"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Don't Lecture People About Not Understanding the Constitution ...
"It is true that there are some matters which the Constitution leaves up to the states. Where it does so, it specifies either that those are state matters, or just that they aren't federal matters."
Of course, at the end of the day someone is going to kill you if you don't obey. Parchment does not stop bullets.
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
"Of course, at the end of the day someone is going to kill you if you don't obey."
“FEAR is an acronym in the English language for "False Evidence Appearing Real"” ~ Neale Donald Walsch
At least it was clear an unmuddled.
What was clear and unmuddled, Glock27, the Second Amendment, the article, or that TINA intro line?
Like all things there is a context: "Of course, at the end of the day someone is going to kill you if you don't obey.
This is just more of the same old TINA (“There is no alternative”) which is another LIE forced upon the majority of the world’s population by the oligarchic elites. But it t'aint so. It t'aint so.
Parchment does not stop bullets--in the sense of a slave's conception---BUT ideas and set-up do. Clearly standing armies stand and fall depending on the ideas held. Freedom vs Force: Why The **FAILING US and EU** Should Follow the Swiss Government Model!http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland14.1.html
Not all ideas/parchment is the same, even at the Govt level otherwise the Articles of Confederation and its Unanimous Consent clause would CERTAINLY not have been abandoned in closed session by the founding lawyers. The Swiss did not have a Hamilton nor Lincoln (protege of Henry Clay and the British Mercantilist System) to contend with.
Exit **Govt**ideas and **Govt parchment** and enter stage left: One can write one's own personal moral and interpersonal covenant. Use it as a guide to know others and let them know you; and as a twig/flag to avoid UNSAFE places, and people even when seconds count. When one is clear about what is or will happen then it is bullets that are rendered USELESS. Keep your personal parchment dry and your daubber up...(I will have to go look up this Scottish aphorism but my copy of the Westering Man by Bil Gilbert is out of reach for the moment)
"Of course, at the end of the day someone is going to kill you if you don't obey". As you are reading this, one has to wonder how it is that you are still alive? (200 million dead and counting, thanks to Govts in the 20th century)
"This is just more of the same old TINA (“There is no alternative”) which is another LIE forced upon the majority of the world’s population by the oligarchic elites." ~ AtlasAikido
True, but it isn't just the "oligarchic elites" that foist this TINA LIE on people. Try telling a "libertarian", or a "voluntaryist", or an "anarchist" that an individual can secede from the political corporations [governments] created by men.
That's true Suverans2.
To your point too many hide behind what is properly ministatism (too many Objectivists / Constitutional Trolls etc) AND that even though Mises and Rand were ministatists their works lead to anarchy...(There is NO such thing as minianarchy. It is a misnomer. Anarchy means No Rulers not SOME Rulers).
First and foremost The Covenant of Unanimous Consent--gets me out of controlling others nor needing to care for that matter. I do post here for those disarmed by control freaks (hiding most especially behind the word minianarchy)
Minarchism or ministatism? - The Mises Community http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1102.aspx
Will you join in on this entirely appropriate correction and help stamp out “minarchist” [the word] wherever you encounter it?
The Covenant of Unanimous Consent
tinyurl.com/Covenant-and-Galts-Oath
Collected articles about the Covenant are found here:
tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles
Since I've been called a facilitator and it's been insinuated that I am a coward by a couple of internet posters who stand so fervently by their principles that post anonymously*; I believe a response is appropriate.
First, I thought my quip was pretty innocuous-the point only being that the state does not obey its own rules, therefore its rules offer no protection. I used it to underscore that arguing about the constitution is pointless, since to paraphrase Spooner it has either not stopped, or actually permitted the nightmare seen today-either way it failed.
Thankfully, the state is fantastically inept so, yes anonymous "Atlas", most disobedience is not "caught"-for that we can be thankful. However, once one is caught, you are subject to the whim of the state-if you resist its force and coercion head-on(or yes, even if you don't)you can and will be killed-it happens everyday. As you point out, governments are truly psychopathic institutions that have killed multiple-millions-I have no idea how pointing this out-even if incompletely and dramatically-could possibly equate to there being "no alternative to the state." It does not, and cannot except in your vivid imagination. You have twisted my words wildly out of proportion and then used them to defame me no reason I can fathom. You owe me an apology.
