Recent comments

Generally, it is mice and/or rats, the number of which can be exacerbated by unclean humans.

Here is some of the dialogue we are in at the moment. Suverans2 26. Jan, 2011 at 2:23 pm # However, that COURTROOM is their “house”, and it should be treated like anyone else’s “house”. If you VOLUNTARILY enter into that house you should, according to the natural law, obey the “house rules”. If you know the rules to that “house”, and don’t like those rules, do not VOLUNTARILY enter that house; or if, after entering, you discover the rules, after VOLUNTARILY entering, secede [withdraw peacefully] from that “house”, if you choose not to consent to those rules. _______________________________________________________ Alice Lillie 28. Jan, 2011 at 3:03 am # This “house” is public. Therefore he had every right to wear the hat. If courts were privatized, they could enforce no-hat or other rules. But this is a dilemma when you have public property. Nobody owns it, so nobody has the right to make rules. So, Pete was right. _______________________________________________________ Suverans2 28. Jan, 2011 at 11:49 am # G’day Alice Lillie, Thanks for the reply. First let me say, as an individual secessionist, I appreciate very much what Mike, Ademo, Pete, you, and everyone else involved in the struggle for freedom, are doing, so keep in mind I am only trying to give constructive criticisms, which of course you all are free to ignore, at your own peril. The language of their so-called law is called “legalese”, it is Legal Pig Latin (LPL), an artificial language designed to fool us. This word “public”, and the phrase “public property” are not exceptions. The word “public”, as in “public property”, can mean, in LPL (Legal Pig Latin), “Pertaining to the state, nation or whole community…” That’s from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1227. Note that first one, “pertaining to the state”. Now, “public property”, from this same dictionary, can mean, in LPL, “those things which are publici juris (q.v.), [of public right] and therefore considered as being owned by “the public,” the entire state or community and not restricted to the dominion of a private person. It may also apply to the any subject of property owned by the state, nation, or municipal corporation as such. See also State property, below.” Now the LPL definition of “State property” my shock you, so we’ll save that for another day. Suffice to say that COURTHOUSE is “public property”, defined as “property owned by the state", which makes it “their house”, as I was trying to explain to our freedom fighting friends. You should also note the phrase “corporation as such” in that definition of “public property”. Corporations are artificial persons, which makes their law “private law”, that is to say it only applies to members of the corporation, and “citizens” are members of the corporation. 2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you… Hope this will help to un-muddy the waters.

I think we have a long haul before what Alex is envisioning comes about. Better to focus on short term survival of anarchism. We have to live side by side with statists for a long time, but we don't have to be dominated by them: http://www.strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists Anarchism is not going to "win" (that sounds too dominating to me). People will just tire of statism when they realize it is not needed. BTW I think of minarchists as anarchists-in-training.

Thanks for the clarifications, tzo, much appreciated. "Rights are what they grant citizens[1], and if he isn't a citizen, then he has no rights"....ACCORDING TO THE CAPTORS, (as you indicate above), because if they did "recognize" a man's Natural Rights[2] they would, as a consequence, be negating all of their de facto authority. (De jure authority can only be delegated by the author.) Endnotes: [1] Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. [2]In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. ~ Wikipedia [Emphasis added] “...the primal rights [natural rights] pertaining to men are undoubtedly enjoyed by human beings purely as such, being grounded in personality, and existing antecedently [prior] to their recognition by positive law.” ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 1044 Note: “primal rights” are first rights, and an human being's first rights are his natural rights, because they are inherent, i.e. “implanted by nature” at the time of his creation.

"Perhaps he isn't. Perhaps he's a furriner. Perhaps he's a terrorist. Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them." I meant these to be the thoughts crawling through the brains of the captors. Rights are what they grant citizens, and if he isn't a citizen, then he has no rights. Government logic. And this government, while dangerous even to its citizens, is essentially merciless to non-citizens. And for the record, I will label him brave because he is certainly not naive. He knows exactly what he has stepped into. One of these actions will eventually be a spark that ignites the unpeaceful times, and that is good. And bad. And inevitable.

