Recent comments

  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 18 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    I believe that universality must be a part of ethics. I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human interactions, as all humans a priori are owners of their own bodies. I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human beings homesteading (first come, first served) resources from unowned nature in order to survive. But to claim unclaimed land as personal property... Many authors give up and say that whatever arrangements are made for land ownership are arrangements agreed upon by the society. Of course now universality has left the building. A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves. How about this angle: If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own yourself, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own yourself. Universal. If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own whatever food you gather, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own the fruits of your own labor. Universal. If you are alone on an island, how much of that island can you properly call your own so that if others show up, there can be no dispute over what is your property? What universal formula(?) can be applied so that we land within the realm of ethics?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    Last question, first. If ethics[1] do not apply, if "right" and "wrong" are not applicable, then there is no discussion? If there is no such thing as a "just claim", a proper "right" to anything, whoever has the most "guns", i.e. "power", owns the island, or at least as much of it as they can take and defend. In fact, ethics notwithstanding, if they have enough "guns" they can lay claim to the whole earth. End of discussion. [1] Quick definitions (ethics) ▸ noun: the philosophical study of moral values and rules ▸ noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    If you'll re-read my last two sentences... “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” It is time for us to stop the insanity, it is time for us to put our heads together and find a better solution, don't you think, Steve. The "perfect solution" doesn't exist, but a "better solution" surely must. ...I think we may be saying the same thing, unless, of course, you simply prefer to just take this... "...you must agree, Steve, history has proven, time and time again, that government is not a good solution; from national defense to charity, it has always failed miserably" ...out of context. Good luck on this one, Steve... "We need to show them that even when the government stays involved, it's role can be decentralized and reduced, e.g. via outsourcing." [Emphasis added] Oh, and you should see all the bruises I get from the "pats on the back" I receive in this place, Steve. ROFLMAO
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago
    Just Say No!
    Page Paul Hein
    "Probably better to just quietly produce less, so you are not of interest to the plunderers; and to take your business dealings to the black market or agora. And stand aside to watch the slow motion train wreck in the economy." ~ Paul [Emphasis added] You're gonna get a bad reputation if I keep agreeing with you, Paul, but alas, once more, I'm afraid I must. I apologize in advance if you get ostracized because of me. Sorry. Quick definitions (ostracize) ▸ verb: avoid speaking to or dealing with ("Ever since I spoke up, my colleagues ostracize me") ▸ verb: expel from a community or group ~ http://tinyurl.com/29dkj8z
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    "Sometimes we are bare of choice. Sometimes there are other choices, that just happen to be a bit inconvenient. I'd say, don't spend too much effort beating yourself up when the first is the case, but don't try to throw everything into that category either, as a way of excusing bad choices when better ones were available." ~ Paul Sound advice, IMO, Paul. But, I was "coerced" into saying that; I was afraid someone was going to "put a gun to my head" if I didn't. ;)
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    >you must agree, Steve, history has proven, time and time again, that government is not a good solution; >from national defense to charity, it has always failed miserably. As a libertarian/anarchist, quite active in the movement, I of course agree that government provides suboptimal solutions. But I'm not the one you need to convince. When you make sweeping, obviously false statements like "[government] has always failed miserably", you lose not merely the statists, but normal freedom-liking Americans, and me too. Saying such things here at STR will get you lots of pats on the back, but it will take a lot more to convince the statists. We need to show them how civil society can produce more efficient solutions. We need to show them that even when the government stays involved, it's role can be decentralized and reduced, e.g. via outsourcing. http://jonathangullible.com
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 18 weeks ago
    Just Say No!
