Recent comments

I agree, we must concentrate our numbers. If there were anywhere better to go on this planet I would make it my life's goal to get there. Or even another planet if that were in the realm of the possible. Imagine, Mars as a stateless planet! More than likely though, I'll be stuck here, in debt, without much preparation when the empire collapses.

Statists have their paranoid fantasies; there is no reason anarchists shouldn't have them too, I guess. The folks in Anarchyville would simply haul out their battle rifles and kill the invaders. Which is why no invasion would happen. There are many examples in the past where neighboring cities had very diverse outlooks, yet did not invade each other. The last place I lived, Hillsboro, Oregon, used to be known as "Sin City" to the devout Christians in Newberg, just over the hill. No invasions took place - even though the men of Newberg probably sneaked over to Sin City now and then for entertainment.

Suverans, Either you are a delicious satirist, or you have not thought things through very well. Once an organization dedicated to violence is ensconced-no matter how it is paid for-you can rest assured that there will be a collectivist army to deal with....minus the invasion. It's the nature of the beast, always has been. That said, it is extraordinarily difficult for a nation(a collectivist notion by the way), to actually effectively conduct an invasion, and repelling one requires less organization and resources than you might think. It took Europeans 300 years to fully disperse the technologically inferior nomadic tribes of N. America, and then only with the un-looked for aid of plagues. The Romans never did conquer the nomadic tribes of Germany and Britian, in fact, the opposite occurred. The truth is, most of the gaudy, expensive, war weapons are designed to awe and terrify(and bleed of funds) the populace and are of little actual defense value. Saddam's armed forces were utterly eliminated in the first weeks-if not hours-of the Iraq war.....and the Taliban never really had one....yet victory certainly can't be claimed. No, all that is needed to stymie an invasion force, as has been shown throughout the past century, and currently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and throughout history, is people willing to fight with whatever weapons they can procure. Though it does seem to help if, in the immortal words of Bert Gummer, "a few household chemicals in the proper proportions" are available.

PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE<?strong> I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it also will be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least. ~ G. Edward Griffin Excerpted from Creed of Freedom http://freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=creed

"National" defense makes about as much sense as "national" cell phone service, "national" health care, "national" education, or "national" government.

You're welcome and notice too that according to the strict legal wording of their "supremacy clause" there is a restriction on the laws, i.e. they are supposed to be made "in pursuance" of the Constitution, but the "treaties made or which shall be made" have not that same restriction, inferred or otherwise. It is important to note that only about five percent of the international agreement entered into by the US Government requires Senate advice and consent (Art. II, Sec. 2). “April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky that ‘treaty laws can override the Constitution.’ He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” [Emphasis added] July 18, 1993 -- CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it, is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order."

Appreciated.

Is it not the states right to decide what is necessary for it to enforce within it's own boundaries? http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/03/immigration-foreign-affai... And, if not, which I assume resides ultimately with the people of Arizona, doesn't the majority of it's citizens support the measure?

"Defense" from whom, exactly? Alex's article presupposes "a society without government" but also assumes that it would need a "defense system responsible for that area’s protection." Why? A reasonable answer might be "to prevent invasion by neighboring governments." However, that assumes that neighboring societies continue to have governments, eager as ever to increase their power by raiding and looting nearby targets. Why, again, assume such a thing? If society A rid itself of its government, would neighboring societies C and M be unaffected? - hardly. Yet that seems to be the unspoken assumption in the article. I suggest it be closely examined. There's another aspect to this, perhaps deeper yet. If Society A shook off its governmental chains, how did it do so? - answer, by some extraordinarily powerful method, which we need not consider here - though I assume it would be a non-violent method, because of Tandy's paradox that if resistance to government is powerful enough to wage a successful violent revolution, there would be no need to wage it. Now, despite my profound doubts based on the preceding paragraph, suppose Government C does mount an invasion and re-enslave the residents of Society A, or part of it. What's to stop those residents using that same method to shake it off again in short order? There might in a free society be a small residue of violent individuals who persist in trying to live by theft instead of voluntary exchange, hence most people will keep weapons handy to defend themselves and their families. Possibly "protection companies" will offer their services for a fee, and prosper here and there, as need may exist. But armies, navies and air forces will go in to the same historical trash can as government itself.

