Recent comments

  • Guest's picture
    Faré (not verified) 9 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    You might be interested in my essay "Public Goods Fallacies" http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/public_goods_fallacies.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 7 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "They are so sold on the scam of replacing one group of charlatans with another group of charlatans, they tell people who are smart enough not to fall for the voting scam that they/we can’t complain about what the elected politicians do or don’t do since we did not vote." Whenever someone comes up with this line, I point out that in fact it is the reverse that is true. The only ones who can legitimately complain about the results, are those who did not give sanction to the system by voting. Those who vote implicitly agree to anything that happens, even if their guy loses the election. Voting is an implicit agreement to be coerced, on the off chance that the voter might get (through his favored candidate) to do the coercing. I believe there is one case where voting might be legitimate. I call it "defensive voting". It is voting only against ballot measures to raise taxes or other such imposition. No humans are ever voted for in defensive voting. It still has the problem of giving sanction to the system (which means implicit agreement to be taxed), but voting against the tax provides more chance of success than not voting; certainly if the vote is going to be close. However I'm still not sure about this one.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 7 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    "Government's own most foundational document, governments are instituted among men to secure to them their inalienable rights, i.e. their natural rights, the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property." No government was ever instituted for that purpose. Oh, potential governments certainly claim that purpose, and we peons might be placated by that bit of propaganda. But that was never the purpose of any government. Anyway, there are no such things as rights - which makes the claim even more preposterous.
  • rita's picture
    rita 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Gee, who could've seen THIS coming? Anything developed for the military can, and will, eventually be used against civilians in America's holy "war on drugs." And anything used against suspected drug users and their families can, and will, be used against all civilians.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Once upon a time, this is how commerce worked. It could and should be that simple.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "...neither party helps the people to find employment"?????????????????????? "Voting only accelerates the decline in happiness and the quality of life as well as the continued erosion of our rights and liberties." ~ Robert L. Johnson Actually, voting may slow down "the decline in happiness and the quality of life as well as the continued erosion of our rights and liberties", because it is most likely the litmus test they use to decide how fast they can erode your natural rights and natural liberty - they may fear that if they accelerate too rapidly the whiplash might wake the proles up and they could possibly have an armed revolt on their hands. "The instruction reads, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,” (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the individual) “it is the Right of the People...to abolish it,” which puts much more responsibility and risk on the individual than merely continuing the voting game/scam." ~ Robert L. Johnson So, Robert L. Johnson, how are YOU, all by your lonesome, going to "abolish it" when the majority of the proles are not only against abolishing it, but are in fact busy pushing and shoving to get their snouts in the trough? Tom gave us a pretty strong clue with this, "All governments must have citizens in order to exist."
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    I had no idea that Illinois residents lived under such tax sucking rules at the level of town government! I am surprised that Illinois still has a population. Did they close down the highways and bridges leading out of the State of Ill Repute? A little more work by the politicians and Illinois will look like Michigan--depopulated.