    Page Paul Hein
    "If the tax-feeders can congregate in the thousands to demand more benefits from the productive, surely the productive can do the same thing to demand that the plunder cease!" Seems doubtful. The productive don't have time for that; after all, they are out there producing! Anyway, the ruling class would ignore such a demand, if they don't outright make an example of the complainers. Probably better to just quietly produce less, so you are not of interest to the plunderers; and to take your business dealings to the black market or agora. And stand aside to watch the slow motion train wreck in the economy.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 18 weeks ago
    Rethinking 'School'
    Page Michael Kleen
    One suggestion: let's stop using the Ministry of Propaganda's terms for things, and call them what they are. It's not "public school", it's "government school". It's not "public funding", it's "tax funding" or even "funding via theft". This may sound pedantic, but I think the very first step we have to take in recognizing reality and dealing with it, is calling things by their proper names. Other than that, it's an excellent article.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    "The conclusion I arrive at is a simple one: You cannot apply morality when you are bare of choice and free-will." Sometimes we are bare of choice. Sometimes there are other choices, that just happen to be a bit inconvenient. I'd say, don't spend too much effort beating yourself up when the first is the case, but don't try to throw everything into that category either, as a way of excusing bad choices when better ones were available. There are choices in schooling. Homeschooling is available everywhere in the US. Of course as a child, rather than a parent, your choice may be limited. If so you are "bare of choice" so don't beat yourself up! As to HR departments, yeah, they are a problem. But work opportunities depend a hell of a lot more on work history and ability and willingness to work than they do on something as worthless as a high school diploma. Getting started is the problem, and the solution is to start with small companies (with no HR departments) or use personal contacts (that can bypass HR departments). Lower your expectations, start small, and work your way up. In a couple of years, HR departments won't matter to you. I spent an entire life working for small companies. The one time I ended up in a big one (that purchased the company I was working for), it was pure torture for me, like working for government I suppose. Ugh! I got out fast. College? A pure waste of your time. Go read what Gary North has to say about them over on lewrockwell.com. Also, I'd suggest trying to look forward, and not questioning past choices you made. You can't rewind and try them over. We don't have time travel yet.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    Anyone else here curious as to why and how Vaughn Bateman's user profile says, "Access denied"? Must Read! http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    Off the subject of this essay, I realize, but perhaps some of you will find some value in this. “Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.” ~ Frederick Douglass, born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey Title 18 USC 31 Chapter 2 Sec. 31.6: Motor Vehicle means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes1 on the highways in the transportation of passengers2, or passenger and property, or property or cargo. Sec. 31.10 The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration3 with any business, or other undertaking intended for a profit. By their own legal definition of Motor Vehicle, my Conveyance is Not a MOTOR VEHICLE, and therefore, Not subject to the MOTOR VEHICLE CODE, since I am Not using this mechanical contrivance “for commercial purposes”. Driver -- One employed4 in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle... ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940 [Emphasis and footnote added] Further, I am Not a "Driver" since this Sovereign man is Not employed and is Not using the highway5 for traffic6, for business, or for profit. Definitions: Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991) 1 Commercial use. Term implies use in connection with or for furtherance of a profit making enterprise. 2 Passenger. In general, a person who gives compensation to another for transportation. The word passenger has however various meanings, depending upon the circumstances under which and the context in which the word is used; sometimes it is construed in a restricted legal sense as referring to one who is being carried by another for hire; on other occasions, the word is interpreted as meaning any occupant of a vehicle other than the person operating it. The essential elements of “passenger” as opposed to “guest” under guest statute are that driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship; it may be easier to find compensation where the trip has commercial or business flavor. A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of the performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of conveyance. Guest statute. …A “guest,” under provisions of guest statute, is a recipient of the voluntary hospitality of the [driver] owner, that is, one who is invited or permitted by owner or possessor of automobile to ride with owner-possessor as a gratuity. Gratuity. Something acquired or otherwise received without bargain or inducement. Something given freely or without recompense; a gift. 3 Consideration. The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract. Some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Restatement, Second, Contracts §§ 17(1), 71. It is a basic, necessary element for the existence of a valid contract that is legally binding. [Emphasis added.] 4 Employed. Performing work under an employer-employee relationship. Term signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it. Highway. A free and public roadway, or street; one which every person has the right to use. Note: The word “person”, as it is used in this Non-Statutory Notice, is to be strictly confined to mean, “Natural Man”, and Not “juristic personality”. 5 Free. Not subject to legal constraint of another. [Emphasis added] 6 Traffic. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. ...See Commerce. Must Read! http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 18 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    They are not "government roads", they are "free and public roadway(s), or street(s)". Highway. A free and public roadway, or street; one which every person has the right to use. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 728 "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." ~ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 11 Am Jur (1st) Const. L. Sec. 329, 1135: "Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion - to go where and when one pleases…The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highway and transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right, which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    Well done Vaughn. Your obvious ability to identify, analyze and articulate such moral questions prove that intelligence is not measured by regurgitating rote answers to ignorant gatekeepers. IMHO learning a marketable skill is more important than getting a degree, high school or college. "The conclusion I arrive at is a simple one: You cannot apply morality when you are bare of choice and free-will." That is when you have no good choice then it is okay to compromise your principles? That can be a slippery slope, but we all do it to some degree. Balancing our quest for virtue with survival in a mean world defines what it is to be human. The utilitarian in us all must be weighed against our desire to be moral creatures. Survival is the primary driving force in all animals and a powerful force. Futile gestures (like not driving on government roads) that come to no appreciable end in the name of morality do seem foolish, even counterproductive as sometimes we must retreat in order to fight another day. The human challenge is to identify those principles and seek to be virtuous while recognizing our limitations. That we are all sinners does not justify sin, but a moral person strives for perfection even while knowing that it can never be achieved. So I agree that we must choose our battles judiciously or suffer the consequences. You're a good man, keep your chin up.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Just Say No!
