Recent comments

One might imagine that the property tax increase that was voted down resulted in some other tax increases to make up for the lost expected income. If this was the case, then those who were able to keep their houses did so at the expense of other taxpayers. I don't blame anyone for voting in order to save their home, but this self-defense ballot probably just shifts the burden to others. In such situations, it is no doubt best to take your own interests into account first, but it is still manipulating the system for your benefit, to the detriment of others. If a chunk of the government had to shut down due to lack of funding brought about by the vote, then that is another matter. But I don't believe that happens very often, if at all. Whether through tax increases, new taxes, or inflation, the government seems to always be able to fund its expansion. So I guess that I'm not convinced that tyranny is slowed by any vote, and it will inevitably follow the path it always has—taking until it takes too much and crashes.

The argument that voting to end slavery justifies voting seems flawed to me for several reasons. The best of which is quite simple: That the outcome preferred by the voters is ostensibly moral does not justify for the methodology itself. It seems you're using the ends to justify the means. Stated differently, if one believes that slavery is wrong, then simply because voting *could* have conceivably ended slavery doesn't make voting good. In fact, the same benefit could be offered for other approaches, e.g., killing all slave owners. Yet few, if any, would suggest that this represents "a rare case where murder is justified." (Then again...) Anyway, the approach I might have used to end slavery, arguably a lifeboat situation for my ancestors, provides little information or useful premise for that multitude of situations outside the lifeboat.

i real link for the page is ---> http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/06/when-70-support-marijuana-legalizat...

Thanks for the analogy. It certainly does look as if he is drunk. Cutting back, if it is to really do any good, means really cutting back or stopping completely. American families are tightening our belts and so should the government. casino online

I enjoyed reading this article.

Dims.

superb insight ! Surprisingly accurate . WS

I think Max Stirner would have had fun mocking there guys.

It is an interesting concept, the space taxi, however, I don't really get the point of making it a reality, or even being out there in the first place, besides it just being "cool". Just like the missile that was launched at the moon, I mean, what kind of backwards ass country sends a missile at the moon, yet protests spending money on health care? I'm not in support of involuntary public health care, but if I had to choose between the two programs, I'd ditch NASA quick. Corporate welfare meets new heights indeed.

paul's words were not only contradictory to jesus' words and actions (jim, it's a stretch to say that Christ's words to pilate were an endorsement of the roman empire, as opposed to the idea that God allowed that power in that instance in order for his will to be fulfilled), but they were also contradictory paul's actions and the words and actions of his contemporary, peter, as i pointed out through the link above. i don't think that the bible can be trusted in every case. though Christians believe that the the bible is the word of God, i believe that it contains the word of God, though not necessarily everything it contains represents such. it has spent too much time in the hands of untrustworthy people for us to be assured that it has not been altered for the sake of controlling Christians.

on expecting the approach, i've found that response is dependent on the level of toe curl, the differing degrees of such being dependent on the manner of approach. When late walking (at night) i was asked what i was doing, with minor toe curl responded with 'walking why ?, was told it was late for a walk and responded as to there being 24hrs in a day, end. A friend was pulled in his car, due to eye contact at a junction and him laughing, they were shown his documents, looked over the vehicle etc, then when done were informed of a terrible stink, they said they couldn't smell anything, they were told it was their aftershave, they moved on.

An excellent synopsis in just a few words describing "My Country" (government) and "elections" (the game as it is). Good work. However, your last paragraph, Mike, falls short. Let's see if I can explain: I am a sovereign state. Last time I voted in a U.S. Election was for Barry Goldwater in 1964 (I'm 73). Some time thereafter I seceded from the union. I was not required to move to New Hampshire (or is it Vermont?). I did not need to contemplate floating on a gigantic raft on the ocean. I stayed in Texas -- but I was no longer a Texan or an American. I vote. My President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis. I support The Incumbent. The Laws that govern me can be inscribed upon two tablets of stone. Don't get me wrong -- I fall down in obedience miserably much of the time, but that doesn't change The Statutes or exempt me from The Law. By now you're thinking, "This guy's one of them Eee-Van-Gelical's -- a Borned-Again Chr-stian!!!" (Probably a Huck-Abee fan!). Not. I couldn't proselytize anybody into anything. Well, I had to quit drinking in the process of secession; so I could help you find a group of men and women who will lead you out of that tyranny if it turns out your problem is anything like mine. But no religion and no politics. You can be free. Yes, you can. Samarami