This is an essay that was actually co-authored by me and Stefan Molyneux. For reasons having to do with the hosting platform, it does not (and cannot, apparently) show Stef as a co-author. Simply because I'm proud of the work that Stef and I did together, I will spell that fact out here in the comments.

I note with interest—especially in the comments—the many calls for “respect the law” and “enforce the law” and “make the Feds do their job”. However, because ALL these Federal “laws”, rules, restrictions and regulations are themselves ILLEGAL, the solution is NOT reform but immediate REPEAL! THAT would be true “enforcement of the law” and true “respect for the law”! The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. As I stated in my 2007 article by the same name: “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!” REALLY! It is TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control! Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/yeyd7kq

According to the American declaration of independence, the only lawful purpose of a de jure government is to secure the unalienable rights of its individual members, because the moment it steps beyond this solitary rightful duty it must necessarily become an aggressor. Because of this G. Edward Griffin makes the valid point (IMO) that this organization should be called a protectorate rather than a government. This protectorate, I currently believe, must be a well-armed militia, i.e. "...the able bodied men [excluding genuine "pacifists", i.e. those who truly would not lift a finger to physically defend themselves or their loved ones if attacked] organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." I believe that this "law" would be in conformity with the natural law[1] of man. Frederic Bastiat may have said it best, I believe. "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from the Creator[2] - 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... If every man has the right to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups... If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect individuals, liberties, and properties, to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the simplest, easiest to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be." I suspect that this concept could be easily tested by asking each individual a question, perhaps something like this, "If you were attacked by a superior force would you want someone to aid you in your defense?" If you answer yes, then naturally you could be expected to do the same for your neighbors, it would seem to me. [1] 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 [2] For anyone not believing in a "first cause", please feel free ignore this as ignoring it will not detract from its intrinsic value.

It is wild to read this article from October 08, 2003. Monica has some real vision of how things work and writing about it 7 years ago before the sub-prime mess and the 'almost' crash of the economy. Community currency and local currency have begun to really take off in the US and Europe. TimeBanks are growing rapidly, hour exchanges and barter exchanges are becoming very common in small towns and big ones. I think there needs to be a more careful look at why some programs succeed like the Berkshares or Ithaca Hours and why many others fail after the initial excitement fades. Bishop http://www.twitter.com/pdxcurrency

Best reply goes to Mike. Here's a flowchart... Haven't won a war in 60 years? >>>>>>>> Don't bother with illegal invasions. - Mike, NY, NY, 29/4/2010 01:28 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269463/Afghanistan-Po...

Black's definition would be truer if included some minor additions: "Citizens" are members of a political community who...have... (grudgingly) submitted themselves to the dominion of a government (out of fear of the same) for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights.

I do understand that slide, you can't win.

thank you, buzaman!!!

A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, an Usurpation, and a Crime (1882) The science of mine and thine – the science of justice – is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other. ~ http://praxeology.net/LS-NL-1.htm#ch.1

If you are correct in this, Jim, then neither of them read Psalms 2:2 (KJV) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed... However, you might not be correct in this assessment, because Paul is also attributed to 'saying' this about Jesus, at Colossians 2:15 (LITV), "having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it." Which is the reason, of course, is why the first charge brought against him was teaching people not to pay tribute (taxes) to the Caesar. Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute [G5411] to Caesar... G5411 ...a load (as borne), that is, (figuratively) a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property...) ~ Strong's Greek Dictionary

quenny, Please tell us what leaving Afghanistan and Iraq has to do with Barack Hussein Obama's health care reform bill. Ever wonder why not one of these omniscient collectivists ever suggest a "purely voluntary health care association"?

The next freedom construct must be, neither government nor anarchy, but a protectorate. A protectorate is negative in its function. It acknowledges the legitimacy of collective force but only for the protection of life, liberty, and property. ~ G. Edward Griffin

Now if we can just get Congress to spend its time watching porn instead of legislating.

What a set of pipes, vocal joy.

Actually, "evil" is relative to what the individual thinks. When I say that government is "evil," I am merely stating my opinion. I see government as the physical embodiment, the officialization, if you will, of what I consider "evil," which is the desire to possess The Ring of Power, or to control what other individuals do. If you get rid of this government, the virus that creates it still exists within too many individuals walking around on this land mass.