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Hi B.R., I am the author of the Blog and thank you very much for reading. I would also like to thank you for your comments. Cromwell was not looking at Jesus for his inspiration, he was looking more to Joshua or David for for his motivation in the Old Testament. Cromwell saw himself as a Moses-type figure that was trying to free his people from pharaoh (a.k.a the king). Samuel Adams viewed the American Revolution in the same way. So, the violence was justified and viewed as vengeance from God. I agree with you, there was no '10 Commandments, and 100 footnotes.' That is why I did not get baptized until I got out of the army. I decided that it would be hypocritical of me to call myself a Christian, when my job was to kill people. I would not say that Cromwell's treatment of prisoners is justified, but the Catholics and Royalists were doing the same thing. Before Cromwell went to Ireland, the Catholics had already murdered over 3,000 Protestants, including some women and children. But, because Cromwell won the campaign, only his name is remembered in the "atrocity" department. Towards the end of the Reformation, the battles were getting less chivalrous and there were atrocities on both sides. I just don't like modern historians calling him a "war criminal" when his opponents were doing the exact same thing. He just happened to win the war, so he gets all the blame. It is much like when people dismiss Jefferson or Washington because they were slave owners. But, if we were in their shoes, we would most likely do the same thing because those were the norms of the era. I would not like it if 200 years in the future people dismissed my ideas because I was not a vegetarian. I would be considered an "evil meat eater." There were 2 main reasons why Cromwell let the Jews back into England: 1.) Puritans believed that Jesus would not come back until all Jews converted to Christianity, so why not come to England to become Puritans. 2.) Cromwell knew that the Jews he was conversing with were well connected merchants, and they could make England wealthy like they had done in the low countries. Cromwell was tired of making money solely off the backs of agrarian laborers. Not to mention the extra money would be nice. So, he was not doing it out of kindness, put ultimately for political and religious reasons. Much like Lincoln; he did not free the slaves because he was a nice guy, he did it for political reasons. Thank you for reading the Blog and for the comments! -Steve
  • Guest's picture
    Dave Ambleton (not verified) 9 years 8 weeks ago
    A Lion in Daniel's Den
    Page Jim Davies
    It’s now official – there’s no actual shortage of Holocaust Survivors: Quote from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso in the year 2000: 'The Israeli Prime Minister's office recently put the number of "living Holocaust survivors" at nearly a million.' (page 83) At the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson A History of the Modern World (1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact that ‘Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert one.’ (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)). As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class (Koestler The God that Failed p 28), reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero. According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144): ‘It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities.. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation.. But to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions.. The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one percent of the population.. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press – all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed.. The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly.. Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation.. At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination.. It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed – and lavishly displayed – by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.’ Goodness gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed? Strangely enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, ‘Jews were never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years 1871-1933.’ But she adds ‘Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public and private service.. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks.. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57% of other metal businesses.. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised 80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their "race".. At least a quarter of full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins.. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the law and medical students.. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was 80%.. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents..’ etc etc. Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement in German publishing. ‘Ullstein’s was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper.. Apart from these, Ullstein’s published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein - they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews.’ (The God that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31). Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called Germany Puts the Clock Back (published as a Penguin Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes ‘In the all-important administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews.. A telephone conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the state.. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners.’ Mowrer says ‘No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the sexual promiscuity that prevailed.. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood..’ (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds ‘Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts) were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews.. among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years.’ (pp. 144-5). Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: ‘I watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word "Jew", in dripping red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles, said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones.’ (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed’s book Disgrace Abounding of the following year he notes ‘In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.. The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it.. It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish’ (pp238-9).
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    The New American Mob
    Web link Michael Kleen
    The author writes: "One need not be 'racist' to respond to newspaper photographs and film footage of Obama, standing behind a podium bearing the presidential seal, with feelings of simple incredulity." Not when you look at his opponent. Since the advent of television, it has always been the better looking and more charismatic individual who wins. True, the 2000 election was a close call, but the theory still proved true. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all you need to know about the uselessness of electing a president to preside over hundreds of millions of people, the vast majority of whom couldn't give a damn. The death-oriented machinery of coercive government put a life-like corpse in front of the cameras to beam his perfect smile, but life orientation will move on, with me alone if it has to. The Tea Party will die out as well, unless they embrace life and stop trying to "take back America."
