Recent comments

  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    The prohibition of drugs in America has its roots in racism. Even that "noble experiment," alcohol prohibition, started as tee-totalling protestant backlash against the wine- and whiskey-swilling Catholic Italian and Irish immigrants of the day. Prohibition laws are, and always have been, a tool of oppression. That's why it goes on, and on, and on, despite having failed in every way possible to control drug use. Because it was never meant to control drug use. Prohibition hasn't failed; the so-called "war on drugs" hasn't failed. At least from the perspective of the drug warriors, their campaign to destroy human life and liberty is an unqualified success.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well, Suvarans2, you seem to have a religious view of it. I prefer the scientific view, that stuff only exists if you can detect it in instruments, measure it. Then perhaps you'd enjoy The Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59 I see no evidence that rights exist. Then, perhaps for you, Paul, they don't exist, perhaps you don't have the lawful right to defend your life, liberty and justly acquired property. Bastiat is a favorite of mine, but he's wrong in that quote. Well, it just so happens that your “favorite” author mentions these rights, which you call “phantasm”, I believe, no less than SIXTEEN TIMES in his pamphlet called The Law. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html People in government do not make laws to protect the life, liberty and property of people. They make laws to turn men into sheep. 99.99% of the laws have nothing at all to do with protecting our life, liberty and property - in fact a good hunk of them steal our life, liberty and property. And the other 0.01% that are alleged to protect our life, liberty and property are window-dressing, ignored by governments with impunity and designed to make us think government is needed. After all, Lon Horiuchi is still not in jail serving a life sentence. 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 “The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose, but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” ~ Frederic Bastiat Tell me, the Jews in Nazi Germany, did they have a right to life? What good did it do them? Those Iraqis in that wikileaks video, did they have a right to life? What good did it do them? When you show me a right that actually does something, I'll start believing you. Until then, I'll stick with my opinion that "most of the time, most people don't want to kill you". And that's as good as it gets. There is no "right". If people want to live, they had better arm themselves, and stop believing that phantasms will protect them. As I wrote in the above response, Paul, men don't have a right to live, they have the natural right to try to live, Paul, so "the actual, correct" statement is, "we have the right to defend our life", as do all other living creatures. This does not mean that they will always be successful, Paul. Where did you get these rights, anyway? God gave 'em to ya? A phantasm giving another phantasm. When rational defenses fail, Paul, personal attacks are sure to be the weapon of choice. I don't believe I mentioned anything about God, Paul, but one of your “favorite” authors most certainly did, Frederic Bastiat wrote, “Each of us has a NATURAL RIGHT - from the Creator - to defend his person [body and soul] his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two”, so perhaps you should take this argument up with him. Sorry, I'm not a believer. No one asked you to be, Paul. Like I said, I prefer the scientific view. And, like I said, perhaps you should read The Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59 in which he mentions “rights” no less than TWO DOZEN TIMES, and “natural rights”, FIVE TIMES, Paul. Not that I want to dispute with believers; I suppose we all have a little religion in us. Probably just me, but it sure sounds like you'd like to initiate a dispute. But I refuse to participate. But belief in government is not for me. No one asked you to, Paul. May I ass-u-me that you do not retain membership in or take any benefits or privileges from the god called “government” then, Paul? ″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god.″ ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Oh, and it's not a valid debating tactic to say that what I wrote is so full of errors you have no time to address them. Perhaps you are correct, Paul, but I certainly have the RIGHT, since it is my time. But if it is your desire that I refute what you wrote, item by item, I will try to find the time to do so. Let me know, Paul. And arguing some distinction between "lawful" and "legal" is not very impressive. Well, it should be, Paul, since they are, more often than not, contradistinct, notwithstanding that statists will certainly try to CONvince us otherwise. As an example, there is nothing “unlawful”, i.e. immoral, or wrong, about me using my automobile to procure food for my family without the STATE's written permission (LICENSE), but it would most certainly be “illegal” if I was a consenting member of that political society. Lawful. ...The principle distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of the law. ...Further, the word “lawful” more clearly implies an ethical content than does “legal.” The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissablility. A further distinction is that the word “legal” is used as the synonym of “constructive,” which “lawful” is not. ...Again, “legal” is used as the antithesis of “equitable”... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 885 [Emphasis added] See that, even they begrudgingly admit that there is a distinction, Paul. They both have to do with government (that's what governments do, pass laws, after all) that same entity you have seceded from. I'm curious, Paul, what are your thoughts on the natural laws, the laws of nature, the laws discoverable by the rational minds of men? Do you consider these to be “phantasms” too?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well, Suvarans2, you seem to have a religious view of it. I prefer the scientific view, that stuff only exists if you can detect it in instruments, measure it. I see no evidence that rights exist. Bastiat is a favorite of mine, but he's wrong in that quote. People in government do not make laws to protect the life, liberty and property of people. They make laws to turn men into sheep. 