Tzo, Excellent commentary, as usual. There is a thin line between bravery and stupidity. I believe every person's line is different. I had a similar encounter and stood my ground, for a short while. It quickly became obvious to me that I was on the loosing side of the argument, so I decided to comply. Retreat is not a sign of cowardice. Many times it is a sign of intelligence. In my situation the officer's communication, both verbal and non-verbal, told me I was about to receive an attitude adjustment. I decided to comply with his demand for identification and was "allowed" to proceed on my merry way. I stood my ground, but knew when to retreat. I do not feel like a coward, although I do feel as though my freedom was violated. I believe that just knowing that the officer was violating your natural rights puts you ahead of the AAC. That is half of the battle.

In this immediate context at least, I beg to differ with Tzo. Paul's words in Romans 13:1 closely echo Jesus' own, in John 19:11, when he was being interrogated by Pilate: "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." He, too, therefore, clearly believed that God had ordained the Roman empire and its provincial governors. Both of them were being ill-treated by that political power, so the fact that both held fast to the view that it was a divine institution is remarkable. Both were cases in which belief flew in the face of rational evidence. Neither of them seem to have taken account of the contradiction.

Very original and thoughtful article about a moral dilemma and situation that we've all been in.

Romans 13:1 is a tough one for theists who recognize that government is the root of all evil. Paul the Cab Driver does a creditable job, indeed, of trying to square the circle; but it really can't be done. "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" and they are stuck with that. Fine and dandy that ordination isn't license; but the verse implicitly assumes that "good government" is a logical possibility, whereas we can very clearly see that it's an oxymoron. If humans are self-owners, ALL government denies that fundamental right and is, therefore and thereby, evil. Consequently God either (a) exists but is evil, or (b) doesn't exist. As I see it (b) is by far the most likely; he is simply an invention of those who try to add a layer of moral justification for their violation of the self-ruling rights of their fellow men.

Mr. Butler is easily one of my favorite writers here. But I disagree that only Austrian economists understand inflation. The Keynesian crowd understands this concept too but unfortunately suffers from the delusion that they can control inflation and that in moderate amounts it is "good" for everyone (when in fact is only good for the insiders and cronies as he rightly suggests here). It is sort of like someone telling you that a little bit of cancer is good for the body or that "mild" amounts of arsenic can be a stimulant.