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    I like the posts on this blog a whole heck of a lot. However, this stuck out from the rest of the text: "Yes, Cromwell did kill thousands of people in Ireland, but he was a man of his times and should not be judged by modern standards." So in spite of the fact that Cromwell undoubtedly spent every Sunday at church, and in spite of the fact that a great many of those Sundays were spent studying passages like "[W]hatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12); "[L]ove one another, as I have loved you" (John 5:12); "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" (Matthew 5:44); and so on, and so on, and so on, he should not be judged by what, exactly? Even the one example that the author brings up of Cromwell's "kindness" toward the Jews, according to the author himself, was not done "out of the kindness of his heart." So how are Cromwell's murders justified in that they occurred in the 17th century? In theory, you could say the same thing about Truman. Someday, someone may very well say that about George W. Bush or Barack Obama. The sad truth is that all four men read from the same book, that has said the same thing, for almost two thousand years, and all four men chose to ignore the most powerful parts of the book. Neither modern nor ancient men have any excuse. What was Cromwell's excuse for massacring men who tried to surrender? Were they not his enemies, as Jesus said, and did Cromwell not confess Jesus every day of his "Christian" life?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    It's not just the "leftists", my friend. I will post, once more, the first portion of the "A Final Word of Caution" found in the PREFACE of Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991). "The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also the type of legal issue, dispute, or transaction involved can affect a given definition usage..." And, it's not anything "new under the sun". Confucius, circa 500 B.C., reportedly wrote, "When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty"; and some man calling himself Peter, supposedly somewhere between 60 and 160 A.D., wrote, "through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." I will assume, (a very dangerous thing to do), that the double-negative (I ain't no "citizen"...) was unintended. "Citizens" are men and women who "are members of a political community", they are men and women who have "submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights[1]", and if you have withdrawn your membership in that group, and you no longer ask for nor accept member-only benefits, then you no longer have the "PRIVILEGE of casting a vote at public elections[2]". And, if you have indeed "withdrawn your membership in that group, and you no longer ask for nor accept member-only benefits", welcome to the club. [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65. ~ Bouvier's 1865 Law Dictionary [2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1433
  • Guest's picture
    AnarchoPhil (not verified) 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    I'm a baptist and I don't support any prohibition. . . if anything.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Suverans2, as leftists have taught us all, semantics are indeed very important. I was on Marc Stevens's radio program a few years ago, and accidentally referred to people as "citizens." He dutifully pointed out, in brief, what you provided above. Most people have no idea what the word means. I ain't no "citizen" anymore.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    If one has the option of voting, or not voting, one is a "citizen". "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist.   If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization." ~ http://www.strike-the-root.com/theory-of-natural-hierarchy-and-government by tzo If you were a member of a gang and you found out that your gang was involved in criminal activities, would you simply abstain from voting or would you "withdraw from membership" in the gang? NL.1.3.3 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 Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991)
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    "In case you have not heard of him, this is the 22-year-old former Army intelligence analyst who leaked the “Collateral Murder” video," Is he? Last I heard the evidence they had against him was testimony by a known criminal and relentless self-publicist. He may well be the Evan Pederick* of this case. The claims that Manning revealed 250,000 diplomatic messages is bizarre and truly incredible in the literal sense of the word. The Feds need a body, doesn't have to be the right one. * Google "Hilton hotel bombing" to see what I mean.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Avnery says, "Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: parliament, the highest expression of democracy, is itself now posing a dire threat to Israeli democracy." What he is truly witnessing, but fails to see, is that current parliamentary action is exactly what "democracy" is. This is its nature and its ultimate goal. In the Holy Trinity of wolves and sheep, there is now one more wolf and one less sheep. Government is death.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    If ever there was a MUST READ comment...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    They were spelling out the reasons, for the world to see, why they had the lawful right to peacefully secede from the de facto government that was claiming rule over them, brother, because, in the history of the world, it had never been done before. They had finally come to the realization that they had voluntarily joined King George's organization, because if an individual doesn't secede, once he knows he rightfully can, it can be said that he voluntarily consents to be a member. And, because he voluntarily chooses to retain his membership, knowing full well that he will be a "taxpayer" if he does, then it can be rightfully deduced that the income tax is voluntary. Why? Because membership is voluntary! This is why no one here can show me a U.S. law criminalizing individual secession in particular. Oh, and, even if someone could, it would not be worth the paper it was written on, because it would not be in conformity with the Natural Law (of Man), so save that minuscule effort, (that virtually no one was going to expend anyway), for a more worthy cause. "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other[1]. 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 The foregoing reasoning was spelled out two weeks and two days ago here http://www.strike-the-root.com/taxation-is-theft#comment-723 with the author knowing full well that he would most likely need a "fast horse...to escape on" for doing so. Why? because regardless of all their bitching and complaining, the vast majority of people love their government entitlements, benefits, privileges, their so-called civil rights, and will not voluntarily choose to give up the "ruler's dainties", their only real complaint seems to be that they must pay for them. Now it is I who must apologize for sounding so “trenchant”, brother. “Those who seek the truth are more than friends. They are brothers.” – Sir Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown [1] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouveir's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    “...you are saying that the Declaration provides for a government that says, "We are here to protect you, to watch over you, to provide for you, to coordinate you, to rule over you, only if you consent.” ~ B.R. Merrick Strange I don't remember saying that, I recall saying, “What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights...” just like the Declaration states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] 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 [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Governments have always been funded by taxes, they therefore can never be funded any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!]