G'day tzo, You asked, “Why did he do it? Is it a strategy? Has he considered the risk/reward? Or is he simply doing what he feels he needs to do?” Perhaps ”THIS” will answer your questions. I'm not certain whether Pete was, in this instance, standing up for “what is right”, or not, my friend, but I do like to see young people [my nativity was reportedly in the Winter of '48] peacefully challenging the status quo, looking for chinks in Goliath's “legal armor”. And, for your information, a man can “identify” himself without identifying himself as a person[1], i.e. a consenting member of your, or any other, man-made fictitious political community. I have already written to these young people about that very thing, giving them a general overview of how to go about it, since your government, in recent years, has begun charging individuals with “FAILURE TO IDENTIFY”. You wrote: “Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them.” What on Earth prompted you to pull that rabbit out of the hat? Do you have evidence that Pete is not willing to claim his natural rights? My “faith” in your government following any set of fundamental rules is based on my own personal experience as an individual secessionist over the last eleven years, but, as I have written elsewhere on this alternative news site, I have no delusions that this will continue forever. However, when those desiring dominion over their fellow man no longer “allow” a peaceful, lawful remedy for individuals who do not wish to be dominated by them, it will mark the beginning of a very unpeaceful one. Yes, my friend, the “animating contest for freedom”, actually doing something besides just talking about it, can be “Dangerous stuff”, just ask the ”56 signers of the American Declaration of Independence”. Endnotes: [1] Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 2136 “This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.” “A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” ~ American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910 [Emphasis added]

I respect anyone who stands up for what is right, as has Pete. Why did he do it? Is it a strategy? Has he considered the risk/reward? Or is he simply doing what he feels he needs to do? I worry for his safety, because I do not share the faith that you have in the system following any set of rules. A video on this website cites a case of another individual who refused to identify himself and was held for almost 60 days. Perhaps the judge will follow the "law," or perhaps not. And now that the entire world is a battlefield in the war on terrorism, officially, what might the police state make of an individual who refuses to identify himself as being one of the "good guy" citizens? Perhaps he isn't. Perhaps he's a furriner. Perhaps he's a terrorist. Perhaps he really has no "rights," as he is not willing to claim them. Dangerous stuff.

Things must look different from rural Vermont; People in Michigan want lots more government than they have already.

"...one of the most revealing things about the lawyers’ trade is the unanimous inability or unwillingness, or both, on the part of the lawyers to explain their brand of professional pig Latin to men who are not lawyers." ~ Woe Unto You Lawyers by Fred Rodell, Professor of Law, Yale University (Written in 1939) Thank you, yet again, Counter Thespianage!

Two things, interconnected, have happened: 1) A larger percentage of individuals classified as "young voters" are better informed and see the futility of protests: "Our time would be better spent protesting foxes to quit eating chickens..." The advent of the "Ron Paul" movement and it's ancillary groups is an example. These are the people who still see "government" as providing a socially useful purpose if "we" can just elect a higher class of shysters. 2) More and more (present writer included) look at "protests" to employees of state (of wars or anything else) as only serving to augment legitimacy to the empire. The leopard cannot change its spots. Justice ain't. Samarami

Enjoying the poetry on your website very much. Thank you. "...catch them at their game, and ask them to "present" the clear and static meaning of what each word has meant. They’ll stutter, and they’ll distract, they’ll beat upon the desk But if you watch them closely, you’ll see their game’s a mess." ~ Excerpted from Represent by Counter Thespianage http://counterthespianage.com/

Woe Unto You Lawyers (Originally posted at http://counterthespianage.com) Woe Unto You Lawyers, Rodell quotes, biblically, exposing myriads of lies that the law purports to be: The lie that you’re a person, instead of just a man; The person birthed is DOA, a corporate fiction-scam. The lie that you have money, when credit’s all there is; The lie that you can pay a debt with crackle, pop, fizz-fizz The lie that you are citizen, then forced to swear the same; for it is by admission that your subjugation damns; The lie that law is honorable, when lawyers but distract convincing you that what you see must be a solid fact The lie that judges show, somehow, impartiality, when their job wholly rests with perpetuity The lie that judges, lawyers can fairly rule themselves; while acting with impunity, above reproach they’re found. The lie that lawyers garner a measure of respect, when all of them are lying whores, their own job to protect. The lie that "law" exists, when factually, there’s none - The judge re-writes it all the time, sic: "interpretation" The lie that there is truth in what’s called government; I have a finger straight and true, with pointed, clear, intent. If one but questions what the rules presented forth are meant to be, they’ll soon discover that the "law" is but hypocrisy. ***************************** See, if someone disagrees with "government," "government's" reaction is to start name calling, labeling, and/or vilifying the dissenter. This is because THERE ARE NO FACTS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS... (Extending my finger in the Govna's direction.)