99.99% of the laws have nothing at all to do with protecting our life, liberty and property - in fact a good hunk of them steal our life, liberty and property. And the other 0.01% that are alleged to protect our life, liberty and property are window-dressing, ignored by governments with impunity and designed to make us think government is needed. After all, Lon Horiuchi is still not in jail serving a life sentence. Tell me, the Jews in Nazi Germany, did they have a right to life? What good did it do them? Those Iraqis in that wikileaks video, did they have a right to life? What good did it do them? When you show me a right that actually does something, I'll start believing you. Until then, I'll stick with my opinion that "most of the time, most people don't want to kill you". And that's as good as it gets. There is no "right". If people want to live, they had better arm themselves, and stop believing that phantasms will protect them. Where did you get these rights, anyway? God gave 'em to ya? A phantasm giving another phantasm. Sorry, I'm not a believer. Like I said, I prefer the scientific view. Not that I want to dispute with believers; I suppose we all have a little religion in us. But belief in government is not for me. Oh, and it's not a valid debating tactic to say that what I wrote is so full of errors you have no time to address them. And arguing some distinction between "lawful" and "legal" is not very impressive. They both have to do with government (that's what governments do, pass laws, after all) that same entity you have seceded from.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Next, I went here http://www.depressedmetabolism.com/la-rollins-the-myth-of-natural-rights/ and read, L.A. Rollins – The Myth of Natural Rights and the word that kept coming to mind was "sophistry", in the negative sense of that word. SOPH'ISTRY, n. 1. Fallacious reasoning; reasoning sound in appearance only. These men have obscured and confounded the nature of things by their false principles and wretched sophistry. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language It's erie, old Noah's example, "These men have obscured and confounded the nature of things by their false principles and wretched sophistry", seems almost to have been written with that article in mind.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Okay, Paul, I went and read Libertarian Dogma, and intending no disrespect, it is so chock full of errors, (in my opinion), as to take up too much of my time refuting them all, item by item. Suffice to say that it confuses "rights" and "privileges", more often than not. And this, "...the actual, correct "right to life" is this statement: "Most of the time, most people don't want to kill you", is nonsensical. We don't have a right to live, Paul, we have the natural right to try to live, Paul, so "the actual, correct" statement is, "we have the right to defend our life", as do all other living creatures. As Frederic Bastiat correctly wrote (IMO): "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."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I agree that “blowback”, if and when it happens, almost certainly will affect me, but that will not stop me from refusing to be a part of the cause. I beg to differ with you, Paul, “lawful right” is not a government concept, “legal right” is, and therein lies the distinction. “Lawful” and “legal”, in fact are many, many times contradistinct (“distinguished by opposite qualities”). By that I mean, what is “legal” is very often not “lawful” and vice versa. Lawful rights, or natural rights, are inherent, (we are born with them), they are not given by governments, in fact they are very rarely, if ever, “legally recognized” by governments. Legal rights, or civil rights, are rights that an individual has as a result of his membership in a political association. “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. 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]
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "The phrase "in our name", as you no doubt know, means "in our authority", and that is only true for those who consent to be, or remain members, (i.e. citizens), of it. As an Individual Secessionist I am not a part of your government, Paul, and it is therefore not doing it in my name." Your distinction here will be lost on those who are suffering the effects of US actions. Blowback will affect you whether you personally secede or not. Please consider the context of my statement. "Are you saying you don't have the lawful right to defend them, Paul?" "Lawful right" is just a government concept. Whether I defend my life (for example) does not depend on government. I do it regardless what the law says about it. Saying I have a "right" to do so adds nothing to the discussion, and can actually be deleterious. My exposition on this point is here: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle507-20090222-03.html I got thinking along these lines after reading an interview with Jeff Snyder here: http://lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro2.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    The very government you depend on to keep invaders out is the same one going around the world in our name and making life miserable for everyone. ~ Paul The phrase "in our name", as you no doubt know, means "in our authority", and that is only true for those who consent to be, or remain members, (i.e. citizens), of it. As an Individual Secessionist I am not a part of your government, Paul, and it is therefore not doing it in my name. There is no such thing as rights. ~ Paul I have never understood that utterly ridiculous statement. Are you seriously saying that you do not, (because you most certainly do not speak for me), have the inherent right, i.e. "Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession...[1]" to your life, liberty and justly acquired property, Paul? Are you saying you don't have the lawful right to defend them, Paul? One more question, Paul, does a group of individuals, in your opinion, have the lawful authority, i.e. the right, to form a purely voluntary protectorate to defend their lives, liberty and justly acquired property? If the answer is yes, do they also have the lawful right to call that protectorate anything they like, even "government", if they so desire? [1] Source: Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Geez, I guess I'd better start throwing my pop cans away. I sure don't want to be evil! Heh. One can go overboard with this anti-recycling stuff. Yeah, the ruling class twists recycling and other versions of "living lightly" to their own ends, just like they twist everything else. That does not mean all people who want to be less wasteful are idiots or tyrants. The fact is, if people want to recycle, there is nothing freedom lovers can do to stop them (without using violence). It's not recycling per se that is bad, but forced recycling. Let's keep focused on the evil here. Sometimes I think libertarians like to talk tough, just like conservatives, so they do it by bashing harmless behavior. Pretty funny, I think.