 Governments have always monopolized the protection market, therefore it can never be any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!] *** Sorry to sound so trenchant, but those are the defining characteristics of government. That and ruling over a land area that exceeds the just land claims of all its individual members. No other type of organization can get away with this, and if government didn't do this then they would be behaving like other organizations, which we do not label as government. Yes, organizations claim to have presidents and governors and other governmental labels, but this only serves to muddy the waters. Words are meant to communicate ideas, and if a word means seven different things depending upon who you talk to, then it is very difficult to exchange ideas in a coherent fashion. Dogs do not fly, and governments do not exist without coercion. *** "Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in." ~ tzo Maybe you didn't see this, brother, "What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”?" *** What you are defining is a voluntary organization whose jurisdiction does not extend beyond the private property of its participants. No organization of this type has ever claimed to be, or has ever been considered to be, a government. If you say a government could exist under these conditions, then every company, family, baseball team, and school can be called a government. You have just eliminated a concept by changing its definition to something else. How can one discuss the concept that is government if it can mean voluntary organizations? Defining dogs as cats makes it difficult to talk about either coherently. *** "The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes." ~ tzo Strange, I can't find that in the DOI. I can only find this reference to taxes in the DOI, "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent", as one of the several reasons for seceding. *** "...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." Every Independent State in existence before the DOI was written taxed its subjects. That last little clause states that the new nation would claim the right to tax, since that is one of the Acts and Things that all other Independent States had the right to do. *** "I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society..." ~ tzo And, I don't recall trying to "excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society...", my friend, so I certainly wouldn't ask you to. Perhaps you didn't see this, "Yes, they unarguably failed..." *** I understand your point, but I cannot get past using the word government to explain what you envision. What you are describing is anarchy, or voluntaryism.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Governments have always been funded by taxes, they therefore can never be funded any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!] Governments have always monopolized the protection market, therefore it can never be any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!] "Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in." ~ tzo Maybe you didn't see this, brother, "What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”?" "The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes." ~ tzo Strange, I can't find that in the DOI. I can only find this reference to taxes in the DOI, "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent", as one of the several reasons for seceding. "I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society..." ~ tzo And, I don't recall trying to "excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society...", my friend, so I certainly wouldn't ask you to. Perhaps you didn't see this, "Yes, they unarguably failed..."
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Ah! More food for thought. From "Spiegel Online International": http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html Apparently, individual communities in Europe are experimenting with the elimination of coercive street signs. The result? "'The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,' says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. 'The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles.'" The "dwindling," or death, of personal responsibility. That would go under wealth.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    So, to paraphrase the quote I made up in my article, you are saying that the Declaration provides for a government that says, "We are here to protect you, to watch over you, to provide for you, to coordinate you, to rule over you, only if you consent. You have a choice in the matter. We believe this is for our collective posterity. You are free to disagree and to do so as loudly as you wish, and you do not have to obey. Furthermore, we will not steal your money, but will rely on private donations. Those who do not pay us must not expect to receive any benefit from our services; you're on your own." What have I just described other than a private business, advertising its services? The government that speaks in the hypothetical manner I have just used is certainly much more agreeable, but since they have not initiated coercion against anyone who does not wish to participate and who himself has not initiated coercion, what separates this "government" from voluntary organizations? Why should it be called a government? To soothe people who freak out at the word "anarchy"?