Actually, expenditures for "Girls Gone Wild" videos are about the best we can hope for by government. That's money not spent for killing, jailing or torturing people. It's money not spent making people dependent on government. It's money not spent on indoctrinating children. If only all tax dollars were spent on "Girls Gone Wild", society would be immensely better off than it is now, and we'd be a lot more free.

Thanks for the share!

Europe's trade unions sound very much like our own government.

Just follow this Youtube link to find out how far compulsory education has brought us: The War On Kids: Trailer

The internet is the new wheel... pocket on a shirt... sliced bread, if you will, and the governments of the world are the only entities in existence which stand to lose complete power and control, basically going the way of the dinosaur, as long as global internet communication is available.

Good article. Suriname has such an interesting and rich history, particularly as to the settlement of the interior by escaped slaves. The alternative society constructed in the interior with its absence of state power is not a coincidence. It would be great to see more on the development of the interior Suriname society and anarchy. It could be a good topic for your dissertation.

Our only hope is that they'll be just as clueless about how to stop the Internet, and whatever technological development that's going to supercede it, as they were about its inherent power when it first came into mass use. Or that the revolution for freedom, having infected a great many individuals, will have taken hold in hearts and minds before this wonderful instrument is ever shut down.

Excellent article. You nailed it Cristian.

I wish them well, but, I notice that the bitcoin uses Amazon.com's S3 hosting system, and other services from Google, to make it's scheme work. What happens when the government tells these corporate giants to quit cooperating with bitcoin, ala wikileaks?

Thank you for your reply, Melinda L. Secor. ****************************************************************************** “Come, Vijay,” Captain Naik said, leading me into his study, “I’ll show you something interesting.” He opened a cupboard, pulled out a strange-looking contraption and laid it on the table. I looked at it, confused but curious. The peculiar apparatus consisted of a hollowed-out coconut attached to a solid iron chain, about two feet long, with a large metal stake at the other end. “You know what this is?” he asked. “No,” I answered. “I got this in Penang when I was cadet, almost thirty years ago,” Captain Naik said, picking up the coconut in his left hand, holding the chain in his right. He looked at me and explained: “This is a monkey trap. The hollowed-out coconut is filled with some cooked rice through this small hole, chained to the stake which is driven firmly into the ground. Look at this hole. It’s just big enough so that the monkey’s hand to go in, but too small for his fist filled with rice to come out. The monkey reaches in, grabs the rice and is suddenly trapped. Because his greed won’t allow him to let go of the rice and extricate his hand, the monkey remains trapped, a victim of his greed, until he is captured. The monkey cannot see that freedom without the rice is more valuable than capture with it. That’s what happens to most of us. Probably it’s the story of your life too. Think about it."[1] ****************************************************************************** [1] My thanks to Vikram Karve for this version of the monkey trap.

It's rather humorous that these two articles are one atop the other on the list. The Giffords Shooting Changes Nothing Original article “To be blunt, what the MSM is desperately searching for is another Timothy McVeigh, and another massive body count. In order to defuse the fast growing Liberty Movement, its image would have to be tarnished beyond recognition and its participants shamed into silence.” The New Feudalism Original article “What is changing is the regulatory environment and people's attitudes towards its enforcement. Partially as a result of a bad economy, people are more willing to put up with a level of authoritarianism that would have disturbed them years ago.” So, which is it, do we have a the fast growing Liberty Movement, or are people...more willing to put up with a level of authoritarianism that would have disturbed them years ago? Larry and Andy Wachowski evidently think it is the latter. "You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." ~ The Matrix (1999)

The services and protection should be provided together