  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Please! This is NOT "drug-related" violence; it's DRUG WAR violence. Every day, millions of people buy, sell and use a variety of legal drugs, many produced in Mexico, without causing so much as a harsh word among suppliers. Because the link between "illegal drug trade" and "violence" isn't "drug." The link is "illegal." Drug cartels, drug smugglers and drug traffickers wouldn't even exist if not for our government waging war against its own citizens. Drugs are not violent and they don't cause violence. War, by definiton, does.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 18 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "The problem with having only local governments is it leaves our whole country open to being conquered by another." By what other, exactly? Keeping in mind that it is one thing to conquer another country, another thing entirely to hold it? Will Canada invade us? Mexico? The latter is already invading (their own former territories) in a way the federal government is powerless to prevent (assuming they wanted to, which I doubt): by human reproduction. But who cares? I don't care where anyone comes from - only whether or not they believe in freedom. Let my neighbors be freedom-loving Chinese, Russians and Iranians. The very government you depend on to keep invaders out is the same one going around the world in our name and making life miserable for everyone. Ever hear of "blowback"? If we are invaded it will be *because* of the federal government's actions. Anyway, if the federal government disappears, the tanks, missiles, and heavily armed populace does not. Who would invade? Just after Obama's election, more weapons and ammunition were purchased by Americans than most militaries possess. We are already an occupied country. The occupier *is* the federal government. Only, it is worse than if some foreigners were here, because so many people still support the federal government, or grant it some legitimacy. "The only proper use of force for a de jure "Federal government", is the same as that of a de jure "local government", to protect individual rights..." This is a weird element of libertarian dogma, that I am amazed people still believe. Governments aren't for that purpose, never were for that purpose. They were always for gathering power and wealth at the expense of the productive class. Ours is not somehow special and different; it is exactly the same as all the rest, differing only in the propaganda it uses to keep us subservient. Only believers in the government religion would think that governments are for protecting our rights. There is no such thing as rights. And governments - the most rapacious institutions humans have ever invented - certainly are not for protecting these phantasms. Time to move beyond the government propaganda, and see the world as it is. See Stefan Molyneux' take on this, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Agreed, Samarami, they only grant "privileges" masquerading as "rights". "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws...." ~ John Adams "A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." ~ Ramsey Clark
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Bread and Circuses
    Page Mike Wasdin
    "The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent [secede] 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
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Bread and Circuses
    Page Mike Wasdin
    >I was not required to move to New Hampshire (or is it Vermont?) The Free State Project moves people to New Hampshire. Maybe you weren't required to move there, but if you had, you'd be surrounded by a lot more like-minded people! http://freestateproject.org
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Listen to journalist Charles Bowden talk about the organized killing going on in Mexico, especially Juarez: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125427225 He says that most of it is out of the news because the police and the drug gangs have a common interest in keeping the body count down. The gangs maintain "death houses" throughout Juarez, where the torture and kill people, and then dispose of the bodies in lime pits.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "We still need a Federal government for the protection of the Nation as a whole from outside influences." ~ Andrew Wiggins [Emphasis added] "[O]utside influences"????? I hope you meant, by that, "outside aggression". The only proper use of force for a de jure "Federal government", is the same as that of a de jure "local government", to protect individual rights, i.e. to ensure its members natural, and thus inalienable, rights, among which are the right to defend one's life, the right to defend one's liberty, and the right to defend one's justly acquired property. Keeping this "use-of-force-rule" in mind, what other "proper purposes" do you envision your "Federal government" having, and how do you envision it "voluntarily" accomplishing these other "proper purposes"? The only other "proper purpose" I can envision any de jure government having is "to lead", and only in this very narrow sense of that word, "to guide; to show the method of attaining an object", "to induce; to prevail on; to influence". Beyond that it should remain powerless, in my opinion. Another thing we must decide upon is, how do we establish what a "proper purpose" is, by a 100% consensus of its members, by a majority of its members, by a majority of its voting members, or by some small group or individual? I cast my vote for "a 100% consensus". I can almost hear the "social engineers" screaming now, "Nothing will get done!" To which I respond, "EXACTLY!!" Imagine how few rules, regulations and statutes there would be if that were the case. My guess is that government would then be limited to protecting individual's natural rights, (as the so-called Declaration of Independence stated), and nothing more. http://www.thoughts.com/IndividualSecession101/blog/individual-secession...