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Suverans2: "This does not mean that an individual will not be persecuted for choosing to secede from the political corporation." Yes, and that is the point I'm trying to make. That is the nature of government, whether or not it is the government Jefferson intended or believed in. That is what governments do. I can secede all I want, but if I completely secede in every way I wish to, they will come after me and ruin my life. I'm still getting census reminders, you know. Suverans2: "As for, 'that was never possible'? I am here to say that it was and is!! I strike the root by 'withdrawing from membership', I am an Individual Secessionist!!" Indeed, it is possible in the way you describe. In fact, you brought up one of my three criteria for a successful revolution, one of which applies to individual revolution. I was referring to the death-oriented government's view of secession.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Governments are funded by taxes. Period. Government monopolizes the protection market. Period. Competition among multiple security agencies with voluntary funding is not government. Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in. If you do this, there is no doubt others will do the same. Now you have a free market. Now you have no government. The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes. The land area they would eventually claim as theirs to control was taken aggressively through force of arms. I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society, no matter how stirring and noble-sounding the words on parchment may be.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Permissible? One does not need permission to secede from the governments of men any more than one needs permission to quit his job at Whole Foods. Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1351 Is secession unlawful, i.e. is it wrong? In a word, no, especially when those you have made a political compact or confederacy with are the first to breach the contract. According to the U.S. Government's own most foundational document, governments are instituted among men to secure to them their inalienable rights, i.e. their natural rights, the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. This is government's only lawful duty, and whenever it steps beyond this duty to secure to an individual or group one iota more than this, it must necessarily infringe on someone else's inalienable rights in order to do so. NL.1.3.3 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 Does secession violate international law? Apparently not. “It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede.” – Thomas Franck, (one of the five international law experts), as quoted in Suzanne Lalonde, Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of UIT POSSIDETIS 209 (2002) [Emphasis added] Omnes licentiam habere his quae pro se indulta sunt, renunciare. [It is a rule of the ancient law that] all persons shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit. Cod. 1, 3, 51 ; Id. 2, 3, 29 ; Broom, Max 699. ~ (Maxim of Law) A Law Dictionary, (Black's 2nd c.1910), page 851 Is secession against the man-made laws of the U.S.? Again, it appears not. “The wisdom of secession, particularly from December of 1860 to February of 1861, can be criticized in the most vehement of terms, without substantive objection. The legality of that secession, however, is beyond dispute.” ~ A Brief Examination of the Legality of Secession in the United States, Did the Southern States Have the Right to Secede from the Union During the Antebellum Period? by Kenneth S. Imbriale [Emphasis added] I challenge anyone to show us a U.S. statute criminalizing secession, in general, and individual secession, in particular. This does not mean that an individual will not be persecuted for choosing to secede from the political corporation. As Voltaire noted, “It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”. Notwithstanding he certainly has the natural right to do so. As for, "that was never possible"? I am here to say that it was and is!! I strike the root by "withdrawing from membership", I am an Individual Secessionist!!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    COERCION, n. Restraint, check, particularly by law or authority... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language COERCE, 1. To restrain by force; to keep from acting, or transgressing, particularly by moral force, as by law or authority; to repress. (Ibid.) What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”? And, is this not, at the least seemingly, what they were attempting to create, for perhaps the first time in the history of man, with the foundational document commonly called the Declaration of Independence? And, since it was the first time, would it not be necessary to “spell out in writing” the details? Yes, they unarguably failed, but should we throw the baby out with the bath water, or should we learn from it and correct the errors and establish a protectorate that can be controlled? PROTECT'ORATE, n. Government by a protector. (Ibid.)