    Page Paul Hein
    "Can you go into a store, order thousands of dollars worth of goods, and then tell the clerk to send the bill to assorted strangers?" ~ Paul Hein Strangers. ...Those who are in no way parties to a covenant or transaction, nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1421 [Emphasis added] Nope, sure can't, but, unless I am mistaken, anyone who is a 14th Amendment citizen, or a citizen of a STATE, is not a "stranger to the covenant", he/she is in some way a "party" to the covenant. "Yet your elected “representatives” do it regularly..." ~ Paul Hein Only if one is a 14th Amendment citizen or a STATE citizen, are they "your elected "representatives". They sure as 'hayel' don't represent me. In fact, as a living being, I can't communicate with "representatives". Representation of persons. A fiction of the law, the effect of which is to put the representative in the place, degree, or right of the person represented. Civ.Code La. art. 894 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1302 As a nonperson[1] I am unable to communicate with "A fiction of the law", I am only able to communicate with living beings. If you doubt this, the next time you are dragged into one of their so-called courts, just ask their JUDGE, "Can I talk to you as a man[2]?" ;-) Endnotes: [1] nonperson n. UNPERSON; specif., one who is officially ignored by the government ~ Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 923 [2] Homo vocabulum est naturate; persona juris civilis – Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. ~ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), “Maxim,” page 2136 Must Read! http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    I would say, by the good quality of your writing, that dropping out of public school was probably the best thing you could do. Nothing beats self-education - You should try to get a scholarship and go to college. Even if having a GED means you'll be rejected from the top colleges, any college at all is better than none. We need more people like you in the academic world..
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Objective ethics is thus seen, quite correctly, to be the mortal enemy of government, in that if this idea is ever widely accepted, government necessarily disappears." ~ tzo [Emphasis added] Amen, tzo, amen!! Furthermore, as I see it, it is the ONLY "MORTAL enemy of government"; all the other ways and means that have been tried have eventually led right back to the same old thing, except that over the centuries "the same old thing" seems to have gotten progressively worse. Quick definitions (mortal) ▸ adjective: causing or capable of causing death Looks like you got two tens, tzo, and that equals what I would have given this treatise, a whopping twenty! Thank you for all your time and effort. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking the root." ~ Henry D. Thoreau
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    In a sane society, drugs would be treated like any other commodity, produced and sold by duly licensed, regulated and taxed businesses, and, once bought, would become the property and the reponsibility of the consumer. In a sane society, the only person with any interest in your urine would be your doctor, and not even your doctor woulf be allowed to take it from you at gunpoint. But then, we don't live in a sane society, do we? People who love to hate Mexican immigrants like to say that the US is a "nation of lws." But that's not true, either. In a "nation of laws", it would be illegal for anyone, regardless of how they are dressed, to enter a private home, business or vehicle without permission and take, by force, sn individual's personal property. In a "nation of laws", the laws would apply to everyone equally. What we have here is a nation ruled by fear and dedicated to punishment. The suffering of the many to insure the job security of the few. THAT's the American dream.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Another "legacy" of Johnson's war on poverty is Nixon's war on drugs, which he declared as a political ruse to trump Johnson's coddling of the poor with his own "tough on crime" stance. Both poverty and Nixon's war are still with us, each one feeding off the other.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Meanwhile, here in AZ, public schools and libraries and town offices are closed one day a week, children are being cut from medicaid and AHCCCS for adults as well as in-home care for the disabled has been gutted. The state, you see, is broke. Oh, but we can pay for His Majesty the Sheriff Arpaio's antics, can't we? And a hideous wall across the desert to protect us from the one country that remains, for some strange reason, our friend?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "My magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? What material! With them I can make a new world."