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 8 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Andrew, I don't have anything to add to what Suverans said, but I'm curious about something. You're not also known as muddy waters, the poker player, are you? - Greg
  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 19 weeks ago Page Roger Young
    I always appreciate the opportunity to use million-dollar words, and Sarah gave me "provincial;" as in "limited in outlook; narrow; unsophisticated." Picking her was, I think, John McCain's downfall, so I guess I should thank her for that as well.
  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    The drug war has not failed. Oh, it certainly has failed, consistently, to reach its STATED objectives, which are to reduce drug use. But the reality is that the stated objectives, like everything else about this dirty, ugly war, are a lie. Prohibition is, and always has been, a tool of oppression. And you don't wage war on people to help them, or protect them, or save them. You wage war on people to take what they have or destroy it. Well, it's working. Thousands of Americans die every year in drugwar violence. Countless families have suffered the reckless destruction of drug raids. Millions of harmless people have been imprisoned, and each one of those is a life damaged or destroyed, not by drugs, but by drug laws. Let's face it, no government campaign would continue at such a hideous price if it was a "failure." The so-called "war on drugs" continues because those who make the decisions are the ones who benefit from it. And in their eyes, their dirty, ugly war is an unqualified success.
  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    What pollsters should be asking people is if they believe politicians have the right to dictate what individuals may or may not do to their own bodies and if violent police intervention and lengthy prison sentences are acceptable punishments for victimless activities (keeping in mind that illegal drugs are very much available in prison). Or in the immortal words of Jimmy Durante, "Why doesn't everybody just leave everybody else the hell alone?"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "..according to Israel"? According to the fox he was definitely acting in self defense. Once he entered the hen house, the chickens attacked him and he just fought back to defend himself. This act can result in more troubles and disputes in the near future.
  • winston smith's picture
    winston smith 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    what? of course 2 + 2 = 5. http://www.2plus2equals5.net/
  • Guest's picture
    KatrinaA (not verified) 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    The Turkish ship last week where nine individuals have been killed may have been on a diverse mission. The boat was said to be taking supplies into Gaza, even so rumors are rising the aim in the ship, Gaza Freedom Flotilla, was to break the blockade down, not bring aid to Gaza. Not only that but, according to Israel they were definitely acting in self defense. Once they boarded the ship, passengers attacked them and they just fought back to defend themselves. This act can result in more troubles and disputes in the near future.
  • Guest's picture
    Andrew Wiggins (not verified) 8 years 19 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    The problem with having only local governments is it leaves our whole country open to being conquered by another. We still need a Federal government for the protection of the Nation as a whole from outside influences. It would be naive to think that if we just keep to ourselves, the rest of the world will leave us alone, and it would be irresponsible not to think of it at all. There are proper purposes for a Federal government to exist and protect individual freedom.