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    I mention four deaths in succession, and use the word "death" instead of "slavery" (although that's a good one), because death happens immediately with the death of volition. As volition is inseparable from individuality, paying a parking ticket is a minor death of volition (temporarily), any possible relationship with the ticket issuer (death of trust), and an obvious death of wealth. You are correct that physical death, the fourth death, only happens if coercion is taken to its end. I used the word "death" because these things are vital to our understanding of ourselves. When we are kept from understanding our true selves (like being subjected to government schooling), a part of us dies. We need our volition, relationships, and wealth not only to enjoy life, but to learn and grow. I know for certain that parts of me are permanently dead, not only from government schooling, but personal relationships where coercion was used. This is called scarring, because some of the deaths I mention are irreversible. To the other commenters, The Declaration of Independence, as radical and important a historical document that it is, essentially says that a government needs to initiate coercion on behalf of those whom it coerces. Theoretically, it may state that individuals can secede, but that was never possible nor permissible.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    I agree Mitrik Spanner, Rightly understood, it calls for the right of secession for every individual, which is what I think you intended anyway. Correct me if I am wrong. "The right of self-government rests on the right [of the individual] to withdraw consent from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis." – Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties [Bracketed information added]
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I guess the author thinks that the word 'capitalism' has been corrupted but the term 'free market' has not? Capitalism gets its meaning from the word capital. Pretty simple. Free market is pretty self explanatory. We're going to worry about all the people who misuse the English language now? Like the author, for example? What an annoying title.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "Capitalism" is definitely a problematic word. Geez, now what are we going to call anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-freemarketists? Heh.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 8 weeks ago
    A Lion in Daniel's Den
    Page Jim Davies
    "She must have had a purpose." No. She's senile. And good luck trying to get Jews out of Israel. Doesn't matter that the neighbors don't like it. What are you suggesting, they might nuke Tel Aviv? How long after that will Mecca and Medina exist? Will they nuke Jerusalem, their own holy city? There will be no nukes used in the Middle East.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Public vs. Private
    Page Paul Hein
    Government thrives on euphemism, and we live in a fantasy world built of euphemisms. If people once got around all the euphemisms, we'd have a revolution tomorrow. I no longer use the word "public". Instead of "public schools", I say "government schools"; instead of "public lands", I say "government land." Might as well call a spade, a spade. Private property is certainly possible, but your house is not an example of it, even if it is all paid off. You are a renter, with the State as landlord. Might as well call a spade, a spade. Private property is that which you can prevent others from taking. Plain and simple.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Hmmm. This one might be stretching things a bit. I get that coercion is slavery, but not (usually) that it is death. Yes, many die as a result of government action; you can reasonably talk about government being death if the subject at hand is the invasion of Iraq, for example. But I wouldn't want to trivialize the significance of those deaths by saying paying a parking ticket is also death. One is death, the other is slavery. Is one's death the ultimate end of every coercion, if one resists? Yes. But the same is true for slaves who resist. So again, slavery seems a more reasonable description of what governments are about. Or maybe I just don't get the point.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    I disagree. What other voluntary organization has to spell out that its participants have the right to quit the organization? That goes without saying in any organization one voluntarily joins. Government is a different animal. Even when they spell out in writing that everyone has the right to quit it, they use force to prevent it from happening. That's why it's called government. If people could join and drop out at will, then it would be something else.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Heh. That is blowing milk out your nose funny. Even labor unions outsource their work if it's cheaper.
  • Mitrik_Spanner's picture
    Mitrik_Spanner 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    "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." I like the Declaration. Rightly understood it calls for the right of secession for all and can be understood to refer to voluntary government, as in mutual association. That sounds good to me.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    The very same logical glitch embedded in the Declaration of Independence. I am with you in that it is not possible for a person to hold onto conflicting beliefs (the desire for human freedom and the necessity of government) and also be consistent. And if one is logically inconsistent, then he is obviously wrong about something. Coercion is always wrong. Except when it isn't. [-1]
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Coercion Is Death
    Page B.R. Merrick
    No sooner was my latest article published, but I read this gem from The Freeman, by its late founder, Leonard Reed: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/fee-timely-classic/conscience-on-the-bat... It's a wonderful read, but even here I can spot the logical error: "While governments limited to keeping the peace and invoking a common justice are necessary for mortal beings..." And there it is again. Unless, of course, what I have written above is logical fallacy, the nature of government is to initiate coercion, even a "limited" government that keeps "peace" and provides "justice." How does a body that initiates coercion, that makes the initial threat, provide peace? I wonder if Leonard Reed would still think this way if he were alive, or if he would have progressed as far in his thinking as I believe I have. Either way, it is on important work like this that my thoughts on coercion are largely based. I highly recommend it.