Continued;
Suverans2, first, your acronym for fear might be worthy of Oprah if it was in any way applicable to the situation. It wasn't.
As far as, "Try telling a "libertarian", or a "voluntaryist", or an "anarchist" that an individual can secede from the political corporations [governments] created by men."
Perhaps if you clearly stated your point of view, rather than tongue clucking and quoting irrelevant drivel you would get somewhere-if there is somewhere to be gotten. I'd love to be able to simply opt out of the state-but I know that is not quite how the real world, where I live with the name Mike Stahl, works.
You do what little can be divined of of your "case" no help with your "definitions." I've followed up on many of these. All of them I've found so far are either only partial definitions, are arcane(from older law systems), are totally irrelevant, or are flat out false, or some combination thereof.
An example of this is your irrelevant and I think deliberately deceptive "definition" of "United States" as "Federal Corporation." This definition comes from an obscure USC chapter concerning federal debt collection, and the chapter clearly states, "As used in this chapter:" meaning that the definitions are confined to this specific code. It gets worse.
The definition of "United States" from 28 USC [United States Code] § 3002 IS NOT "Federal Corporation" that is only one segment of the definition, here is the rest:
" (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. "
When one reads the context of the code, it is quite clear that the definition is clarifying who can bring suit as "United States" for purposes of Federal Debt collection. It is furthermore quite clear that "Federal Corporation" in this context is referring to any of the several federally chartered corporations, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or probably more frequently SLM Corporation(Sallie Mae).
What is worse for your case is that the SAME "definitions" you erroneously cite to prove that the "United States" is a "Federal Corporation"(why this matters is a true mystery to me-governments and states are acknowledged openly to be "legal fictions"-I posted a piece about this last week-so what?) contains this definition of "Person":
"(10) “Person” includes a NATURAL PERSON (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe." (caps mine.)
Of course, that is only applicable to that section of code, but every definition of "person" always includes language making it clear that the term applies to actual humans as well as "corporations" and other legal fictions.
Of course, were any of your nonsense viable there would be countless cases of people succeeding from government and openly flaunting its silly laws, AND successfully defending themselves from the government by declaring that they are not within its jurisdiction.
Let's see some cases, shall we? So far as I know they do not exist.
Either you've been duped by a clever hoaxer, or you are (poorly) building the hoax.
I submit that from cowering under anonymity and clinging to a foolish belief that the state will protect you from the state, you are the one who allows fear to dictate your actions.
The link to the US Code chapter in question:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
* I generally have no issue with people posting anonymously-I understand why it might be desirable: I have a problem with the insinuation of fear fired (which I do not necessarily deny, but is still an ad hominem) at me from the dark.
G'day Mike Stahl,
"True, but it isn't just the "oligarchic elites" that foist this TINA LIE on people. Try telling a "libertarian", or a "voluntaryist", or an "anarchist" that an individual can secede from the political corporations [governments] created by men." ~ Suverans2
________________________________________
"I'd love to be able to simply opt out of the state-but I know that is not quite how the real world, where I live with the name Mike Stahl, works." ~ mhstahl
________________________________________
Presuming that you lay claim to one of these titles, ("libertarian", "voluntaryist", or "anarchist"), you make my point for me. Thanks.
"A mature adult is supposed to know the difference between the real world and the games people play, between the natural and the artificial. He or she is supposed to be able to keep such things in perspective." ~ Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law
G'day mhstahl,
You wrote:
________________________________________________________
The definition of "United States" from 28 USC [United States Code] § 3002 IS NOT "Federal Corporation" that is only one segment of the definition, here is the rest:
" (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. "
When one reads the context of the code, it is quite clear that the definition is clarifying who can bring suit as "United States" for purposes of Federal Debt collection. It is furthermore quite clear that "Federal Corporation" in this context is referring to any of the several federally chartered corporations, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or probably more frequently SLM Corporation(Sallie Mae).
________________________________________________________
I can only presume that you meant to say "The definition of "United States" from 28 USC [United States Code] § 3002 IS "a Federal Corporation". Since you probably had a government education we won't hold you responsible for not understanding that definitions (B) and (C) are not clarifications of (A). That would have been written like this:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(1) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(2) an instrumentality of the United States.
I'm happy to be shown wrong by either of you(if you are in fact two actual people) with evidence, but I won't suffer veiled insults and groundless accusations quietly or lightly.
G'day mhstahl,
Do you want to know if I am a man, who is subject to natural law? Or do you want to know if I am a person, who is subject to civil law?
Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 736
I am the former, "a man, who is subject to natural law", because I do not consent to be "a person, who is subject to civil law". Hope that wasn't too ""mysterious and difficult to understand"". ;^)
My given name, I have openly stated in two comments on this alternative news site, here, on January 11, 2011, and here, on August 03, 2011, which dispels your false accusation of "cowering under anonymity", and firing at you "from the dark". So, as a man, what do you think, Mike Stahl, do you owe me an apology?
Don't know how so much antagonism arises among "anarchists", or even "libertarians", but it does and I've gotta accept that as it is. Geeks can fight over the most trivial matters. NAP (non-aggression principle)??? That apparently only refers to physical, not verbal aggression, when it comes to self-justification among "free" individuals.
I suffer from it also, so don't feel like I'm jabbing my finger at you.
I am, in fact, a "people". I am a free, sovereign state.
Wanta argue with me about that? Pul-lease...!...I'm old and have left the arguing to you young guys and gals who seem capable of getting back up and rushing on into the sunset, if not oblivion. Suffice it to say I'm free, I'm sovereign, and I am a state.
To repeat another post, Delmar England led me out of servitudinal thought patterns once I took the time to delve into his "Insanity as the Social Norm". As I deviate from what is considered normal socially, I am freed from a degree of my insanity.
On another recent post I pasted a quote from his "Lies of Language", so I won't repeat it here.
States cannot break rules. States are abstracts: gatherings of vermin highly skilled in obfuscation and predatory beguilement of the masses. Those vultures make rules for "their citizenry" from which they consider themselves exempt. Agreed.
I've quit using "state" as a living, breathing entity. I've quit bestowing godhead upon "our-great-nation". Those parasites do not deserve that from me. Consider the quadrennial dog-and-pony show being performed for "the electorate" as we speak.
Snakes are snakes. I'm not free to run barefoot in the woods -- even though I laughingly tell the story of my youthful snakebite trauma and the doc who pronounced me "immune" from venomous bites. Not.
Wear boots to the woods. Don't reach where you can't see.
Abstain From Beans.
Sam
G'day Sam,
My friend, you ARE "free to run barefoot in the woods", just as we ARE all free to opt out of the governments created by men; and you are also free to "wear boots to the woods", just as we are all free to opt to remain citizens/subjects of the governments created by men.
My comment was not a personal attack on mhstahl, ad hominen or otherwise, and I'm sorry that he took it that way; the point I was trying to make is that "fear" should not be our guiding light; "reaching where we can't see" is safe 99.9% of the time.
"Fear not little flock for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom."
Psst got anonymity? Using US dollars in your pocket? What is it you are trying to hide? [SARC Intended]
But it is the State that Fears Information most. IT IS the Elephant in the room. It is fear, propaganda and convenience (See Bill Buppert Links), Constitution parchment worship (See WarLord link), and TINA “There is no alternative” that can turn one into an unwitting tool of the State and its ways.
Not so for Assange. Julian is using parchment in new ways to expose the Gun in the room (The State) and has skillfully used digital info to put a check on his own execution by Western Govt heads. (He cracked the government's "veil of benignity" and has brought into question the state's tactics).
I will briefly mention Bitcoin, which also uses virtual parchment--in front of ALL to see and for the use of those who see the practicalities of privacy. Both the founders of WikiLeaks and Bitcoin are heroes. The latter no less so for seeing what the State wants to do with Assange (and therefore remaining anonymous). Unless some here think not. Let them speak up.
90 million Don't Vote in the US. Not all are anarchists. And yet this is 90 million anarchists and non-voters who are NOT subscribing to TINA (“There is no alternative”). Harry Browne's book "How I Found Freedom IN an UNfree World" is a testament to such and ALL that progress that (at Lewrockwell.com, Mises.org, and some here etc).
The Swiss people via the Articles OF Confederation (with Unanimous Consent) have *legibly* put the State in check (*I can't say how long*). Compare it to the US Constitution. Too many hide behind the conflation of the two and other We-isms. As well as miss that one can practice Unanimous Consent at the personal inter-relationship level.
It IS customary law that keeps blood off the streets NOT Govt and not statute law. "Although Anglo-Saxon customary law was giving way to authoritarian law, the development of medieval commercial law, lex mercatoria, or the "Law Merchant," effectively shatters the myth that government must define and enforce "the rules of the game." Because the Law Merchant developed outside the constraints of political boundaries and escaped the influence of political rulers for longer than many other Western legal systems, it provides the best example of what a system of customary law can achieve". There are more gems Dear Reader in the link below...
To compound the confusion, some people call themselves "anarchists" but openly destroy the property of, and call for controls over, the peaceful behavior of those they hate - so proving that they really favor government. So we have to recall the definition: a genuine anarchist doesn't want to rule anyone, except himself. We love freedom - and not just for ourselves. We're happy for everyone else to enjoy it too.
These are some examples of TINA--“There is no alternative” it t'aint so as it relates to Bullet Proof Privacy, Bitcoin, Parchment, and Heroism...
AtlasAikido
References.
Enterprise of Customary Law Mises Daily: Friday, June 29, 2007 by Bruce L. Benson
http://archive.mises.org/6795/the-enterprise-of-customary-law/
Imperial Conditioning and the American State by Bill Buppert
http://zerogov.com/?p=2780
Freedom vs Force: Why The **FAILING US and EU** Should Follow the Swiss Government Model!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/holland/holland14.1.html
What the State Fears Most: Information
by Jonathan M. Finegold Catalán
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/catalan1.1.1.html
The Anarchist Alternative
http://theanarchistalternative.info/
See Comments and Rebuttals to what has been dubbed Constitutional Trolls at:
But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?
Mises Daily: Thursday, July 07, 2005 by Robert P. Murphy
http://mises.org/daily/1855#idc-cover
The Economic Irrationality of the State
Mises Daily: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 by Eric Englund
http://mises.org/preview/6177/The-Economic-Irrationality-of-the-State
300 Federal laws are passed every day! Can anyone imagine how any of these laws could possibly have anything to do with the Non-Aggression Principle?
The above was revealed today by Simon Black on LewRockwell.com. Julian Assange continues to expose fraud and crimes committed by the State. Indeed it is the State That Fears Information.
Without followers the State cannot buy enough bullets nor recruit enough thugs to fire the bullets.
So let us proceed from where we are today: A Top-Down-Minority that dictates down to us. If you think about it, it necessarily requires the equivalent of Kings men using fraud and force on a population to make it follow its Political Agendas. No one in their right mind would volunteer to get plundered otherwise.
It is obviously false that economic calculation occurs, let alone is possible under such a system. They are completely and ultimately based on Force.
By contrast the Customary Laws of family, municipality and merchant law do not rely on force and fraud. The laws have a natural following and have ALREADY been tested, improved and accepted/or discarded from the Bottom-Up by populations over long periods of time; and across continents; and with actual experts in the particular field in dispute. And are necessarily UNforced as people would walkaway otherwise.
Dear reader I recommend: "Enterprise of Customary Law" Mises Daily: Friday, June 29, 2007 by Bruce L. Benson http://archive.mises.org/6795/the-enterprise-of-customary-law/
It is in fact a detailed description of The Covenant of Unanimous Consent.