  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    The police have taken up arms against the American people. And don't blame the "drug war." The so-called "war on drugs" was just a political metaphor until the police, themselves, made it a reality. And the police have the power to end it; right now. Notice I didn't say "end prohibition." I said "end the war." Politicians make the laws, but police wage the war; in doing so they violate more laws than most of us do in lifetime. And unlike our crimes, ALL of theirs have victims. And the victims are us. Not drugs. Us. All of us. People say that cops can't "pick and choose" what laws to enforce; that they're just "doing their jobs." Obviously the law ALLOWS them to invade our homes in the middle of the night, beat up our grandmas and shoot our children, no law requires them to do so. And no one will ever convince me that cops are stupid enough to believe they're protecting the public by attacking us while we sleep. No, they do it for one reason, and one reason only: They do it because they can.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." ~ Henry David Thoreau So, how does "one" strike at the root? "The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent [secede] 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 That "right" belongs to you, the individual, no one else can withdraw your consent for you. If one knows that the group that he is a member of is doing evil, and he does not withdraw his consent to be a member of it, he is an accessory before the fact. He casts his vote by consenting to remain a member.
  • miamizsun's picture
    miamizsun 8 years 19 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    most excellent article.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Are you aware that the first Social Security Numbers (they weren't called that then, but were 9 digit identification numbers) were issued in the 1870's -- to black slaves registering as citizens of the United States? ~ David Gould
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago
    The Civil Rights Myth
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    Do you want "civil rights"? Civil rights...the local rights of a corporation or any member of it. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "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." "When you join any political community, you become subject to the rules thereof."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    oops!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    Yeah, Dennis, especially in the PRC (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA). Just a few million more rules, regulations and statutes and they will have a completely idiot-proof STATE, or so they appear to believe.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    NOTHING is too trivial to escape the attention of the Control Freaks!!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    James has given us a note worthy definition of today's democratic government, "elective dictatorship". However, his choice of words in this statement, "The ultimate threat to democracy’s survival may be the fact that many people simply do not value their own freedom," leaves something to be desired, IMO; it should have read, again IMO, "The ultimate threat to individual liberty is the fact that many people simply do not value their own freedom". "Those who exchange liberty for security will soon find that they have neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Wendy has my respect and support in much of what she writes. If there is a specific thing I can do to help extract the Stagliano's of the world from Leviathan's clutches I will do so, even if it includes assisting to physically break him out of one of the statist prisons. I have no confidence, however, that state employees have any desire or ability to grant "rights". They take away "rights". I avoid voting or communicating with legislators or judges or other state parasites with hope I can "accomplish" any good for their victims. Demonstrations, letter writing campaigns and "marches" are fruitless and only play into the hands of state worshipers. I'd better spend my efforts working with foxes to eat herbs and leave chickens be.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago
    A Just War?
    Web link Little Alex
    I gave this article a 7. My comments, in order, "kill" was a mistranslation in "Thou shalt not kill". Jay P. Green Sr. got it right in his Literal Translation of the Holy Bible when he translated the Aramaic word ratsach, "murder". All murder is killing, but all killing is not murder. Since I am an individual secessionist the UNITED NATIONS is not my "proper authority", however, it presumably is the "proper authority" for the voluntary members of it, which, in my opinion, is another great reason to be an individual secessionist. Next, "Reasonable Hope for Success" has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether a war is "just", i.e. "upright; honest; having principles of rectitude". Lastly, I'm surprised that Jim made not so much as a casual mention of the controversy over whether Iraq even had anything to do with the attacks on the Twin Towers and/or the Pentagon. And, maybe someone here can help me, I forget when did Afghanistan attack America or Great Britain?
  • Guest's picture
    juddweiss (not verified) 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Thank you for linking to my article. I have a few other articles that you may want to post to your audience: Bailout the Gold Diggers http://hustlebear.com/2010/04/06/bailout-the-gold-diggers-2/ If you believe government shouldn’t tax you and spend away your future then you must be a RACIST!!! http://hustlebear.com/2010/04/15/if-you-believe-government-shouldnt-tax-... We Are Not Pawns, We Are Not Pawns http://hustlebear.com/2010/04/04/we-are-not-pawns-we-are-not-pawns/ Thanks again, and there's more on the way :) Judd Weiss http://hustlebear.com
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 20 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    US CODE: Title 28,3002. Definitions (15) "United States" means — (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States. ~ http://tinyurl.com/2u23xv If criminals do hide behind a corporation, consider this DRichards, your "government" is a corporation.