  • rita's picture
    rita 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I've lived in Arizona since 1961. I grew up with Mexicans; they've been my classmates, co-workers, neighbors and friends. And I, for one, am deeply ashamed of the waves of bigotry and hate emanating from my once-beloved Arizona. With the passage of SB 1070, Arizona's bigot law, our so-called "leaders" prove once again their contempt for the intelligence of the people who elected them. And with their support of the law, the people prove that contempt well-founded.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 8 weeks ago
    A Lion in Daniel's Den
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, did any Iranian ruling elite actually say that Israel should be "swept into the sea," or was that a mistranslation, as I have been led to believe from what I have read online? My understanding was that the statement (if it's the one I remember from a few years ago) was incorrectly translated into English. The correct translation would have said that the current regime in Israel should be removed from the page of time, or some such thing. Were they referring to the government, or to Jews in general?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Public vs. Private
    Page Paul Hein
    One cannot have "private" property if one chooses to be, or remain, a member of the group known as "public", that is to say a "citizen[1]". When one chooses to do so, he has sold his birthright (his natural liberty) for a mess of pottage (membership-only entitlements, privileges, civil rights); (only freemen, i.e. semi-sovereign[2] individuals, retain their natural rights), so, as Paul Hein correctly stated, "...you have put the yoke upon your shoulders. Quit complaining, and pull!" Proverbs 23:1 (KJV) When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: 2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. 3 Be not desirous of his dainties [entitlements, privileges, civil rights]: for they are deceitful meat. [Bracketed information and emphasis added] [1] CITIZEN. In general. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights [civil rights, not natural rights] and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 206 [Bracketed information added] Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary [2] One is said to be semi-sovereign only, and not sovereign, when in any respect or respects he is liable to be controlled by a paramount government. The "paramount government" of the Freeman is the "laws of nature" or to be more precise, the "Natural Law of Man". In order for the Freeman to retain his own Natural Rights, he must be obedient to the Natural Law of Man, that is to say, he must respect everyone else's Natural Rights. "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" ~ Doctrine of the Mean 13.3 To the man who tells the truth, give a fast horse; he will need it to escape on.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Very good article, IMO. “Critical voices regularly chastise anarchists without indicating that they fully understand what anarchism actually is.” Anarchy. ...At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law, in which each person produces according to his powers and receives according to his needs, and at its worst, the word pertains to a terroristic resistance of all present government and social order. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 84 So, according to Black's Law Dictionary, “at best” anarchy is communism [“To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.” ~ Karl Marx] and at its worst it is terrorism. All in favor of “anarchy”, in either form, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, raise your hands. As we can all plainly see by that horrible definition, in order to claim any word for our own, i.e. use of it, we must give, along with it, our succinct definition of the word, if it is our desire to be understood by the largest number of individuals. One can easily see that Randall was correct in the above quoted assessment by looking at just a few definitions for the word “anarchism”. (Source: http://public.onelook.com/?w=anarchism&ls=a )
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    The Currency Act is a Canadian act. That quote was from the last line of the article.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Canada rules may be different than USA rules. But the guy should have kept the pennies for the metal content. Even zinc is worth more than paper. 2,000 paper ones is still a nice protest. I'm sure that if they are "worn" enough, they would even jam the currency counter machines.
  • Jim Carter's picture
    Jim Carter 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Fix the Economy?
    Web link Michael Kleen
    I used to have a high regard for Whitney. He has recently lost touch with reality---or sold out to Keynesists.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b. ~ John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary This Maxim of Law, one of the legal axioms which "shall be taken for granted" by the STATE's so-called JUDGES, is something that may be of greater concern. Partus sequitur ventrem. The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father. Regardless of the dubious origins of this maxim, are 14th Amendment citizens considered voluntary slaves by the aforementioned so-called JUDGES, as I and others have come to believe they are? If so, then the offspring will follow the condition of the mother, just as in all other cattle (animate chattel property). Now, according to Noah Webster (c.1828) there are two entirely different kinds of freemen, 1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal and, 2. One who enjoys or is entitled to a franchise or peculiar privilege; as the freemen of a city or state. For what should be obvious reasons, most will readily perceive that it is definition number one that applies to the above Maxim of Law. With franchises and peculiar privileges come certain "disadvantages". Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Maxim of Law taken from John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary One of these "disadvantages" may be that you don't own your offspring, the STATE does. This would explain why the STATE can "legally" come in and take the offspring whenever it chooses, basically. Any pretexts its AGENTS may choose to make manifest for this taking are merely to keep the rest of the herd from stampeding.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    "Under the Currency Act, nobody is obliged to accept more than 25 pennies as payment for any product or service." Property Tax is not a "product or service". Payment proffered and refused, debt negated.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Now that is moronic. "Methinks thou doth protest too loudly."