This information regarding law was posted by Bruce at: http://www.thedailybell.com/777/Ron-Paul-Legalize-Competing-Currencies.html There is a clear distinction between what is legal and what is lawful. The word lawful implies what history has found to be moral and just, and pertains to what we perceive as the common law. The word legal relates to what is legislatively declared to be the law. Condense law to its lowest common denominator, you have on the one hand cause and effect, which relates to the common law, and what constitutes a harmonious society; and on the other hand you have agreement of the parties. That too can result in a harmonious society. Where the two diverge is when two parties agree to commit unlawful acts, such as plunder ones neighbor. Under the common law that is not tolerated. Under the civil law, that is encouraged; and therefore under the civil law unlawful acts are declared legal. When we speak of the civil law we speak of the ancient Roman Civil law. Check Oxford dictionary of the English language. Civil law is another form of feudalism. Rather than have a king as a ruler, you have a group of oligarchs. Civil law is foreign law to these united States of America. The law form authorized by the Constitution is the ancient common law. The Northwest Ordinance recognizes the same in stating that the inhabitants of the Northwest Territories are to forever enjoy their actions brought according to the course of the common law. The United States Congress is an interface between the inhabitants of these united States and the Monarchies of Europe. Congress exercises commercial powers. For whom does it exercise them? We presume they do so for the inhabitants of the various states. Examining who benefits from the exercise of Congressional powers one would come to a different conclusion.The United States is a commercial venture.These united States describes an association of people joined for the purpose of mutual protection and the declaration of what is acceptable behavior. The people are governed by the precepts of the common law. Legislate = to make law = to enter into agreements (to contract) for the purpose of creating or maintaining a public utility. Legislative branch decides what is to be accomplished and at what cost.Executive branch is the party contracting with the Legislative branch to accomplish a public utility. Legislation is binding upon the executive branch only, and not the people, unless the people by contract or application join the executive branch, or worse yet, create the illusion that they are property of the public realm. Look up the words resident, subject and citizen in a law dictionary. A description of something that is manifest in the physical world is called actual. What is real belongs to the abstract, contrary to common usage. The word real is short for the word realm. Hence real estate is estate of the realm. And titles in real estate are described in abstracts of title.Through confusion of words and phrases, the people have been deceived into believing that they are bound by legislation. Yet, anyone in and around the courts for any great length could tell you that officers of the court do not abide by legislative edicts or rules of the court if they can get away with not doing so. Thus, we can describe law as having the following attributes, all of which can be summarized in the phrase: agreement of the parties.The law is whatever you are allowed to get away with -- and the corollary, the law is whatever you allow someone else to get away with. The law is whatever you can get someone to believe the law is -- and the corollary, the law is whatever someone else can get you to believe the law is.These describe the relationship of law between two parties. The implications are obvious when the State is one of those parties. So, the question arises, "Can the state, a fiction, have an agreement with someone who is actual?" I think not. Hence an interface must be devised. That interface is called the person. It has never been unlawful for men and women to use gold or silver coin as money. It has never been lawful to force another to use any other medium of exchange absent prior consent in which there has been full disclosure and a valuable consideration exchanged. Yet, while persons are creations of the state, the state can declare whatever it wants to be used as money, and persons must comply. For that reason it is imperative that you be convinced that you are a person, and that legal tender laws apply to you.

Harrison Bergeron.

I'm not sure that the fact that Obama is black is the main reason why many on the left are reluctant to criticize him, it is one of many. I think it has more to do with the fact that he is from the Left, if there is a such thing as Left and Right today. I compare Obama to Bush. Bush was also a failure as president. He enjoyed his most fervent support from White self-proclaimed Evangelical Christians. Even today, many of them sitll will not criticize him directly. Bush was seen as the culmination of years and years of fighting to bring a "christian" to the oval office. Plus Bush represented that "aw-shucks" and idolator of American Exceptionalism that is also very popular among white evangelicals. I see Sarah Palin as the next embodient of that mentality. Black self-proclaimed evangelical christians are the most ardent supporters of Obama, they likely will be even if his presidency goes down in flames as Bush's did. Obama is a good father, represents american values and plays basketball. Since I am also black, I relate to alot of Obama's characteristics. As long as America is awash in statism and socialism the emperor will always be well liked, maybe not adored, but well liked, no matter what.

I think one of the main problems is that many in creative fields (i.e. art, writing, programming etc.) are used to the current copyright and patent paradigm. This paradigm has created business models that would not exist without it. What is needed is a new business model. Many in the FLOSS community use a “software as service” model. In this model you would use your talent and would get paid during the actual act of writing or manipulating the software. You may want to look at what Canonical does for an example of my meaning. http://www.canonical.com/services

"The truth and justice of this proposition are too nearly self-evident to need much argument in their support." lol, that's a good one, Spooner.

as a Christian, i've had trouble with this for a long time and wrote about the inherent contradictions of these types of verses, not only with the Christian ethic, but with the actions of biblical heroes and even Christ himself. state loving Christians hate the article - i'm proud of it. http://anarcholife.blogspot.com/2009/01/christianity-and-state.html

"2008 and 2009, ... were the safest years to be a police officer in over 110 years." "...it’s never been safer to be a cop in America than it has been over the past 2 years. Yet boss cops, spokespeople for the government police, and articles written by cops and for cops, constantly repeat the demonstrably false claims that criminals are more violent than ever before, and that government cops somehow face more danger on their patrols now than they ever have before. That this is a complete lie would be obvious to anyone who had spent 15 minutes perusing the police’s own institutions and resources for honoring their "fallen comrades." "The interesting question, then, is what kind of purpose the constant refrain of this unfact from government police serves —..."