  • DRichards's picture
    DRichards 8 years 21 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    It seems to me that if criminals hide behind a corporation, then the government needs to become involved in a corporation's business in order to enforce laws. If corporations are indeed "people" then they should be subject to the law (regulation), just as the government enforces laws for the general public.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 8 years 21 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    The Free State Project has two big annual events in New Hampshire, each of which is one of the biggest libertarian gatherings in the world. The summer event is the Porcupine Freedom Festival, this year 24-27 June: http://freestateproject.org/festival Each of these events is a great opportunity to socialize with like-minded activists who are actually *doing* something to move the liberty peanut forward. At the winter event, the New Hampshire Liberty Forum, I met one of the STR editors and David Friedman.
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 8 years 21 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Actually, there is an arguement with the numbers. As at first glance, those figures seem to vindicate the theory of those who think that immigration (illegal) does not import crime. And one would be completely remiss if they had not looked at the readily available information abundant online. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_01.html http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/azcrime.htm Specifically: - Violent crime rate in Arizona (2008): 447 per 100K - Violent crime rate in West region (2008): 445.4 per 100K - Violent crime rate nationwide (2008): 454.5 per 100K - Property crime rate in Arizona (2008): 4291 per 100K - Property crime rate in West region (2008): 3200.7 per 100K - Property crime rate nationwide (2008): 3212.5 per 100K - Change in Violent crime rate in Arizona (1989-2008): 599.6 to 447, a roughly 25% reduction - Change in Violent crime rate nationwide (1989-2008): 666.9 to 454, a roughly 32% reduction - Change in Property crime rate in Arizona (1989-2008): 7460 to 4291, a roughly 43% reduction - Change in Property crime rate nationwide (1989-2008): 5107 to 3212, a roughly 38% reduction “Arizona’s overall violent crime rate is lower than the nationwide average, but higher than it’s regional average. Its property crime rate is higher than both the nationwide and regional average. Its rate of decline for violent crime is slower than that of the nation, but its rate of decline for property crime is faster than that of the nation.” -blogger BSK This is only to illustrate the ability of some to manipulate data that mave have otherwise been used to provide an opposing view (keep in mind this only portrays Arizona as pertains to illegal immigration and not legal immigration). What should also be kept in mind is what type of immigration is being used to provide these numbers (legal/illegal)? As well as what nationality has been included as opposed to those that were left out? Not all Mexicans are classified similarly, (Latinos, Chicanos, Coconuts)and, are these nationalities considered when crime documentation only allots for a small accruement of minorities (White, Black, Mexican, Hispanic, Other). What is the probability of these individuals actually providing the correct nationality of their heritage? Would it be improper to claim that if the existing ramifications for being illegal, from whatever country, and subsequent deportation back to their homeland, would endanger them even further down the line as evidenced with Mexico's horrendous laws regarding immigration. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/widespread-abuse-migra...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 21 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for your thoughtful responses, Paul. If I understand your response to me correctly, I must say, "No sir, that is not my assumption", my assumption is stated in the second sentence of my post immediately above and quoted here, "The only logical position for true lovers of liberty is that of individual secession." Individual autonomy, checked only by the Natural Law (of man), is my goal, Paul.
  • voluntaryist's picture
    voluntaryist 8 years 21 weeks ago Page Stewart Browne
    I worked for change within the Libertarian Party (1972-1980) and came to the same conclusion that Stewart did. After 28 years of not voting I registered Republican so I could vote for Ron Paul in the Primary. I donated $300. I was a fool. I knew better, but I wasted my time & money. I am not influential with many but I do advocate secession. I moved to WY to be freer. If our society survives the coming economic collapse I will stay in the U.S. If the giant wins I will leave.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 8 years 21 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Excellent debunking of the irrational fear that so many people have of immigrants.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 21 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "I have come to the conclusion that we can convert statists to voluntaryists, but not by talking. We have to form a community and teach by example." Yes, I believe this too. The first and most important barrier for the anarchism meme to surpass is that it is possible at all. When it works and works well, it will get a lot of people questioning what government actually does for them. "Logically, if one professes to believe in individual liberty, then to be consistent one must be against State secession, because State secession is, after all, nothing more than another variation of the majority forcing its will upon the minority." No. You are making the assumption that the default case (no secession) is also not a choice. Those who wish to remain in the Union are imposing their choice on those who don't. The latter obviously want more freedom than the former, since the federal government is so harmful to freedom, not to mention to life itself (witness the wars in the Middle East). Butte, Montana is an interesting case. There is no city government layer; Silver Bow County performs that function, more or less. To me, the fewer layers, the better. One can argue whether the optimal layer is the city or county layer. However, there are over 3000 counties in the U.S.; out of that large number there should be a reasonable selection of anarchist ones. They may be easier to defend against any latent aggression by neighboring statists as well. Individual secession should be done in any case. But I think getting rid of the federal layer is a step in the right direction, just as imposition from the United Nations would be a step in the wrong direction. Local autonomy is the goal. That way there is a place both for statists and for anarchists. The only way to get to local autonomy is to get rid of the upper layers of government that aggregate everyone together.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 21 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    The only problem is, B.R., the mild-mannered members of the Christian right are state-worshipers, too. They're the ones who spout their perverted version of Romans XIII at us [individual secessionists]. Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 21 weeks ago