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I lived for four years next door to a foster home where the young children of suspected drug users were housed with teenaged sex offenders. The DARE program is nothing more or less than government-sanctioned child abuse.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "They think that government, like a fairy, will disappear once we stop believing in it." ~ Steve Steve, if everyone simultaneously stopped believing in government, (albeit that will likely never happen), you would find that it never truly existed. But that aside... As real as the "free-rider problem" may be, I think you must agree, Steve, history has proven, time and time again, that government is not a good solution; from national defense to charity, it has always failed miserably. “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” It is time for us to stop the insanity, it is time for us to put our heads together and find a better solution, don't you think, Steve. The "perfect solution" doesn't exist, but a "better solution" surely must.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Don't forget the delivery of the mails. Very important stuff also. But seriously, those who don't give enough to charity certainly need guns pointed at them so they cough up what you think is right. Those free-ridin', no charity-givin' slackers need to pay on up or git on out. I get that message straight from Jefferson's words. You and me is on the same radical wavelength there, amigo. Long live the 'government is a solution' meme! Uncle Sam is no fairy! Hoo-ah.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Such a tenacious meme among libertarians, that government is merely a meme, a fiction, that it offers nothing positive and solves no real problems. They think that government, like a fairy, will disappear once we stop believing in it. Unfortunately, there are some real problems that are not so easy to solve without government, and we libertarians would be a lot more persuasive if we would at least acknowledge their existence. Most leftists I meet believe that government is necessary because left to their own devices people will not do the right thing, e.g. contribute enough to charity. The free-rider problem is real, and government is a solution. We libertarians need to show that other solutions exist and are both more moral and effective. Thomas Jefferson, arguably a smart, well-read, and radical guy, hat this to say about the purpose of government: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
  • Mitrik_Spanner's picture
    Mitrik_Spanner 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Why Genes are Leftwing
    Web link Derek Henson
    This is good news. We are not victims of cruel nature. And so we need the State even less. I have seen troubled people transform themselves through creative enterprise. Their successes built confidence and self-esteem that banished anxiety and depression. The "developed world" is rife with personality disorders, like depression, because most people derive their self-esteem from thoughtless consumerism and jumping through hoops to receive education certificates that prove only that they have completed a curriculum that is thin gruel compared to the richness of the real human enterprise.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Excellent article, Bob. I might take issue of the analogy of people with sheep, lions and foxes, though. Usually, real sheep are not armed. Those you call "sheeple" certainly are armed. I think it is more like this: ordinary people are just concerned with the issues of their own lives, mostly. They are riled up by propagandists now and then, and parasitized by the ruling class. They put up with it as long as they are able, much as one puts up with mosquitos. But when they can't put up with such parasites any more, they go out and drain the swamp. I think this analogy makes a lot more sense. No herd of sheep ever rebelled against any farmer. Oh, and our ruling class are not to be exalted as lions or foxes, either. They are mosquitos, bed bugs, lice, tape worms.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Why Genes are Leftwing
    Web link Derek Henson
    From the article: "Instead, the Human Genome Project is rapidly providing a scientific basis for the political left. Childhood maltreatment, economic inequality and excessive materialism seem the main determinants of mental illness. State-sponsored interventions, like reduced inequality, are the most likely solutions." Talk about a non-sequitur! He's assuming the environment was better in Stalinist Russia! What an idiot. Yeah, having your "betters" plan out your entire life for you, what a great recipe to eliminate depression.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    It's a well-known fact that people who rely on the services of a court-appointed "defense" attorney are more likely to go to prison than those who can cough up 5-10,000 dollars for a real lawyer. And people who are unable to post bond are forced to appear in court in jail uniforms, handcuffed and shackled, which also tends to increase the severity of the punishment handed down by "honorable" judges. Failure to pay restitution, failure to pay fines, failure to pay probation fees, failure to report in person to a probation office that may be up to 50 miles away, being homeless or unemployed can all be considered violation of probation, which is a prisonable offense, regardless of the pettiness of the original crime. And the more they punish, the more they control, the poorer we get. A lot of people I know have voluntarily gone to prison just to get "off paper" and out from under all this crap. It's a pretty sad commentary on America when prison is the only road to freedom.
