus you have stolen from him (as relieving the threats of the tax collector was part of the expectation of the seller in concluding the sale). But with property taxes, it is as though the gunman walks over to the buyer when the contract is signed and persists to stick his gun into the buyer's back, leaving the seller free of that specific threat. It is now the buyer who will be shot if he refuses the payoff and thus, the seller is no longer in danger of the consequences of this refusal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but refusing to pay your property taxes does not result in the previous owner being fined. I'm not a morning person, so I've probably been a bit sloppy in my thinking in this post, but just brainstorming a bit. It would seem to me that even if a home sale included a promise to pay property taxes, there is no ethical obligation to pay them since their inclusion as a condition of sale was made under threat of force. This is different than a condo arrangement where sales are dependent on promise to conduct future sales with the perpetual condition of abiding by condo association rules. It was a legitimate property right being exercised by the initial condo developer, it is not a legitimate property right being exercised by the state.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 4 years 3 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Also my deep appreciation to Anthony Gregory for making sure DiLorenzo's piece made it to Strike the Root. You da man Anthony!
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 4 years 3 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Absolutely agree Paul. The beauty of Dr. DiLorenzo's piece is IMO the timing with Avatar. So many young people especially connected to this movie as it is this generation's Star Warz IMO. The conflict between free native peoples going up against a ruthless corp. entity with a covert (subliminal) connection to the State will natural ring a bell with anyone who loved the Navi story of Avatar who also happens to read this piece by DiLorenzo. If I also understand correctly, it is Dr. DiLorenzo's intent to make this subject matter into a book that hopefully will come out ASAP. In the movie JFK, the Mr. X character told the Garrison character that in an executive order lay the Vietnam war. I think DiLorenzo will clearly show that in the war to relocate and/or exterminate the American Native Indian, lay all wars, global conflicts, millions dead and the utter despotism and tyranny this planet has been assaulted with. What we Americans did to the native peoples, our Europeans cousins did to the native peoples of Africa and Asia. It's sadly a very old story that we failed to correct but Dr. DiLorenzo appears to be taking a wrecking ball to that system and I for one plan on helping him swing it!
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 4 years 3 days ago
    Pot Freedom Works
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    Rita, Several months ago I read an article on this matter and it reported that since Portugal legalized drugs, drug useage in that country has gone down along with a crash in HIV infections from dirty needles. This turns "the Matrix construct" of the anti-drug read anti-liberty state on it's head IMO! Libertarians, anti-staters and anti-drug war folks should be screaming this from the mountain top yet I've heard very little although in fairness maybe I'm in the wrong mountains too. Here's a Time magazine article on the matter from over a year ago. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 3 days ago
    Pot Freedom Works
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    Portugal doesn't prosecute for prostitution, either. Their rape and homicide rates are quite low. Now, if we could just get all the hysterical soccer moms in this country who don't want to see or hear about drugs and prostitutes to shut the f*ck up...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    It occurs to me the current trend to buy silver and gold (people forsaking their fiat currencies for the real stuff) is also a significant anarchic trend. Also leaderless, also a slap in the face of the state, and also includes a significant fraction of the population.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 3 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    This is a very important article. A great way to see through the propaganda you have been fed all your life!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 3 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    That ought to get him some votes, in the upcoming election!
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 3 days ago
    Pot Freedom Works
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    It should be noted that ALL drugs, not just marijuana, are now legal in Portugal, which, by the way, has never billed itself as the "Land of the Free."
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    As B gets up to leave, the camera pans over to Rod Serling and we find out B has just entered "The Twilight Zone." "Enter the world of 'B'. Logic is the enemy and truth is a menace. His allegiance to the state is about to be tested as he enters into The Twilight Zone."
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 3 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    George W. Obama. Any questions?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 3 days ago
    Annoying Guy
    Page tzo
    Another great article, Tzo. I feel sure I've met this guy's brother. One of his answers said "Now you're going to pull out a gun and attack people who are doing their job in conjunction with the agreement you made when you bought the house?" It's a long while since I bought or sold a house but I recall that indeed there was some clause the lawyer had slipped in the contract to the effect that the buyer promises to pay taxes on the property. So "B" might be right. Is there a lawyer reading this who could suggest a clause to offer in substitution, which would relieve the seller of responsibility to pay?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 days ago
    The Census Taker's Gun
    Page B.R. Merrick
    I got a letter like that too. More than one, I think. Not sure what happened to it, but I'm guessing the circular file. Or maybe my wife, ever the practical person, got her hands on it and answered the questions. I do remember telling an old census taker at the door that I don't believe in censuses. He was very polite and left me alone. Just look at it as yet another opportunity to learn, to impress into your being, what your true relationship to the state is. If they keep it up (and you know they will), they will alienate everybody. Seems a bit counterproductive from the state's point of view; but what the hey! I think it is important to "just say no" as much as one has a stomach for. Slow down the gears, make them grind on sand. Oh, and I've about given up on doctors.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 4 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    The rear end is an erogenous zone: "Striking a child on the buttocks in this sensitive age means that the parent actually seizes power over the child’s body and by force gives a message that mixes power, violence and sexuality." http://nospank.net/holm.htm#sasa
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 4 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    Yes, it would be best to slap an asterisk on the statement and note the exceptions to the rule. I'm glad you take strong exception to being considered a government participant. My editor has been sacked. :>
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago Web link Derek Henson
    After the murder of another of its reporters, El Diario, the major paper of Ciudad Juarez, published the following editorial, addressed to the drug lords: “We bring to your attention that we are communicators, not mind-readers. Therefore, as workers in information, we want you to explain to us what you want of us, what you want us to publish or stop publishing, what we must do for our security. These days, you are the de facto authority in the city, because the legally instituted authorities have been able to do nothing to keep our co-workers from continuing to fall, although we have repeatedly asked this of you. Consequently, facing this undeniable fact, we direct ourselves to you, because the last thing we want is that you shoot to death another of our colleagues.” This is astonishing. It is worse. A blue whale singing Aida would be merely astonishing, but here we have the editors of the major newspaper of a substantial city stating candidly, with perfect clarity, that the narcotraficantes, not the national government, exercise sovereignty over the city. The federal government understandably denounced the editorial. No capital wants to be told that it does not control its terriroty. But this is exactly what the paper said. ~ Fred Reed http://www.fredoneverything.net/Juarez.shtml
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    "little erogenous zones"???
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    "No critical thinking your way down to an objective set of basic rules that can be universally applied to everyone." ~ tzo And the "objective set of basic rules that can be universally applied to everyone" is called the natural law (of man). ...“natural law,” or jus naturale...denotes "a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independent of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution". ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 2ND c. 1910), pg. 804 "During the coming crisis we must keep our eyes fixed on the simple ancient truths of natural rights and natural law. We must discriminate between those who use force lawfully and those who use force unlawfully, and must act accordingly, we must discriminate between those who deal honorably and those who deal dishonorably, and must act accordingly. If we do that then we will have a functioning civil society." ~ James A. Donald
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 5 days ago
    To Edit
    Page Jim Davies
    Did you ever notice that 'Citizen Kane' is considered one of the greatest movies of all time yet gets only a fraction of the television broadcast time that say, "Smokey and the Bandit" receives? Most media moguls, not unlike the fictitious Charles Foster Kane, would hate for us to be onto their myopic little secret. Bathed in narcissism, recall the conversation between Charles and Emily Kane when she tries to argue, "...people will think-", only to be interrupted by Charles, "-what I tell them to think." Even more so than the utterance of 'Rosebud', that quote has been melted into my brain.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 5 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    Yes, the authoritarian, coercive government model is mostly an extension of the authoritarian, coercive family model. Rule-following as the most important aspect of good behavior. Behavior based on avoiding punishment. Do not question the rules or wonder how they came to be. Do not ponder how some rules conflict with others. No critical thinking your way down to an objective set of basic rules that can be universally applied to everyone. Authority is always exempted from logic. Someone has to be in charge, and it certainly ain't you. Do as I say, not as I do. Violence is an acceptable response to nonviolent nonconformity. Etc.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 4 years 5 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    Good point (in reply to Merrick's comment), and it's not just the parents: government action, directly and indirectly, creates huge amounts of emotional damage (from war, environmental damage [cancer and horrifying birth defects from DU, Agent Orange, and other military and pollutants], unjust imprisonment, needless poverty, etc). What creates emotional HEALTH, and the conditions for smoothly-functioning and sustainable freedom, is -- according to new studies by Notre Dame Psychology Professor Darcia Narvaez -- • Lots of positive touch - as in no spanking - but nearly constant carrying, cuddling and holding; • Prompt response to baby’s fusses and cries. You can’t “spoil” a baby. This means meeting a child’s needs before they get upset and the brain is flooded with toxic chemicals. “Warm, responsive caregiving like this keeps the infant’s brain calm in the years it is forming its personality and response to the world,” Narvaez says. • Breastfeeding, ideally 2 to 5 years. A child’s immune system isn’t fully formed until age 6 and breast milk provides its building blocks. • Multiple adult caregivers - people beyond mom and dad who also love the child. • Free play with multi-age playmates. Studies show that kids who don’t play enough are more likely to have ADHD and other mental health issues. • Natural childbirth, which provides mothers with the hormone boosts that give the energy to care for a newborn. The article that's from, which includes a brief video, is at http://www.physorg.com/news204201579.html.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 5 days ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff: Lessons learned by most of us by the age of five. How is this simple yet profound wisdom so easily lost?" Probably because many parents who tell their kids that also hit them and take their stuff. How many little erogenous zones are spanked, and how many toys (the child's personal property) are confiscated in order to gain compliance? Coercive, death-oriented parenting: "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff, unless I say so." Coercive, death-oriented government, run by people with coercive, death-oriented parents: "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff, unless I say so."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    “...insurance agencies...have acquired this position [of power] because of their reputation as effective, reliable, and HONEST BUSINESSES.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe [Emphasis added] You have got to be kidding me, Hans! Insurance agencies are “HONEST BUSINESSES”??? Prudential Insurance CEO, Robert C. Winters, chaired the Health, Welfare and Retirement Income Task Force, an arm of the BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE, which is believed to be the most powerful lobby in the United States; it lobbied for N.A.F.T.A. and it had a very heavy hand in Barrack Hussein's current “health care reform”. (http://skeptically.org/gov/id1.html)
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 5 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    I'd buy that. It started happening violently with the very first president and the Whiskey Rebellion.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    So this article is by Strike and not Paul Bonneau? Either way, this stuck out from the rest for me: "Ordinary people, on their own, decided it would be prudent to arm themselves with AR-15s, AK-47s and pistols. This is one point that makes this event anarchic--the movement was leaderless." I like to read that. It makes me think of one of the three criteria for freedom to be successful: 1. It must be peaceful 2. IT MUST BE INDIVIDUAL. THERE MUST BE NO MASS MOVEMENT TO JOIN. 3. It must have the distinct lack of a charismatic leader. A leaderless, individual decision, happening spontaneously for numerous individuals all at once. Beautiful.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    "As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, government was instituted to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe "As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe Unfortunately, this is not quite true, Thomas, in the declaration of independence, replaced man's natural right, i.e. his "just claim" to his "justly acquired property", with the vague "the pursuit of happiness". The question begs to be asked, was this omission/substitution intentional, precisely so that the new government could have "the power to tax...without consent"?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    "...it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution." ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe “Steeped in the doctrine of natural rights...the American colonists rose up to free themselves of British rule.” ~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 4 years 5 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    False confessions will be manufactured until the guilty parties are punished. It starts at the top and goes all the way down to the investigating officer. When was the last time you heard of anyone being charged with the crime of framing an innocent person? The media does not even bring up the question of why the guilty parties are not charged. It's as if everybody assumes this happens by accident. The fact that the cops benefit financially from convictions (by promotions) is never brought up.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 6 days ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    “Ius Naturale” [natural law] does not derive from the customs of civilized peoples. Instead it provides [us] with a ground on which to judge which peoples are civilized. ~ James A. Donald http://jim.com/rights.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    First and foremost I do not "consider the United States a society". Like virtually all sources I have checked, I consider it a corporation, a federation of states, the government of that federation, or a geographical location. Secondly, to participate, to me, means "be involved in". And lastly, and with all due respect, you appear to be contradicting yourself here, my friend. You state "...there is a distinction between society and government", while at the same time claiming that "...participating in society', [which I do], 'is participating in government", [which I don't]. "Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil, in its worst state an intolerable one..." ~ Thomas Paine
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    I expected the total breakdown of the "system" about 35 years ago (after it was predicted in Harry Browne's Book). I bought gold & silver to survive. I am still waiting. I talked a friend into doing the same. He died last year with 95% of his wealth tied up in gold. Had he not listened to me he would have been better off. So I stopped buying gold. I still have about 90% in gold but I will not hesitate to sell some if I want something. I am done buying insurance against a disaster that is happening so slowly that I may not live to see a "crash". If it takes another 20 years it will be as if I bought "insurance" for nothing. Have I had peace of mind? Perhaps. Have I made a profit? No. I have preserved my wealth. The irony of all this is that I could have made much more money by playing gold futures. I would have had to pay taxes on my profit and I will not do that. I have lived underground as much as possible since 1972 out of moral conviction. I refuse to participate in gov. I am a one man resistance force. My wife keeps asking: "What about taxes when we sell our gold?". (She pays taxes.) I will not. Anyone care to guess at the possibility of what year a crash might occur?
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 1 week ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Arizona already does this with probationers. "One small step for man, . . ."
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    Error fixed: I had Bastiat living 450 years ago, not 150. Had de la Boetie on the brain, I guess. Oops.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    If we consider the United States a society, then if you live within that society I would assume you consider yourself a member. By living here, you voluntarily choose not to be a member of Brazil or some other society. The government claims jurisdiction over all the land area common to the society of the United States. The government insinuates itself into every crack and crevice of society. One can declare himself sovereign and independent of the government, a non-member, but I dare say he will find it impossible not to participate in government, however unwillingly. Even an "illegal immigrant" flying under the radar of government, by participating in society, is participating in government. Fiat currency, sales taxes, speed limits, etc. Just as there is a distinction between society and government, there is a distinction between member and participant. The sovereign understands that no one can force him to voluntarily join a group, but that group can coerce him to participate as long as he remains within its sphere of power. I am a member and participant of American society, and a non-member but unwilling participant in American government.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    "It should come as no great surprise, then, that government can best be understood as an enormous act of mass self-delusionary justification. We must act in an unethical manner in order to be ethical. Therefore we are ethical." That sums it up as well as I've seen. Excellent article.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    "Does this all not strongly suggest that freedom is natural and logical and self-sustaining, while coercion is its opposite?" ~ tzo Yes, it does. Well done, tzo. However, I have a question regarding this, "...all the members of the society are government participants." Is it your stance that individuals cannot be "members of society" without being "government participants"? If so, I must respectfully disagree. As Thomas Paine wrote, "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins." (Excerpted from Common Sense[1]) "The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security." (Excerpted from The Rights of Man[2]) [1] http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm [2] http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-01.htm
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 week ago Web link Michael Kleen
    "...they actually happened"...in the stacking and processing, that is.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 1 week ago
    Aristophanes' Law
    Page tzo
    Superb, Tzo! You have, for me at least, broken new ground.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 1 week ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Probably too much sarcasm in this article for some. As for me, turn on both sarcastic faucets full blast, fill the tub, and let me soak for a good hour with "Daphnis et Chloé" blasting in the background. Every idiot progressive and statist should read it, and be forced to swallow the delicious sarcasm. Perfecto.