    Salt Tyrants
    Web link Don Stacy
    Excellent article! Here's another one from Walter http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 21 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Another great article "striking at the root" of evil.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 21 weeks ago Page tzo
    "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. Profound truths have been stated here, and I have no argument with them. However, it has nothing to do with the rest of the content of this document. It is merely the hook—the sexy model sitting on the hood of the sports car. It has nothing to do with the product, but it sure helps sell it." ~ tzo Something else that should literally jump out at us, Tom, is what is blatantly missing among these enumerated "unalienable Rights", i.e. "property", especially since we know that all the other rights hinge on self-ownership [property in one's self] and since this phraseology was adapted from George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights, which begins this way: I That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. I feel that this flagrant omission was no mere oversight and I also find my antenna going up because George did not write "they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest themselves or their posterity".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 21 weeks ago Page tzo
    Declaration of Independence Notice of Secession Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 940 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for a man to dissolve the bands which have connected him with a body politic, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature and Nature’s God entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the cause(s) which impel him to the separation. ″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 Inalienable Rights″[1], rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental[2], that among these are Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property, and that "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the governed, – and whenever any Government becomes destructive of these Inalienable Rights, every man has the Lawful Authority to Withdraw his Consent, and to return to the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature[3] and Nature’s God entitles him. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be Seceded from for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by Withdrawing from the governments to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to Secede from such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of this Man; and such is now the necessity that constrains this Man to Secede from this Government. The history of the United States Government, rather than securing, has a record of repeated injuries to, and usurpation of, Man’s Inalienable Rights, all having as their direct objective the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over men. I, Given Name therefore, being a Lawful Man, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Creator of the heavens, the earth and the seas, and all that in them is, solemnly publish and declare, this Man is, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent, that he is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States, and any and all States under the authority of the United States, and that all political connection between him and the aforementioned States, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Man, I have full Power to Arm and Protect Myself, my Loved Ones, and my justly acquired Possessions, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Trade, Possess Land, Travel Freely and to do all other Acts and Things which Free and Independent Men may of right do. Name in Upper and lower case: ________________________________________ Seal: First Witness: _____________________________________________ Second Witness: _____________________________________________ 1 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America [Declaration of Independence] 2 Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 1057 3 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
  • Guest's picture
    selmermarkVI (not verified) 8 years 21 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Wow! Kindred spirits after my own heart... For Mike the Canadian, I would suggest that you are doing fine as a Canadian, you obviously do not intend to illegally tap any "services" reserved for SS card carrying US Citizens, so I say live and let live! For Scarmig, I ask: How many of us are there who have done this in our families? Two? (You and me?) My son was native born right here in Texas in 1992, I never got him the number either, for "freedom" purposes, and wrote argumentative letters to IRS, with our pediatrician's notarized statement that our son was truly a male homo sapiens, entirely dependent upon his mother and me, and that we were claiming him as a dependent without obtaining for him any SS#. We actually did that for about 4 years, let them recompute our tax with penalty and interest, and then we would pay the penalty. I was truly stubborn. Since that time, we had not even bothered to claim him, we just paid the extra taxes without a "fight". Our accomplishments to date: -Enrollment in public school without an SS#. -Texas Driver's License without an SS# (the form was DL-13, I believe.) -Life Insurance Policy without an SS#. -Enrollment in out of state mechanic trade school without an SS#. But, by golly, now they may have him. He has been trying to figure a way to open a checking account with a SS#, and we are at a brick wall. He is 17, and to date, has never encountered any native born American citizen without an SS#. He thought he might be the only one, I told him there are probably a few hundred thousand around the country, but for religious reasons. His lack of number is due to "freedom loving" reasons. Anybody got any ideas for my son on how to get a bank checking account without an SS#?