  • Guest's picture
    hardsoft (not verified) 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Why Genes are Leftwing
    Web link Derek Henson
    So if something like income distribution affects overall depression rates, that automatically justifies government forced distribution? As usual, the ends justifies the means... I take this a different way. It seems to show that we are not biological slaves who are victims to nature in need of government force to balance nature's cruel "unfairness" and thus, I think Genes are leaning Libertarian.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Terms of Association
    Page Jim Davies
    "...nobody can renounce a commitment ("sell his shares" as it were)..." ~ Jim Davies How on earth does renouncing a commitment equate, in any way, to selling one's share????
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Terms of Association
    Page Jim Davies
    Greetings voluntaryist, I believe that last question, "Who will protect us from our protectors?", will still need answering even with a free market protection agency – “power corrupts” and the corruptible are attracted to power.
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Terms of Association
    Page Jim Davies
    Jon Roland is a collectivist. Listen carefully to his justification of taxation. He claims we don't own "all" our property because we live in a community. Also, he claims the community, by way of majority vote, decides how much property we own. He claims there are limits on the majority but then contradicts himself by saying the majority decides what is "reasonable", i.e., what limits it. He tries to bolster his argument by citing the practicality of collectivism. He claims roads and defense need taxation or we end up with freeloaders. Of course both of these arguments have been answered by libertarian writers in books. Larken is correct in that the constitution contradicts it's preamble: The Declaration of Independence. But the DoI itself is confusing. It proclaims individual rights as supreme and then mentions creating government to protect them. If government is the delegation of force, then we are left with the question: Who will protect us from our protectors?
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    We already HAVE martial law in America. It began, and the American dream began to die, when one particular politician declared a metaphorical "war on drugs" and our own police made the war a reality by taking up arms against us. (Oddly enough, they still call themselves "peace officers".)
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Inverse Censorship
    Web link Michael Kleen
    What comes to mind is the way that children are subjected to a constant barrage of fear-based anti-drug propaganda; I thought it was merely a form of child abuse.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    "Voting for either, or for some no-hope third party candidate, kinda says you're OK with a system that winds up letting Kodos or Kang eat people so long as enough people vote for them." ~ Eric Crampton Eric, you're saying that "you're OK with a system that winds up letting Kodos or Kang eat people" by knowingly and voluntarily being a card-carrying, numbered member of the gang that uses the "system that lets Kodos or Kang eat people". I can hear you now, Eric. "But, but, but, how can you say it's voluntary since they make it so-o-o uncomfortable for those who leave the gang? I fear they'll persecute me, I fear that they might even put a gun to my head, and I fear that I might lose everything I've worked so hard for if I don't remain a member. I might even die!" I understand Eric, after generations of entrenchment it has become a very tough choice to make, but a choice nonetheless. But, if you choose to remain a member of the gang and basically choose to do nothing but write blogs and abstain from voting, I'm not so sure the children of the people who get eaten will understand when you tell them, "Don't blame me: I didn't vote." "Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate." ~ Lysander Spooner
  • iliad's picture
    iliad 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Guest
    Excellent article Jake. It is amazing how much faith people put into such an openly corrupt system. I love election season, it really brings out the wacko's.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 19 weeks ago Page Guest
    Excellent, excellent article. I'm looking forward to reading more by you in the future!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 19 weeks ago
    Drowning in Law
    Web link Mike Powers
    One's "state", i.e. "status" or "condition", determines his "jurisdiction". JURISDIC'TION, n. [L. jurisdictio; jus, juris, law, and dictio, from dico, to pronounce.] ...Power of governing or legislating. The legislature of one state can exercise no jurisdiction in another. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language And, what determines one's "status" or "condition" is not what one says, but, rather, what one does. "What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson One must "walk the walk", not just "talk the talk". Quit Government Employ. You'll have to do this eventually, if your job is involved with government at any level, directly or indirectly - so the sooner you exit, the easier it will be. ~ Jim Davies [Excerpted from Segment 18 of The Online Freedom Academy http://www.tolfa.us/L18.htm ] Governments "employ" citizens. They "pay" them with benefits and privileges. So, if you REALLY don't want to be "Drowning in [their] Law", then "Quit Government Employ", secede, "withdraw from membership in the group".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago
    Drowning in Law
    Web link Mike Powers
    For the record, it is my opinion that all dogma[1] not in harmony with the natural law (of man) are "man-made". Definition: [1] G1378 δόγμα dogma (dog'-mah) From the base of G1380; a law (civil, ceremonial or ecclesiastical) ~ Strong's Greek Dictionary [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago
    Drowning in Law
    Web link Mike Powers
    "Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. [The "right", i.e. the "just claim" to] Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." ~ The Law by Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G709 "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it." ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago
    Drowning in Law
    Web link Mike Powers
    Quick definitions (law) ▸ noun: a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society [Emphasis added] "The natural law is defined by [Jean-Jacques] Burlamaqui to be “a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved.” And he says “that these are called “natural laws” because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature..." ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c. 1891), page 694 ...the doers of the [natural] law shall be justified [regarded as innocent]. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law [those not under man-made law], do by nature the things contained in the law [obey the natural law], these, having not the law [not under man-made law], are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts ["inherent in human nature"]...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago
    Great Fictions
    Page Jim Davies
    Your and my solution may not be that far apart, in fact, they may be virtually identical. Quit Government Employ. You'll have to do this eventually, if your job is involved with government at any level, directly or indirectly - so the sooner you exit, the easier it will be. ~ Jim Davies [Excerpted from Segment 18 of The Online Freedom Academy http://www.tolfa.us/L18.htm ] Governments "employ" citizens. They "pay" them with benefits and privileges. “All governments must have citizens in order to exist (tzo)”, therefore if enough individual citizens secede from it, i.e. "Quit Government Employ", it will die, just as any parasite will die if it does not have a host. It is the only peaceful way to “abolish it”.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 20 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    No surprise that the opponents of Prop 19 are the folks who see their livelihoods threatened by other people's freedom. Anyone out there who still believes that prohibition ever had anything to do with keeping people safe need only listen and watch as drug warriors scramble to keep the drug cartels in power by continuing to ban the one drug that has never killed anyone. And if you still believe, please call me; I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago
    Drowning in Law
    Web link Mike Powers
    What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed. ~ CHAPTER III, NATURAL LAW CONTRASTED WITH LEGISLATION, by Lysander Spooner http://praxeology.net/LS-NL-3.htm#ch.3
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    'Zactly!! lol
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    Whenever someone tells me, if you're not doing anything wrong, etc., etc., I ask why there are doors on public restrooms. If you're "not doing anything wrong," why do you need privacy?
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 4 years 20 weeks ago
    The Real Cost Of Free
    Web link Robert Fredericks
    "Commenters who claim I tell artists to give their work away for free are wrong – and they should focus on the real online villains"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I admittedly may be misunderstanding your reply, Paul, but non-members, i.e. non-citizens, are not able to "register". And, as tzo has correctly written, "All governments must have citizens in order to exist".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 20 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I'd agree it's a more emphatic way not to participate. But having an election in which 100,000 voters are registered, but only 1000 bothered to vote, also sends a message - i.e., "take those candidates and shove them". I suppose not registering is more a philosophical rejection, while registered voters not voting is more an ad-hoc sort of rejection. Either one is better than voting. Either one will make you feel better.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 20 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    It's even more accurate to say, if you are "enfranchised[1]", it means you're a voluntary member of the body politic, "you've signed off on it", you've endorsed the outcome--whether you vote or not! [1] Quick definitions (franchise) ▸ noun: a statutory right or privilege granted to a person or group by a government Quick definitions (enfranchised) ▸ adjective: endowed ["by a government"] with the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote