Recovering Our Rights: A Place to Start

Print Friendly

America didn’t become a continental penal colony overnight. It happened step by step, over a period of many years. It’d be wonderful if we could do an overnight re-set, but that’s neither likely nor (probably) practical.

So, what can we do?

How about the same thing that was done to us – only in reverse: A piece-by-piece deconstruction of statism? A re-investing of individual rights – and individual responsibilities – as opposed  collective obligations and group responsibility?

A return to the ancient, honorable principle of no harm – no crime.

Pie in the sky? Not at all. Consider, for example, the tremendous progress that’s been made over the past decade or so with regard to re-investing people with their right to possess arms. “Gun control” – that is, denying people who have done nothing to warrant it their the right to possess guns because some people have misused them – has been rolled back almost everywhere. Even in the heart of darkness itself – Washington, DC – where it is now at least possible for a resident to legally own a handgun.

Such a thing would have been inconceivable ten or twenty years ago.

In nearby Virginia, the peoples’ right to the means of armed self-defense has been almost fully restored. Open carry is lawful nearly everywhere. The state must issue a concealed handgun permit to any person who isn’t a convict who fills out the form and pays the small ($50) fee. In past years, the process was may issue – which meant it was up to the state to issue a permit – or not – at its whim.  Often enough, it did not. The applicant had no recourse.

Other states have followed suit.

The one gun a month thing is gone. Draconian prohibitions on the possession of firearms are now the exception – not the rule. The demagogically named “assault weapons” ban (which outlawed rifles that “looked military” even though they functioned no differently than other rifles) is gone. In most states, a person can buy almost any type of gun he wants to.

The wheel has turned.

The general public no longer supports “gun control” – recognizing that it was built on a lie (take away honest people’s right to own guns and crime will go down; in fact the opposite happens everywhere this idea has been applied; the truth of this is so obviously self-evident it can no longer be denied). And much more critically, people are increasingly intolerant of having their rights rescinded on account of what other people have done.

This is a tremendous thing – a near total rolling back not merely of “gun control” laws but of the collectivist ideas behind them. The importance of this achievement cannot be over-emphasized. It is also a tonic – a reminder that all is not yet lost despite the almost daily accretion of collectivism.

We can effect change for the better. It is possible to snatch back our liberty.

It just requires the determination to see it through.

Here’s another area where we might focus our efforts: Mandatory “buckle up” (and motorcycle helmet) laws. As with laws denying people their right to to possess arms, these laws attack a basic human right – the right to be left alone by the law unless your actions threaten to harm or actually do cause harm to others. No one else is harmed – or even threatened – by someone not wearing a seatbelt. Or a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Therefore, the choice ought to be a matter of individual discretion – and not a matter for “the law.”

The main argument supporting laws requiring us to “buckle up” and to wear a helmet when riding a bike is that we might impose “costs on society.”

It is a silly, arbitrary argument – and much more profoundly, an affront to our right to be left in peace so long as we are peaceful.

Silly – and arbitrary – because we don’t sic the law on people for countless other personal decisions that don’t cause harm to others – everything from being overweight to exercising excessively to “worrying too much” to mowing the grass on a 96 degree day. These – and many more such – can all be said to involve elevated risk to the individual. Getting out of bed in the morning entails more risk than staying in bed. Life itself is necessarily “risky.”

Think of the laundry list of things you could come up with that might potentially involve “costs to society,” but which present no specific threat to any other individual.

It will be a very long list.

Where do we draw the line?

An important measure of a law’s fairness is its consistency. If a person deserves to be the object of law enforcement – of men with guns – for failing to “buckle up for safety,” then consistency demands that – as an example -  people over a certain BMI number likewise be the object of law enforcement. They, too, can be said to impose “costs on society” – even though they aren’t actually harming anyone else because they’re beefy. If they don’t like the idea of being stopped by cops and ticketed for being overweight, then they need to be made to see the injustice of stopping not-fat people who choose to go unbuckled.  And so on.

This point – this principle – needs to be hammered away at.

Relentlessly.

The people who support “buckle up” and helmet laws must have the tables turned on them. Be made to see that, in all likelihood, there is something they like to do that could be argued entails increased “risk” – and potential “costs to society.” That the same arguments they use to defrock others of their right to be left in peace can be just as easily used to defrock them of their right to be left in peace.

We must get them to see that ultimately we are all in this together. That when anyone’s rights are threatened, all our rights are threatened. Tyranny cannot be imposed on one man – or a category of men – without imposing it on all men. Perhaps not all at once – but, eventually.

Inevitably.

What is done to the seat belt “scofflaw” today will be done to the tubbies  (and others) tomorrow. We must either live – and let live – as free men. Or exist as busybodies, never leaving others alone – and never being left alone in turn.

We must reject the underlying premise of these intrusive, obnoxious laws: That generalized and hypothesized “costs to society” justifies pointing guns at people who have caused no actual harm to anyone. It is a vicious thing to hold one person accountable for the actions of others. But it is far worse to hold one person accountable for the possibility that a theoretical someone might – might! – impose “costs” on “society.” The American conception – which too many Americans have forgotten – is that each individual should be held accountable for his actions – and only his actions.

And only when his actions are actually harmful to others.

Thus, if a person incurs costs as a result of some action of his, hold him responsible. Not “society” – the statist euphemism for everyone else.

Otherwise, leave him alone.

Leave us alone.

It is a powerful idea – one that rejects the contrary idea that’s at the root of the control-freak society we find ourselves immersed in.

Liberty isn’t dead. It just needs to be remembered.

Attacking “gun control” was a great place to start -  quite possibly, the Lexington and Concord of the new American Revolution. Fighting for the repeal of “buckle up” and helmet laws could ultimately be as important as what Washington achieved at Yorktown – because these seemingly petty ordinances represent an assault on a crucial thing, on what it used to mean to be an American: To be free to go about your life unless you - you specifically – were causing someone else – an actual someone, not a hypothetical “society” – an actual as opposed to hypothetical harm.

If these petty tyrannies are successfully rolled back, we might just roll back the whole smelly, waterlogged carpet of collectivism – and recover America.

As we recover ourselves.

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button

eric

Author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). Currently living amongst the Edentulites in rural SW Virginia. 

  303 comments for “Recovering Our Rights: A Place to Start

  1. Scott
    June 22, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    It’s the insurance companies that support most of the nonsense you mention. The idea that there’s a “risk pool” out there and by not wearing your bike helmet you’re taking a dump in it, thereby putting everyone in the pool “at risk”; their premiums go up because you didn’t wear a seat belt. That’s the real problem here.

    Make it illegal for insurance companies to set premiums for a group (drivers) based on the errors of individuals (you specifically) and the whole thing goes away. In other words, force them to assign fault to an individual, not “society”. How would you feel about paying a higher premium to be free of helmets and seat belts? “But”, you say, “I’m a good driver. Why should I pay a higher premium? Let the guy who hits me pay!” That could be a tough sell.

    I think if we address the insurance companies we can correct the problem. They’re the ones behind it.

    • June 22, 2012 at 12:07 pm

      And that issue goes away when mandatory insurance goes away. When you can say no.

      It’s my right to drive unbuckled – and also my responsibility to bear the consequences, if there are any.

      Otherwise, leave me alone!

      If – if! – a driver causes an accident, I have no problem with the insurance company – with the legal system – compelling him to pay for the damage. But not before. And not unless.

      I never wear my god-damned seat belt. Haven’t for my entire adult life. I have yet to incur any costs to others – to “society” – as a result.

      The fact that I might incur costs is a collectivist conception. Fat slobs might incur costs, too.

      Leave us each free to choose for ourselves – and bear whatever the consequences may be ourselves.

      • Scott
        June 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm

        I’d say it’s even worse though. The fact is they are already going after the “fat slobs” who might incur higher costs to society and when everyone has to have health insurance they *will* start telling you how and what to eat.

        My point is the same as yours, it’s insurance companies that are eroding personal liberties and they are working very hard to increase their profits by modifying your behavior in the name of protecting “society”, when in fact what they’re doing is protecting their own profit margin.

        It’s a horrible trend and it’s getting worse. On top of that, it’s stupid. I’d no sooner drive a car without wearing a seat belt than whistle Dixie out my butt. I race cars and I’m not really comfortable unless I have a five point harness and a roll cage wrapped around me. When I drive a bike, it’s usually a crotch rocket and running one of those without full headgear gets downright painful when you hit a bumble bee at 75 mph. So I don’t complain much about seat belts or helmets.

        But, while I do wear seat belts and I own more helmets that I’d like to admit, I’m also a technical diver, a hang glider pilot and a rock climber who occasionally likes to do technical free ascents on shear granite walls. These things have been known to lead to hospital stays. Does my insurance company complain? Hell no. So what’s the point in *making* me wear a helmet on a motorcycle?

        It’s just bad statistics and it needs to be stopped.

        • June 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm

          Amen!

          PS: One especially silly aspect of the helmet laws is that you can still ride a crotch rocket wearing flip-flops, a T-shirt and shorts… so long as you’ve got your helmet on…..

          • Scott
            June 22, 2012 at 12:49 pm

            I think the women folk should organize a “Lady Godiva” protest of helmet laws.

            Just imagine 2 or 3 hundred bare nekid ladies on crotch rockets cruising main street in nothing but a full face helmet.

            It boggles the mind…

          • Don
            June 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm

            And bikes don’t have seatbelts! What a huge risk. Neither do public buses or the metro. Does gravity not work the same on buses and subways?

            I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand the really important stuff.

          • June 22, 2012 at 4:41 pm

            Dear eric,

            Not to mention motorcycles don’t have airbags.

            Hmmm… wonder if Ralph Nader realizes that?

          • June 22, 2012 at 5:27 pm

            Just to make myself feel a little better I went out on one of my bikes earlier today… and committed numerous velocity violations without the dirty coppers getting their paws on me!

          • Boothe
            June 22, 2012 at 5:38 pm

            Bravo Eric! And I hope at least some of those velocity exceedances involved firing lots of blue smoke out of three stingers…right is the EPA’s face!

          • June 22, 2012 at 7:22 pm

            And then I took out Lil’ Stinker! Just got back, in fact…. my blue contrail is still visible above the driveway….

        • Willy P.
          June 22, 2012 at 1:29 pm

          The insurance companies that offer their services are not the problem as long as it is optional. The issue comes when people are forced to buy the insurance, the govt is the enforcer of this and I have no doubt that there are insurance companies lobbying for such laws because then they have a guaranteed customer base.
          But my point is it almost always starts with govt over reach. A perfect example is healthcare, where did health insurance as an employee benefit/expectation start?
          There were price and wage controls iniated during WW2, they did not immediately disappear once the war ended. So after the war, companies were not legally allowed to offer an employee of a competitor more money to quit and work for them. So companies adapted and started offering healthcare services and benefits to entice the best employees to their company becasue they couldnt do it with salary alone.
          Now we are on the verge of being forced to buy it/pay for it because it is now a “right”.
          These things all come down to teh heavy hand of govt pushing down on the scale to “keep things fair.”

          • Scott
            June 22, 2012 at 1:38 pm

            So something that was once a privilege of the meritorious becomes the right of the proletariat?

            Karl Marx must be very proud of us.

          • MoT
            June 24, 2012 at 11:04 am

            The big lie that was foisted on everyone in the run up to making it mandatory, in Texas where I used to live, was that they, the proponents, argued that with more people insured the rates would go down! Yeah, riiiiigggghht. Has anyone seen them go down? Uh, huh. Just what I thought. It was all a ruse and a lie to garner more profit. You’d have thought that with all the more people paying there would be a lowering of said rates but alas we’re now told that there are still holdouts and unfortunately they can’t lower them. Lying bastards.

          • June 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm

            “The big lie that was foisted on everyone in the run up to making it mandatory, in Texas where I used to live, was that they, the proponents, argued that with more people insured the rates would go down! ”

            It depresses me that so many people can’t see the obvious problem with this line of reasoning – viz, that when you make something mandatory, when you eliminate the power of the consumer to say no, you have destroyed the only natural check on rising prices. You have also created a cartel.

            Clover will argue that since there are multiple insurance companies, we have “choice” – and there is “competition.” Absurd.

            Imagine what would happen to the price of a new car if we were all required by law to buy a new car each year. Oh sure, we could choose a Chevy over a Ford. But does anyone think the price of either the Chevy or the Ford would go down once the government created a captive market – when Ford and GM knew that people had to buy either/or?

            Such thoughts never sprout inside the mind of a Clover!

        • Jeff
          June 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm

          I’ve ridden motorcycles since I was 8 or 9 years old (I’m 60 now) and the only time I CHOSE to wear a helmet was way back when I had a dozen or so dirtbikes and I’d be tearing through the woods – I wore it then because it was common sense. I moved to FL from VA over 12 years ago because VA instituted a helmet law, and one of the great joys of roadbikes is the wind in your face and hair…besides, if you dump the thing at 70 and fly into a pole there isn’t a helmet made that will save you. And seatbelts? Every moving violation I ever got was for not wearing one (now I have heavy tint) and was worth it!

          • June 22, 2012 at 11:24 pm

            Amen, Jeff!

            I’ll gear up – armored leathers, gloves, boots and the helmet – when I plan to really ride my sport bike aggressively. But there are times when I feel the urge to just go for a cruise on one of my antique bikes – and then, I want the wind in my face, too.

            The thing is, it is our choice to make. Not the government’s. Deconstruct it a little. What is the government? It is organized coercion controlled by other people. What gives other people the right to force you or me or any other person to submit to their judgment? No one has that right – whether as an individual, or clothed in the robes of “government.”

            The only time when any person has the moral right to use force against another person is in cases of self-defense.

            Period.

            It’s time to ram that concept into the minds of every Clover in the country!

        • DWCarkuff
          June 23, 2012 at 12:33 pm

          I generally wear a helmet when I ride, although I don’t have to here in Ohio. I was ticketed twice in NY for seat belt violation – cost me $100. I have become so paranoid about it that when I pass a cop on my motorcycle I have a moment of panic when I realize I’m not wearing a seat belt. The idea that this is a free country is absurd at this point. Many people have the delusion that they are free because nothing they happen to be doing is of any interest to the state and they choose between McDonalds and Burger King. The moment they do anything that does draw the state’s interest, they will find out how free they are not.

          • June 23, 2012 at 1:17 pm

            Exactly.

            We have “freedom” to choose from among various (government approved/regulated) consumer items. That’s about it.

            Real freedom – including the freedom to own property, the freedom to associate with whomever one wishes (and not associate with others, if one so desires), to keep the fruit of one’s labor, etc. – does not exist in this country.

          • methylamine
            June 23, 2012 at 4:46 pm

            @Eric & DWCarkuff:

            That’s another reason–besides my childrens’ future safety and prosperity–I’m thinking again of bugging out entirely.

            I want to feel FREE again. I want–like Jeff Berwick–to ride around on my unlicensed bike, bare-headed, with no permission card in my pocket. I want to OWN my land and tell interlopers “welcome!” or “fuck off!” as I see fit.

            I want to buy a ridiculously fast and dangerous Lotus 7 knockoff, pre-built…no dancing around the Nanny “may I please?”

            I want to start another software company, and approach good engineers personally and say “would you like to work with me?”, agree on pay, and get to it. No “Nanny may I please?”

            And when clients pay us, I want to divvy up the take with my men…and no-one else.

            No place is exactly like that; but if you move somewhere where the control grid is broken, you can get away with most if not all of it.

            Most importantly: I want to live where other people act like free humans, not soupy-eyed little statist automatons “yes-sir”‘ing their way through their miserable prisoner lives. Where people’s first response to government edicts is “fuck that, it’s stupid”…not “yes-sir”. Where tax “cheating” (as statists label the innate desire to keep what’s yours) is rampant and sporting.

            Who on this board is living in such a place? Or close to it?

            Jeff Berwick likes Acapulco. Simon Black favors Chile. Doug Casey’s in Argentina. Where else?

        • Gary Spencer
          June 23, 2012 at 5:36 pm

          it’s insurance companies that are eroding personal liberties
          ========

          Nope.
          Insurance companies cannot make you do anything.
          It is the politicians that create the laws and the jack booted thugs that violently accost and rob you.

          In a free society if you are violently accosted you have the natural right to kill the thug.

        • monkey
          August 21, 2012 at 5:15 am

          enjoy your bit of imaginary freedom because soon you will be shipped to China. You have been sold out long time ago not only by insurance companies (just for you to know that freedom isn’t mean I do what I want but rather how capable I am saying no to idiotic behavior like you demonstrated to be proud of.)but you sold yourself to your notion of freedom which allowed big business (Corporate America + Government) to rule your life just like your mother rules your life except they don’t care about you much at all.

      • June 22, 2012 at 12:58 pm

        Dear Eric,

        You were asking about political trends here on Taiwan?

        Just last month the use of seat belts in the back of taxis was made compulsory on Taiwan. Front seat belt use in taxis has been compulsory for many years.

        The ruling administration, which is the ostensibly more free market, less socialistic party, is currently attempting to push through a capital gains tax on stocks.

        It’s all so depressingly predictable. Political science really is a science, properly understood. Democracy invariably leads to the loss of freedom. It’s as certain as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

        • Willy P.
          June 22, 2012 at 1:35 pm

          Bevin said;
          It’s all so depressingly predictable. Political science really is a science, properly understood. Democracy invariably leads to the loss of freedom. It’s as certain as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

          I love the reference to entropy, i think it is quite apt, and after a few more great civilations rise adn fall someone will probably be able to develop an equation to predict it mathematically.

          • Scott
            June 22, 2012 at 2:14 pm

            Entropy is one of my favorite subjects. It’s very difficult for me to wrap my head around the tendency to lose order; a force that drives us towards “sameness”.

            As a buddhist I have a philosophical attraction to the concept of unity, but I resist “sameness”. Is that wrong?

          • June 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm

            Dear Willy P,

            No kidding!

            It’s uncannily like “psychohistory,” the fictitious discipline created by the character Hari Seldon, in Isaac Asimov’s epic SF novel “Foundation Trilogy.”

            Asimov’s idea was that while one could not predict the actions of a particular individual, paradoxically one could predict the actions of large groups of people.

            The irony is that the Framers knew democracy was a structurally defective system what would never work. Yet almost every Democrat and Republican in the Federal Government assumes that the US is supposed to be a democracy.

            “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
            – John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

          • Willy P.
            June 22, 2012 at 5:16 pm

            exactly, and tell someone that the US was to be a representative republic and they disagree. Then tell them that the founders were against a democracy (most of them atleast) and that the word democracy doesn’t even appear in the Decl of Ind or the Constitution and they look at you like you have 4 heads.

            2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what’s for dinner… wonder how that is going to turn out?

          • Gil
            June 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm

            What the hell is a “representative republic”? Who represents what? The Founders only wanted those only notable wealth to vote hence the correct term would be a “plutocratic republic”.

            However I would argue the Libertarian use say “democracy is three sheep and a wolf voting for dinner” because wolves don’t eat grass and, by the same token, the masses have the right to vote isn’t natural nor desirable to a Libertarian.
            clovercloverclover

          • June 22, 2012 at 11:06 pm

            Dear Gil,

            The short answer is that a constitutional republic is all about the rule of law, as laid out in a written constitution. A constitutional republic limits what the government can do, IF it is adhered to. (Very big IF. But that’s too long to go into here.)

            An elective democracy on the other hand, is about the rule of the mob. In a democracy as long as a bigger mob, euphemistically known as “a democratic majority,” votes for something, anything, directly or by proxy, then the government can do it. Example: NDAA greenlights murder of US citizens.

            This is why as John Adams observed, a democracy invariably “wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

            The Framers would be dismayed by what’s happened to America, but not actually surprised.

          • Gil
            June 23, 2012 at 2:26 am

            Why would the Founders be dismayed when they wrote the Constitution esp. Article 1, Section 8 which grants the Government sweeping powers?
            clover returnsclover returnsclover returns

          • June 23, 2012 at 3:03 am

            Dear Gil,

            No, on second thought, you’re right.

            The Framers would be overjoyed at what has happened to the nation they founded.

            A woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

            Benjamin Franklin would be overjoyed to learn we could not keep the republic he bequeathed us.

            George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, “I dare not hope [my advice] will … prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations.”

            George Washington would be overjoyed to learn that America has now run the course that has hitherto marked the destiny of nations.

            Yes Gil. You are so right. Why would the Framers be the slightest bit dismayed?

          • Willy P
            June 23, 2012 at 11:57 am

            When i started down this path, i wanted adherence to the constitution but then realized that document is incredibly flawed and gave too many loopholes. (the proces of going from non-interested to conservative to libertarian to anarch-capitalist). But wirds printed dont protect freedom, individuals must protect their own and not look to others or pieces of paper to do it.
            The founders created what they thought was best and at that time it was.
            Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. He was another imperfect man but what i take from that is that each generation needs to fight for its freedom and not rely on the previous one to do it, not just because tyranny will have edged its way back in but because our or my definition is different from a previous generation (i.e. man meaning human) Its a battle that is curently being waged in forums and bbq’s as we speak. People need to fight for themselves.

            In the past week i developed a very pessimistic about this topic and reading eric’s post and an interesting article yesterday by T Woods talking about Ron Paul and “The Remnant” along with the posts here has rejuvinated me a bit. thanks.

          • June 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm

            I, too, have been disabused of the merit of the Constitution. It is a blueprint for centralization and unlimited federal power. The Bill of Rights is the only portion of the entire thing that specifically tried to protect individual rights. Throw the rest in the woods!

          • June 24, 2012 at 12:04 am

            Dear Willy P,

            “the process of going from non-interested to conservative to libertarian to anarcho-capitalist”

            I hear you loud and clear. Been there, done that, also. Probably most everyone here has been through that wringer before finally arriving at free market anarchism.

            Actually, if the Framers were transported in a time machine to today, like in “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure,” they would almost certainly alter their position accordingly, to free market anarchism.

            After all, they themselves never believed that the Constitution conferred rights. As they put it:

            “all men … are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted … That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government … ”

            In other words, constitutions are not the source of our rights, they are merely declarations of our rights. Our rights derive from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

      • Don
        June 22, 2012 at 2:39 pm

        But that’s selfish and irresponsible Eric. You can’t just let people do whatever they want to do. The law is the law man. :)

        • June 22, 2012 at 3:45 pm

          I know… groan….

      • Craig
        June 22, 2012 at 9:09 pm

        Is it our right to not to wear seat belts? Remember that the government builds and controls our highways. Would it be any different if the roads were privatized and the companies that run them say wear a seat belt or we will not allow you to drive on our roads because they don’t want to get sued because an injured person can blame it on the company?

        • BrentP
          June 22, 2012 at 10:45 pm

          A company would need to be responsive to its customers. A government usually does not.

          In a world where we would have such roads those kind of lawsuits would be thrown out.

          Lastly a company could not use violence.

          It would be a vastly different situation.

        • June 22, 2012 at 11:33 pm

          Craig,

          The premise to reject here is this idea that someone ought to be able to sue someone else ( or put another way, to shift costs) as a result of his own decisions, freely taken.

          Example: I go for a swim in a pool. There is no lifeguard – and a sign that says “swim at your own risk.” Due diligence. As an adult in possession of my faculties, I decide I am a competent swimmer and in good health; I accept the always-there possibility that something could happen. But I decide the risk is small and assume it, in exchange for the pleasure of the swim. If I get a leg cramp and drown, well, that’s a tragedy for me. But in no way is it the fault of the pool owner. Only a Clover would attempt to make the pool owner responsible. And only a Cloverite system would hear his “case.”

          Same with buckle up laws. I assume the risk. If I am injured as a result, that is my problem – and mine alone.

          If the system makes it legally impossible for shysters to transfer responsibility onto the shoulders of innocent others, then the problem you describe evaporates.

          And we’re free again.

        • June 22, 2012 at 11:49 pm

          Dear Craig,

          BrentP is right.

          It’s not the same at all.

          The underlying principles are poles apart, and result in dramatically different long term consequences for individual rights and political liberty.

          Ideas have consequences.

        • Puzzled
          June 23, 2012 at 3:06 pm

          Lovely. The government takes my money by force to build the things, then you turn around and say I can’t complain about any restrictions on their use because the government gave them to me as a gift. I paid for the damn things – and I paid too much since government doesn’t economize.

      • Douglas
        June 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm

        AMEN! AMEN! AMEN! (and so on, and so forth…)
        Some of my observations could themselves be expanded into an entire post…

        I don’t need the “click-it-or-ticket” propaganda to understand the physics involved in most automotive accidents. I wear my seat belts for that reason ONLY. It’s probably the most cost-effective safety restraint, similar to how the Soviets (now Russians) solved the problem of writing in the weightlessness of space…they used a pencil and included a couple of pocket sharpeners, NASA developed a three-hundred dollar pen that could work in zero gravity (whose Germans were better than whose, Dr. Von Braun?). I wouldn’t object if insurance companies were able to contest bodily damage awards to drivers, otherwise not at fault in an accident, suffered injuries that could be proven sustained due to their own neglect in using available safety restraints. BUT, the Nanny-state crap of “click-or-ticket” has gone too far. It’s about control, and raising revenue, not about public safety. Most of us, by the time we’re mature enough to drive, should have cut the apron strings.
        Same with State-mandated “safety” inspections. C’mon, driving a car through a checkpoint doesn’t mint a vehicle as “safe”, it catches those clunkers ready to have a wheel fall off due to a VERY loose ball joint or rotors scored 1/2″ by pads that should have been replaced last fall. Again, if an insurer thinks it worthwhile, they can require periodic inspections by a competent mechanic as part of the policy.
        Wear a helmet while motorcycling? Sure, a good common sense idea, BUT, what really is the loss rate, and show me WHY it requires the all-powerful hand of the “gubmint”. Again, the private sector, through insurance, can solve this. Why the need to attempt to outlaw idiocy? Will we do the same for bicyclists? If so, it would start with the “children”, (after all, Hillary Clinton and her “village” know how to raise your child better than you, right?). Parents would be reported to CPS if six-y.o. Johnny is out riding his scooter in front of the house w/o a helmet, knee pads, jockstrap, etc…
        Methinks that part of this overblown risk-adversity is the speed and fidelity with which information can be readily transmitted worldwide. Who reads a sports page anymore to get updated on the scores around MLB last night? You can have play-by-play updates sent right to your phone, and, if you pay for mlb.tv, streaming video! Remember the captain of the guards from the “Shawshank Redemption”? He threatened to crack skulls if he heard a mouse fart. Nowadays, he could have updates on every mouse farting in every prison cell in the country go right to his iPhone! Hence, everytime something tragic happens, especially to a child, the whole damned world knows about it, and the perception arises of a “problem” (like the kiddies not wearing their safety gear when biking or skating). The big-government types that want to regulate and tax everything, including what we eat and when and where we shit, manipulate these occurrences to create the illusion that their big-Government intrusions into our everyday lives are a matter of vital import.
        That’s why this trend to restore the Second Amendment is encouraging. Folks are waking up and realizing that an armed of society of CITIZENS (rather than an unarmed society of SUBJECTS) is a safer (note I don’t say absolutely safe, what society of human beings would be?) and more polite society. Think about the custom of hand-shaking. What was it? It was that the usual hand that weapons were wielded with (the right), was extended openly, so you could see that the man you were confronting wasn’t attacking you. He could still have a dirk or a mace on his belt; it’s just that you could be certain that attack wasn’t imminent. Hence why unrestricted conceal-and-carry will NOT result in an epidemic of street shoot-outs. Think of the classic Star Trek episode about the “Gangster Planet”, modelled after Chicago in the “Roaring Twenties”. What does the street-wise kid, wanting only a “Piece of the Action”, tell Kirk and Spock, dressed in hood attire and carrying Thompsons? “You open up here and you’ll get scragged (shot up) from every roof top”. Notice that this fictional planet didn’t need any POLICE? Of course, it’s just poorly-written TV Sci-Fi of the sixties, but also notice that the average citizen seemed to have to worry more about timely laundry service than crime!

    • BrentP
      June 22, 2012 at 1:39 pm

      The further problem is there are a lot of bogus safety studies out there.

      For instance, the safety of bicycle helmets. Correct the studies for how helmet laws reduced the amount of bicycling done and the safety gains vanish. It’s just a foam hat. It protects against scrapes and minor bumps and perhaps keep a freak head impact from being fatal. I suppose that’s an insurance cost since people in general over use resources because they have insurance, however a lot of people aren’t going to go to a doctor for scrapes from a fall from a bicycle.

      When the idea of ‘risk’ itself is contaminated with this political BS, there is no way to properly assess the risk of a particular choice in the first place.

      • ThatOneGuy
        June 22, 2012 at 4:59 pm

        BrentP-

        A buddy of mine lost his father in a bicycle accident. He was riding on a trail where there was a race going on, got clipped by a race participant and was sent head first into a concrete barrier. Helmet split clean in half. Might as well have been without it for all the good it did. Always made me wonder after that why people get such a sense of safety out of a foam hat.

        • BrentP
          June 22, 2012 at 6:30 pm

          They have a rating for a 6 foot drop. Anything beyond that, the helmet may fail to protect. At speed head on into a concrete barrier is well exceeding the capability of the helmet.

          However, in bicycle racing, like in auto racing, helmets and such make sense.

          I view it this way, once I accept a bicycle helmet I need to wear a helmet of one sort or another for so many of my daily activities it becomes absurd. That is if I go by rational risk analysis.

      • Scott
        June 22, 2012 at 5:26 pm

        Like I said, bad statistics. Or better yet, what you said, bad experiment design.

      • Invid
        June 23, 2012 at 4:02 pm

        I watched my father-in-law go down on a bicycle at 20mph. Broke his clavicle but the helmet absorbed much of the head impact with the street. Probably saved his life. I never ride without one.

        That said, it is wrong to force people to wear them for the reasons already explained above.

    • toto
      June 22, 2012 at 9:01 pm

      The big problems come when irresponsible people have an accident and wind up in the hospital and possibly permanently injured and have no insurance or other means of support. A whole lot of unraveling would have to be done to walk it back to a point where other people (society) doesn’t get stuck with the bills.

      • Scott
        June 22, 2012 at 9:17 pm

        And exactly how often do you think that happens?

      • June 22, 2012 at 11:48 pm

        Not really.

        The problem is the doctors (and hospitals) are able to be glib with other people’s money. Imagine I own a repair shop. Some guy runs his engine without oil and destroys it. He brings the hulk to me – and I fix it, then transfer the cost of fixing his engine onto your bill. We’d never tolerate this. So why do we tolerate it with medical bills? Or anything else?

        Some thug gets shot up while trying to rob someone. If the doctor wants to treat him on his nickle – contributing his time (and paying for medical supplies out of his pocket) well, lovely. He is a great humanitarian. But he is something else if he puts a gun to my head to make me pay for his time – or the thug’s medicines.

        If someone is injured – for whatever reason – that injury is not a moral claim on other people’s liberty. It is a fine thing to help – and to volunteer – when it is done freely. It is the most odious thing imaginable when it is done at gunpoint.

        The only obligation each of us has is to respect other people’s rights. Not to “keep them safe” (as we define it). Not to force them to “help.”

        Only – to leave them in peace, to pursue happiness as they see fit. And to expect they extend the same courtesy in return.

        • Scott
          June 23, 2012 at 3:44 am

          Well said Eric.

          I still don’t think it happens very often. :)

        • Douglas
          June 25, 2012 at 12:56 am

          Insofar as medical care goes, it’s gone from beyond the normal medical ethics to treat imminent health problems w/o expectation of payment, to a myriad of Government regs, laws, and the potential for lawsuits (as well as having clowns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton chime in with their two cents worth) over “patient dumping”.
          If a doctor wants to price his services for those that can pay to cover his expenses over those that can’t, fine, it’s all a privately-arranged form of ‘socialism’, but VOLUNTARILY entered into (after all, if you don’t like your doc’s prices and/or policies, as long as Obamacare or Obomneycare isn’t in effect, you can go to someone else).
          If it were me, I could leave a gang-banging criminal to bleed to death on the sidewalk. Heartless? Maybe. But practical. I save my mercies for those that deserve them.

          • June 25, 2012 at 10:42 am

            “If it were me, I could leave a gang-banging criminal to bleed to death on the sidewalk. Heartless? Maybe. But practical. I save my mercies for those that deserve them.”

            Amen.

      • June 23, 2012 at 4:41 am

        Dear toto,

        Actually, the really big problems come when earlier counterproductive government encroachments are cited as justifications for later counterproductive government encroachments.

        Imagine Tony Soprano loses his temper and beats you up. Dr. Melfi makes him feel guilty. So he tries to make it up to you. He insists you see Doctor A. You want to see Doctor B. But he insists. He makes you an offer you can’t refuse. Insult added to injury.

        That’s how these “It’s for your own good” laws multiply until we are living in a police state with thugs in blue costumes putting us in cages at their whim.

      • mikedev
        June 23, 2012 at 12:19 pm

        Clovers certainly like to rationalize laws by saying that they will save society money some how. If they were actually serious about that, they could save a whole lot more by requiring welfare mothers to wear a Norplant. Not that it is going to happen.

        • June 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm

          Certainly. And I’d wager Clover could stand to lose a few pounds – but would holler like a gut shot coon if someone were to suggest “there ought to be a law” requiring him to achieve a “fit” BMI – or face a ticket.

        • BrentP
          June 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm

          It will happen eventually.

          There aren’t enough people dependent on government yet to close the loop.

          Farmers do not often allow their livestock to breed as they see fit.

          Controlling who has children with who is I am sure on the road map. We only need to look back at the 1930s when they did try to take too much too fast.

          Tomorrow’s Children, 1934:

          • methylamine
            June 23, 2012 at 5:09 pm

            @BrentP:

            And THAT, sir, is a key point: eugenics.

            The deranged monsters who pretend to be our betters are obsessed with eugenics; in fact, Hitler borrowed his eugenics push from America; the PTB here (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan et al.) were/are deeply eugenicist.

            It went underground after the excesses here exposed them, and Hitler gave it a bad name; now it’s called Nice Words like “family planning”. But never forget, Margaret Sanger with a little help from her friends founded Planned Parenthood…whose goals to get rid of the “weeds”.

            How they still maintain this delusion baffles me; after the Darwin-Galton family experiment with breeding–and unmitigated disaster–and with all we know now about epigenetics, only a scientific illiterate still believes in a “pure” breed’s superiority.

            Yet they do–and they’re acting on it. Rockefeller foundation-funded research tried out sterilizing vaccinations in the Phillipines forty years ago; those have been perfected now, and the vaccination push in full swing in Africa will decimate their populations. Village women run to the jungle when the UN shows up to vaccinate. It reminds me of the movie “Mars Attacks”–”Do not run. We are your friends.”

            The 46,000 paralyzed kids in India–who purely coincidentally were just vaccinated for polio–are a harbinger of things to come.

            But why you ask? I’m convinced it’s the insecurity inherent in the sociopath; nobody is allowed to be better than they, so they ensure the fact by destroying us.

          • MoT
            June 24, 2012 at 11:44 am

            @ methylamine. Sociopath, eh? Sort of like the pointy-haired boss of Dilbert.

    • Virginia Ulrich
      June 22, 2012 at 9:10 pm

      George Washington, in us bank 1791, disregarded his oath of office as Jefferson well recorded, and walked away of the constitution , and finished the job with the treaty of amity commerce and navigation in 1794, with the British, to CONTROL, the supreme court, IF there was a fiat bank,. He set Up the monarch of great Britain in the federal. We have not had the constitutional government since, but magma carta 1215, and city of London-1 mile square, and doomsday book, 1086 of pirates. The scripture is the lawful rule of law on the land of America, via the 7th amendment, and the creator and his son protect the people of this land who do not change their names from the paleo Hebrew, pronouced YaHooWaH, and YaHoshua. yes mount Sinai is found on the northwest area of what is called, Saudi Arabia, as documented, at Dr. Moller’s book, Exoduc Case, edition 2010. See the 450 photographs, that include the remains of pharoah’s army on the bottom of the yum su, red sea, at the Gulf of Aqua and much more.

    • stuart
      June 22, 2012 at 11:02 pm

      WHAT A GREAT TOPIC. I HAVE READ A # OF THE COMMENTS AND COULD NOT AGREE MORE. THIS IS ABOUT THE MANDATORY INSURANCE WE ARE FORCED TO GET. I HAVE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS FOR MANY YEARS. THIS IS AKIN TO MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE. I HAVE MY FINGERS CROSSED ABOUT THAT DECISION. BUT IF WE CAN DEFEAT THAT ONE, WE MUST ACT TOGETHER AND GET THE AUTO MANDATORY INSURANCE RECINDED. LETS START FIGHTING THIS THING NOW!!!

      • June 22, 2012 at 11:19 pm

        Hi Stuart,

        We’re going to start a petition movement – at the very least. Stay tuned!

    • john
      June 24, 2012 at 3:50 am

      From former experience as a fireman and paramedic helments to make some difference. It tends to be the unhelmented rider who spends the next month dying in the county hospital at the county’s (our) expense. A brain bucket may have saved me from disability in my youth.
      I am familliar with a case of a woman riding with out a seat belt and an infant in her lap. Mom survived because she crushed the kid to death.. There her stupidity caused harm to another person who had no choice in the matter.
      You wearing seatbelts and helments is between you and Darwin.
      I think it should be between you and your insurance company.
      Untill the age of majority it should be manditory for children.
      I have been in two serious traffic accidents in the past 35 years. Both times I was little more than a unluckey target.
      The first was a head on due to the other party going excessivly fast and hitting a patch of ice. Both vehicles approximatly same size and weight. I recieved cuts, contusions and a fractured eye orbit. She recieved a disabling spinal injury. I was restrained, she was not (pre airbag cars).
      Estimated impact speed approx 35 mph for her, 25 for me (snow and ice). My seatbelt left an impressive bruise, but except for slamming my head on a doorpost I recieved no serious injuries.. The other accident I was t-boned by someone running a stopsign..I got nailed in the drivers door about 35 mph..both wearing belts, both walked (limped) away..
      The physics arent on your side without seatbelts, but that’s you choice..
      But I think seat belt enforcement has become little more than a revenue stream for localaties.
      Dealing rather harshly with the super aggressive drivers, tailgaters, red light runners, stop sign runners and poor lane discipline would reduce the need for seat belts a whole lot.
      That’s how one guy that drives an awful lot sees it..

      • June 24, 2012 at 9:45 am

        “The physics arent on your side without seatbelts, but that’s you choice.”

        That’s it, exactly!

        Too bad not enough people grasp this important point – and instead believe they have a right to interpose themselves between their neighbors and their neighbors’ personal choices on this business, but would be up in arms in their neighbors demanded – for exactly the same reason (“safety,” “your own good”) that they refrain from doing strenuous exercise (or not exercising at all) or some other thing that could be argued involves “higher risk” and “costs to society.”

      • Douglas
        June 25, 2012 at 1:03 am

        Look, it’s fine to wear a seat belt as a measure (not ENTIRELY infallible) against whatever may come, as long as it’s a CHOICE. Else, why not have everyone up at the crack of dawn for callisthenics? Let’s check the content of the fridges and pantries…heavy-duty fines for cookies, pies, and greasey spoon fare! While we’re at it, let’s have everyone weigh in!
        We don’t need the nanny state, period. If people are free to make lifestyle choices but held responsible for consequences of said choices, they will tend to choose what’s in their own best interests. And if they don’t? As the fictional Sarek of Vulcan described his son (by Amanda Grayson), they’re “So Human”.
        “Gawd” bless those that fuck up every now and then. It’s from our mistakes (and hopefully seeing others’ before we make our own!) that we learn.

    • Red Steiner
      June 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      Re Insurance companies raise their rates because they can. They are even using one’s credit rating as justification. Poor people pay a higher rate than someone who is financially secure. The claim is that someone with a bad credit rating is irresponsible and therefore unsafe. Veterans check out the USAA insurance company. I was hit from behind by a Dolese Concrete and disabled 7 years ago August 9th. Their insurance company, Travelers Insurance, is fighting settlement on my injuries, consequently I have been unable to work, therefore my credit rating suffered. No, that doesn’t mean that I was didn’t pay my bills. It is a struggle but I am squeaking by. My insurance company raised my rates to over $ 400.00 per year for just liability, 25-50-25 (minimal coverage) on two vehicles, one of which I was driving less that 10 miles a week. This vehicle was only driven as necessary to keep the batery charged and the moving parts lubricated. Today with USAA I am carrying 100,000-200,000, 100,000 on the primary vehicle and 25-50-25 on the seldom used vehicle with 100,000 medical coverage which covers myself and anyone riding with me and emergency roadside assitance for less than for about $150.00 per year which I pay for monthly with no penalty for paying monthly.

      The bottom line here is that all of this crap about too many law suits and too high of awards is just not true. They have high rates because most states have mandantory insurance laws, which are easily circumvented by the unscrupulous dirver,because the responsible drivers will pay them, because most of those who we hire (elect) to represent us in government are I suspect investors and want high returns for their investment, which in turn means that the insurance companies “own” them! Tort reform is unconstitutional because it involves the government in private business. Here is a classic example. Say a widowed mother of two husband killed in the Corporate Wars in the Middle East) is struck by an 18 wheeler owned by acme freight (fictinal name) driven by Bugs Bunny, or one of his kind. The mother loses her right leg and as a copnsequence is unable to provide for her children so she files suit against the ASI (Always Stalls Insurance) insurance company. After 8 years ASI is finally dragged into courts and found to be liable but tort reform enters here. ASI is only liable for $400,000.00. Medical bills, including the cost of a ceahp prostethetic device for cosmetic purposes only are $250,000.00 her attornies costs are half or $200,000.00 leaving this disfigured and disabled woman a whopping $50,000.00 (Approximately two semesters at OSU) to support herself and her two children for the rest of her life.

      This dear reader is Tort Reform as voted on and written into law by those we hired to represent us.

      • spiritsplice
        June 29, 2012 at 12:51 pm

        Nobody hired them. They “assumed” power and no one questioned it.

  2. Rob
    June 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    This has nothing to do with this column, but wanted to thank you for the review on Optima batteries. My bird had been turning over hesitantly. Not like the battery was old but like the battery was too wimpy. The battery in the car looks pretty damn new but it has 675 cranking amps and 550 cold cranking amps….kinda a pussy battery. I put in an Optima red (910 ca and 720 cca) yesterday and it turns the engine over strongly.
    Not that I’m going very far right now, my boys and I have most of the interior gutted. Replacing the carpet, upholstery, seat foam, rear-deck, sail panels and rear armrest panels this weekend and next.
    I’m guessing if I had had more coffee this morning I could have tied this into “Recovering Our Rights”, but my brain doesn’t have the cranking amps of an Optima Red until after at least 4 shots of espresso.

  3. Willy P.
    June 22, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    This isn’t directly related to the topic above but a friend forwarded this video while I was reading the article.
    Stuff like this is why I refer to cops that exhibit this behavior as sociopaths.

    I watched the whole thing instead of just the highlights to see to see if there was truly no cause

    • Scott
      June 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm

      That was painful to watch. The cops need to be canned, no pension, nothing, then brought up on charges. Hard to believe that went down.

      Did they get away with it?

      • Willy P.
        June 22, 2012 at 1:40 pm

        it made me ill too.
        i read it happened this past memorial day weekend so I doubt anything has been resolved yet.

        IMO, the cop obviously trumped up the charges, so they detained, transported and held him against his will. If non-cop were to do that it is called kidnapping. In a just society, those cops would be arrested and charged with kidnapping. Why I think we are far off from “recovering our rights” is because an almost miniscule number of people would consider that a logical leap.

        • Scott
          June 22, 2012 at 1:46 pm

          The bottom line is whoever the judge is in this case needs to make an example of these cops. You need to remember that the cops are officers of the Court. The only reason they get away with crap like this is they have a corrupt Judge allowing it.

          • dom
            June 22, 2012 at 1:54 pm

            This stuff generates money and keep the gears of the courts lubricated.

            Sad but True

          • Scott
            June 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

            I agree. Dallas appears to have a Judge problem.

          • Scott
            June 22, 2012 at 2:33 pm

            Ever watch the movie “Judge Roy Bean”? The Law West of the Pecos. It illustrates the problem very well in my opinion.

          • Tor Munkov
            June 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm

            The whole justice theater system needs to be scrapped and replaced. By permitting cops to lie, they have an unlimited range of action. Anyone they want to pull over, they will claim to witness a traffic violation. Any home they want to plunder, they declare to have received an anonymous complaint. It is the worst justice system to have ever existed. Since we are running out of things to plunder, the fascist face is in full view.
            When the state can claim your property for any reason, there are no private real estate loans anymore. We’re way past socialism now and into the state economical facade realm.

            The deputy’s groupthink pigheadedness would make Goebbels blush.
            This is the true random lawless disorder that cages random mundanes every day.
            If I was Armando Soto’s lawyers, I’d be making a strong case for his freedom from the Prison Planet Pigsty

            Armando Soto, Appellant
            TDC # 01706340
            Beto Unit
            1391 FM 3328
            Tennessee Colony, TX 75880

            In the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
            O5-II-OIO62-CR
            O5-II-OIO62-CR
            Valencia Bush Appellant Attorney on Appeal
            State Bar #18692100 (214)-631-3435
            Defense Counsel At Trial
            Frank Jackson 2612 Boll St Dallas TX 75204

            Deputy James Westbrook (RR3: 93-102)
            Deputy James Westbrook, Dallas Police Officer, indicated that he arrested the Appellant for DWI on September 5, 2009. On that occasion he observed the Appellant commit a traffic violation, observed the strong order of alcohol, and arrested the Appellant for DWI. The Appellant’s blood Alcohol level was .15 at the time. (RR3: 95-102)

          • June 23, 2012 at 12:49 am

            Dear Scott,

            Also, tracing the chain of causation further back, the only reason the judges know they can get away with abetting the cop’s crime, is an acquiescent or even approving flock of sheeple.

          • June 23, 2012 at 2:14 am

            Dear Tor,

            “It is the worst justice system to have ever existed.”

            Right. Democracy is really “democratic dictatorship.” In some respects a democratic dictatorship is even more galling than more flagrant forms of dictatorships, such as military juntas or rule by regional warlords.

            There at least the people around us give us moral support.

            Under a democratic dictatorship on the other hand, the sheeple blame US for being troublemakers and for making waves.

        • Scott
          June 22, 2012 at 1:56 pm

          Another thing to investigate is whether or not this film was staged.

          It’s very odd that the police cruiser in the video had a graphite hood; where is that standard issue? If it is, the department has way too much money to spend on equipment.

          It’s not that hard to get a permit to make a movie. Could this film be a fabrication?

          • Scott
            June 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm

            Never mind. Seems to have been verified by a local Dallas news station. Not a fabrication.

            Unbelievable has a literal and figurative meaning so I was trying to rule out the literal.

            Figuratively it’s still unbelievable.

    • dom
      June 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm

      Cops are scum bags! This is the “New Normal” and what we should expect now! Better off just running from them…

      • Scott
        June 22, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        They’d just shoot you Dom. You can’t run from this sort of thing.

        The cops have to learn they aren’t prison guards. The only way that’s going to happen is by making it clear that they won’t be fed and they will have their pee pee whacked if they screw up. The point will need to be made in courts and it needs to happen in a lot of them.

        • dom
          June 22, 2012 at 1:45 pm

          I was pulled over by a former prison guard a few months ago while riding (nope I didn’t run). He was about one second from pulling his gun on me when I stepped off the bike! It was a pretty hairy situation!

          • Willy P.
            June 22, 2012 at 3:03 pm

            I like the idea of referring to them as prison guards, because it is resembling a prison nation more and more.

            That isn’t surprising at all, I have seen (in-person) a gun pulled on another person once and have had a gun pulled on me once. Both those separate instances it was a cop.

          • dom
            June 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm

            Ha.. This guy was actually a former prison guard. He told me! He was 25 years old and ready to shoot somebody. He’ll make it to the news soon I’m sure.

            It is an excellent term though!

      • Willy P.
        June 22, 2012 at 1:46 pm

        true, except because his plate wasn’t actually obstructed they probably already had it and would have eventually got him.

        When “my friend” had his GSXR 750, “he” built a license plate moutning bracket that was spring loaded, hinged adn button actuated so if “he” needed it to disappear “he” could just reach back and hit a button next to the rear seat locking cylinder to make it fold out of sight. “He” told me it was very useful at times.

      • June 22, 2012 at 3:55 pm

        They’ve upped the penalties for minor stuff to such an absurd extent that they’re encouraging people to run. Example: In Va, anything faster than 20 MPH above the posted limit is statutory “reckless” driving. So, you can get tagged for that for doing 56 in a 35 zone (where traffic is running 45-50 already). Or, over 80 MPH anywhere – which means, 11 MPH above the highway limit of 70. Traffic’s running 75-ish already. So just a few MPH and you are “reckless” – which is a huge bust: Mandatory court; six points on your license if convicted; huge fine; probable license suspension – guaranteed doubling or tripling of your insurance for the next five years. You’ll end up paying thousands…. so hell, why not run?

    • BrentP
      June 22, 2012 at 3:55 pm

      Cops pull him over to get the video but don’t realize that video is running? Where the cop clearly says the stop is to get the video and then makes up a ‘fix it’ violation and then goes for a physical arrest immediately, with no justification.

      Reading the comments where this story appears on the web gives some hope, but the clover group think is astoundingly bad. Thankfully the clovers are being trounced in the comments.

    • Tor Munkov
      June 22, 2012 at 5:26 pm

      I wonder what Dad would think of his collectivist policing methods?

      Jim Westbrook, Senior Corporal with the Dallas Police Department, passed away February 21, 2009. Jim was born October 6, 1955, in Dallas, Texas, the son of Leta W. (Scalf) and Roy A. Westbrook. He was a graduate of Justin F. Kimball High School and Dallas Baptist University. Jim joined the Dallas Police Department on April 15, 1979, serving 29 years. On June 24, 1981, he was awarded the Police Shield Award for injuries received on duty and on May 26, 1993, he was awarded the Life Saving Award. He worked many assignments while with the department. Most of his career was spent serving the Southwest Oak Cliff area. As a dedicated officer, Jim worked hard to make the City of Dallas a safer place to live and work. Married to wife Lindee on March 20, 1982, he was a devoted husband and father. As a friend he was quick to gather an audience with his love for laughter and life. He will be missed by all who loved and respected him, but not forgotten. He is survived by his wife of 26 years, Lindee, of DeSoto, Texas; sons, James Westbrook and fiancée Megan, Daniel McClellan, and Kenneth McClellan; parents, Roy and Leta Westbrook; sister, Royann Miller and husband Wayne; niece, Nancy Phonsnasinh and husband Gar; nephew, Jack Baird and wife Jill; and numerous aunts, uncles, and cousins. In lieu of flowers the family asks that you make a charitable donation to the Assist the Officer Foundation, 1412 Griffin Street East, Dallas, TX, 75215. Ph: 214-747-6839 or go to http://www.atodallas.org. Funeral services are 10:00 am, Thursday, February 26, 2009, at Rosemont Christian Center, 1304 S. Hampton Road, Dallas, Texas. Burial will follow near Alba, Texas. Visitation with the family is 6-8 pm, Wednesday, at Jaynes Memorial Chapel.

      The deputy also appears to be quite the land baron, according to his property listed on http://www.dallascad.org/

    • June 23, 2012 at 1:32 am

      Dear Willy P,

      FYI: Some guy left a foolish comment at the YouTube channel. He doesn’t realize it, but his attitude is why cops like this get away with what they do.

      His comment:

      “No. They don’t. And never did I say they did. Are you all too fucking thick to read the words? I said that the biker was being a dick. And the cop was being a dick. Everyone is a dick. I’m not justifying shit. I SAID that he was mistreated, but? since we all like to see karma and justice at works, seeing cocks being treated like cocks, then we should be happy that this biker got an asshole cop because he comes off as an asshole, too.
      – smitty01209 in reply to mwr02324 (Show the comment) 38 minutes ago

      My response:

      We can’t let “dick” cops get away with abuses merely because we decided some rider was also a “dick.”

      It’s a far bigger issue than individual “dick” cops and individual “dick” riders. The issue is whether people in general are protected against police abuses.

      If we consent to individual “dick” cops abusing individual “dick” riders, we put ourselves at risk because the abuses invariably expand to where the “dick” cops are abusing everyone.

      No. Not okay.
      - thechinadesk in reply to smitty01209 2 minutes ago

      • Willy P
        June 24, 2012 at 3:58 am

        I rarely read youtube comments and have not posted in years, too many shit-tossing a-holes on there.

      • MoT
        June 24, 2012 at 11:26 am

        Bevin, Commenting on YouTube is like the proverbial casting pearls before swine. They are in the aggregate a mean spirited mob. Much like wandering into FreeRepublic and getting your throat cut for not goose-stepping correctly.

      • June 24, 2012 at 11:47 am

        Dear Willy P, MoT,

        Can’t argue with you guys there. A LOT of infantile teenage boys exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to talk trash and use dirty words.

        I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the comment:
        “Your [sic] an idiot!”

        If I had a dollar for every time I’ve come across idiocies like this, I could buy a house in Doug’s Gulch!

        • MoT
          June 24, 2012 at 11:57 am

          Youtube, Yahoo forums, you name it, where lemmings congregate copious amounts of scat fly. On sites where you’re fooled into believing “serious” discussion amongst professionals might occur, like on Wired, you find statist robots galore. The only IT site I actually like to visit, and it usually gives me lots of chuckles, is The Register. Good old British humor makes even Orwellian prophecies bearable with an ironic tear in my eye.

          • Tor Munkov
            June 25, 2012 at 6:02 pm

            Statist robots nails it, MoT! 200 years ago the British Naval Warships were staffed by means of impressment.

            Impressment was the forceable conscription of military aged men into service of military vessels. Refusing to be drafted brought serious consequences, including death by hanging.

            You are disgusted because Americans are completely under impressment to multiple military vessels concurrently, in an existential sense.

            Its seaman even proudly perform self-impressment. Owning property tethers you to local, state, and federal vessels of service. Jobs entail an creepy octopus of benefits and constant surveillance and forced regimentation.

            These GuyJinn’s are all “proud to be an Americun, where at least they know they’re free.” Free to choose which vessels they remain impressed to, and for what duration and conditions of impressment only.

            The 25% desertion rate of impressed soldiers under British Empire is now in the low single digits under the successor American Empire. Most everyone consents to serve in some fashion or another.

            As to the internet, as soon as you post somewhere, the impressors of the various war teams descend. How old are you? Where do you live? What is your occupation? Which ideological vessels do you pledge your allegiance to? Lets compare billets and Mos’s which each other. Hey look, we both served upon the SS Inner City Baltimore during the 1990s, small world, right matey?

            If you don’t identify as a member of the Baltimore Civic Orioles, the Catlick Church, The BloodLycans, or The Democrips; well, you best explain why not.

            You will quickly hear a pitch and threat about all the benefits of service and an offer of a signing bounty you can’t refuse, or else.

            Homeless men without Obama welfare phones are the worst, there is no way to contact them and further pursue recruitment. Your gridlike neighborhood front cell doors with prison number is much preferred to the freeform shantys on the vast prison grounds.

            Everyone must serve under impressment, it’s the American Way.

    • Glen2Gs
      November 29, 2012 at 8:10 am

      Remember….

      In Russia People break Law…In Soviet America..Law Break People

  4. Don
    June 22, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    “The main argument supporting laws requiring us to “buckle up” and to wear a helmet when riding a bike is that we might impose “costs on society.””

    I always like that argument. It’s tantamount to saying that someone who eats 10x as many apples as the normal person, imposes costs on society because obviously he’s driving the price of apples up for everyone.

    Such stupidity in this society.

    Yea, the insurance companies got it good. They get the government to mandate the insurance and then get the gov’t to outlaw things that might cause the insurance companies to have to pay out.

    Why don’t they just tax us and give it to the insurance companies? Oh, wait they do that too. We’re fucked.

    • dom
      June 22, 2012 at 2:42 pm

      You have to love it! It’s a beautiful thing, complete corruption and trickery, isn’t it? I’m still astonished every time I think of all the taxes/fees incorporated with “Private Property” ownership.

      • Don
        June 22, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        You know Dom, I’d love to own my own land but all those taxes and fees are too much. I refuse. Unless I have the cash and can find someone willing to sell me a piece of land as simply as I can buy a gallon of milk, I’ll never be a land owner.

        Nor will I pay property taxes. I will have my land fortified, and booby trapped every which way to Sunday so if the sheriff came once, he’d never come again.

        I think that’s the only way to do it: build an island for yourself and defend it.

    • Scott
      June 22, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Well, eating 10x as many apples as everyone else could impact interstate commerce, taking the problem into federal jurisdiction.

  5. Brad Smith
    June 22, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    People must be un-programed to reject collectivism. Individualism and self ownership will naturally take over. It’s not that we are all unique or special or anything like that. It’s simply that we all have to make our own choices and deal with the consequences of our actions. The collectivist doesn’t want to make decisions, they prefer to be told how to behave. Destroy collectivism and people will have no choice but to once again think and act for themselves.

    We are told over and over that America is the home of rugged individualism. Hogwash, we might have been and we can be again, but it sure isn’t right now. Individuals who refuse to be part of the collective are looked down on and feared. We might destroy the little world they live in where they believe their actions and choices don’t matter.

    Things in this country will be changing very soon. Like it or not we are on the edge of some very interesting times. When this relatively comfortable life comes to an end, for the vast majority of people, sides will be taken. Either people will run to the state for protection and usher in a complete totalitarian police state or they will reject collectivism and choose Liberty, Freedom, Individualism and Self Ownership! All we can do at this point is try and get as many people on our side as possible so when it happens we stand a fighting chance.

    • ThatOneGuy
      June 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm

      After thinking about this some, I firmly believe the battle is won or lost in the home at an early age. When you think about it, everyone raised in a family (practically everybody) is conditioned to accept collectivism, because the family is a collective. I remember being raised to help out here, do this chore, keep your space clean, for the good of the family.

      The answer is certainly not to undo the family, of course. That’s had obvious negative consequences over the past 50 years. But parents should make sure they teach their children to do things for themselves, not for the good of the whole. As in, do your dishes because when you get older nobody is going to be around to do them for you, instead of do your dishes for the good of the household. Otherwise you’re just hammering the Clover mentality into your children and leaving them with no defense against the school system that they’re stuck in simultaneously.

      Thoughts?

      • Scott
        June 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm

        I don’t think collectivism at the family or tribal level is the problem. When you wash your dishes at home, you do it so your Dad won’t have to. There’s an exchange.

        But when you take the collective to the State level, the work you do becomes meaningless unless you’re paid somehow. There’s no reason to do it because if you don’t, somebody you neither know nor care about will. That’s where socialism fails. There’s no direct feedback.

        I trained my kids to be independent and take care of themselves but I also trained them not to let anyone take advantage of their charity.

      • Brad Smith
        June 22, 2012 at 6:19 pm

        It’s interesting question for sure. It reminds me of “Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev. “A nihilist is a person who does not bow down to any authority, who does not accept any principle on faith, however much that principle may be revered.”

        Many people who claim to be nihilists took up science as their new god and are willing to accept that as their new faith. I say question everything.

  6. GW
    June 22, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Eric – I worry that the “rollback” of gun laws is actually a means of gathering a database (by CC permits) of those of us who have guns and hence we become “potential terrorists” and thereby the primary focus of the Gestapo when Marshall Law is put into effect. Get “us” and the implementation of Martial Law is more readily accepted by the greater Clover population. Any Thoughts….

    • dom
      June 22, 2012 at 7:17 pm

      Yeah, that database already exists!

      • Brad Smith
        June 22, 2012 at 7:36 pm

        Yes they already exist and yes they already use them.

        A few years back the governor of Michigan came to Posen to walk in the parade. They had white vans at the ends of my friends road. He is one of the most highly armed people I know. He belongs to no groups and makes no threats to anyone ever. Yet they had him under surveillance until after the parade. They were clearly SS. I can think of no other way that they would have done this if not for his multiple gun registrations. He called and told me not to stop by because he figured they would pull over anyone coming down his road. (I did anyway) They didn’t pull me over. But I had the feeling they would have if I had left before the governor did.

        • MoT
          June 24, 2012 at 11:30 am

          I always figured that a CC is an absurdity. Just another database they’ll use to triangulate the troublemakers. Why is it that you have to beg permission for something you purportedly have a right to? Maybe I’m confused.

          • dom
            June 24, 2012 at 11:34 am

            Naw, you ain’t confused. It makes perfect sense and every time I look in my wallet and see my permit I’m reminded of it.

          • June 24, 2012 at 2:13 pm

            No, you’re right! Having to apply for permission is an outrage. But it’s much less an outrage than being denied the legal right to carry a gun at all.

            I am now able to legally carry my .45 just about anywhere. I don’t have to worry about being charged with a felony if a cop finds my .45 on my hip (or in my glovebox).

            That is a tremendous change for the better – don’t you agree?

            It is also a great starting point for repealing the idea of having to get a permit. That was inconceivable when it was not even possible to get a permit.

            Now, it’s definitely conceivable.

            Again, tremendous progress!

          • June 24, 2012 at 3:15 pm

            Dear MoT,

            I know what you mean. It sticks in my craw too.

            Time for another Chinese aphorism. If you can stand it!

            騎馬尋馬 pronounced qí mǎ xún mǎ. It means “riding a horse searching for horse.”

            In other words, it’s a lot easier to search for a horse when you already have a horse. Beats the hell out of searching for a horse on foot.

            It may be better to take full advantage of what we can get now, but also to work for more as we go.

    • June 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm

      Although I put nothing – nothing – beyond the government’s machinations, I don’t think so. It would have been easier to just prevent most people from having guns as opposed to dealing with literally millions of armed (and pissed off) people.

      The 2A may be the one that prevents this country from going over completely to the Clover side.

    • ThatOneGuy
      June 22, 2012 at 7:30 pm

      Even if it’s true, I take solace in the knowledge that such an operation would be undertaken by an organization that has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that it can’t find its ass with both hands.

      Imagine the Katrina operations on a national scale, and against the whole population, not just the most vulnerable and accustomed to looking to government for help and solutions. There’s no way they could pull it off. They don’t have the manpower, let alone the effective command it would take to execute such an operation. It would have to happen simultaneously across the whole country because word would spread like wildfire on the Internet and people would either lock and load or start burying and play dumb.

      Government ineptitude is our ace in the hole.

      • dom
        June 22, 2012 at 7:36 pm

        Dunno Mang…

        1. Government didn’t give a shit about Katrina victims.

        2. They’ll have drones finding our asses.

        3. 90% of the population is mostly converted (my guess).

        • ThatOneGuy
          June 22, 2012 at 7:48 pm

          A lot of social problems that the government has swept under the rug over the past 50 years are going to explode once its grip on power erodes. They’re not going to be able to carry out their whole wish list. Our masters have an empire to maintain that the Bolsheviks didn’t have to worry about.

          It depends a lot on just exactly where the shit flies once it hits the fan. Your location will make a big difference. I’m in what will definitely be a high-priority area; within 50 miles of Army I Corps headquarters, a major Air Force transport base, two homeported aircraft carriers, the only Nimitz carrier drydock on the West Coast and over half of the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine fleet, so I’m probably fucked.

          But if you’re living in a rural area with dispersed population and little essential infrastructure I think you’re more likely to be leap-frogged and isolated than to feel the iron fist. Uncle Sam is going to have to prioritize.

          • dom
            June 22, 2012 at 7:55 pm

            I’m 60 miles west of DC and upwind.

            Just hope it’s enough.

    • Scott
      June 22, 2012 at 8:19 pm

      I’ve thought of the CC argument but I’ve never let it bother me because I’ll never use a CC permit so I’ll never apply for one.

      CC was invented to make Clovers feel comfortable around armed citizens. They don’t like looking at guns so they insisted on concealed carry. When I wear a gun, my intention is to alert anyone within sight of me that I’m carrying a gun. I wear a drop leg SERPA holster that’s in plain sight unless I’m also wearing a duster.

      A gun that’s hidden from view has no preventative purpose, though of course it still has a defensive purpose. I’d rather prevent than defend so I prefer open carry in civilized environments. Going into a snake den is a different story, but who gets a permit for that?

      • June 22, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        Dear Scott,

        Basically I’m on the same page as you.

        But CC probably does deter. If criminals know that people are resorting to CC, the uncertainty as to whether any particular intended victim is carrying deters them from rash action.

        My biggest objection to CC laws, as opposed to CC per se, is the “permit” aspect. A right is not a privelge. The implicit acceptance of the notion that CC is a privilege rather than a right sticks in my craw.

        On the other hand, one could argue that if a robber gives back part of what he took, you should take it and not argue whether he was actually “giving” it to you.

        One could argue that as long as you are clear in your own mind that it was your right and not his privilege to grant, then it’s better to take what you can get.

        Gun owners who obtain CCW “permits” should make it a point to tell every Tom, Dick, and Harry that the CCW “permit” they obtained from the Leviathan State is a right rather than a privilege.

        • June 22, 2012 at 11:41 pm

          I agree in principle that the idea of a permission slip for the exercise of our rights is obnoxious in the extreme.

          That said, tremendous progress has been made in the right direction. Yes, we still have to get the permission slip – but it has become in many areas a mere formality. This is one step closer to “constitutional carry” (no permit required) and many steps away from the previous situation in which it was very difficult for most people to obtain a concealed weapons permit – or even a gun, for that matter.

          • June 23, 2012 at 12:06 am

            Dear eric,

            If I were in the US now, I would do just what you suggested. I would obtain a CCW “permit” then make clear to anyone who asked that in my eyes, the “permit” was merely an acknowledgement of my right and not a conferred privilege.

            I like the term “constitutional carry.” Maybe an interim step could be a “constitutional carry permit” whose fine print specified that it was merely an “acknowledgement of a natural right” and not a government granted privilege?

            Lately I’ve been thinking about HOW to get from where we are to genuine liberty. We may need to accept that the process may be incremental.

          • June 23, 2012 at 12:12 am

            Dear eric,

            It just hit me.

            As a rhetorical device, one could argue that “CCW” does not really mean “Concealed Carrying of a Weapon” but “Constitutional Carrying of a Weapon.”

          • June 23, 2012 at 10:28 am

            Indeed!

            I’ve come around to the idea that it will be necessary to go step-by-step when it comes to re-educating the average brainwashed person about liberty. The Clovers did it step by step, too. They start with something seemingly trivial – for example, the “sobriety checks” back in the ’80s. They get people to accept this as “ok.” Then they move the chess piece forward and before you know it – gate rape and much worse besides. All done piecemeal. Well, we can do the same. Great ships are turned by relatively small inputs. It may not be noticeable at first, but as time goes by, the ship alters its course. Eventually, it turns – and may even go back in the opposite direction.

            This is my strategy. I believe it can work – and more, it gives me something to work toward. It is satisfying to write a good column exposing Cloverism. But it will be far more satisfying to roll back Cloverism.

          • June 23, 2012 at 11:13 am

            Dear eric,

            Right!

            Some libertarian writer once proposed an ingenious idea. I wish I could remember who it was.

            He suggested that libertarians practice a form of taichi, by turning the legislative process back on itself.

            Instead of deifying legislators for passing new bad laws, he suggested that they be honored for repealing existing bad laws.

            To facilitate this process, he suggested that new laws require a 2/3 supermajority for passage. Old laws on the other hand, would require only a 1/3 plurality for repeal.

            The idea being that if a proposed law fails to meet with the approval of at least 2/3 of the public, it probably should not be passed.

            Conversely, if an existing law offends as many as 1/3 of the public, it probably should be repealed.

            It’s a far cry from our real ideal, the elimination of anything beyond common law, but it might be a way to move in the right direction.

          • Scott
            June 25, 2012 at 6:36 pm

            I’m lucky enough to spend most of my time in a “shall issue” jurisdiction (Wyoming) so I’d have to say the other reason I’ve never applied for a CC permit is i could always get one if I wanted. That may be a bad reason and I admit I’m probably lazy.

            I did once make the mistake of applying for a permit to build a silencer for a .22 I was using to control coyote and fox predation on my turkeys. At the time I was living within hearing range of some folks who enjoyed the peace and quiet of rural life, so in an effort to respect their rights I decided to put a silencer on my 22. Boy was that a mistake.

            I submitted the first application to my LEO (Town Police) who denied it saying she just didn’t want townfolk having silencers; I wasn’t living in town, nor were my turkeys. Even the coyotes stayed clear of town (except the two legged variety). Then I re-applied to my County Sheriff, who politely declined because I’d listed my reason for having a silencer as “varmint control”. Apparently it’s a violation of Game and Fish regulations to shoot a coyote with a silenced weapon. So finally I re-apply, this time listing “education” as my reason. It gets accepted. I send in the application to BATF, who cash my check then sit on it for two years. After two years I get the check back with a blank denial. No reason given, just “No”.

            Sigh. You can’t play by the rules because there just plain aren’t any. What’s the point?

      • GW
        June 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm

        I agree with the concept of prevention – unfortunately Open Carry is not allowed in Florida….

        • methylamine
          June 23, 2012 at 5:13 pm

          Nor is open carry allowed, ironically, in Texas–the epitome of the gun-slinging wild-West mentality.

          Wish it were. There are moves afoot to make it so, just like Montana or Wyoming’s “constitutional carry” laws.

          • MoT
            June 24, 2012 at 11:38 am

            Texas is an aberration in more ways than I can count. Having once lived there I used to think it was the bees knees but once I left, and took a good look over my shoulder, I realized it’s screwed up. They love to yammer about how free they are but at the same time enforce blue laws that make you scratch your head. When I, a man now 50, get carded at a Texas Wal-Mart for a six of brewskis then I have to assume the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

          • June 24, 2012 at 2:05 pm

            “When I, a man now 50, get carded at a Texas Wal-Mart for a six of brewskis then I have to assume the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.”

            When this happens, I tell the clerk – keep it – and walk out. Leaving everything on the conveyor belt.

  7. Brad Smith
    June 22, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    I have stated before that some things seem to be going in the right direction in Michigan. Medical Marijuana, no more helmet laws, legal fireworks, less restriction on gun laws.

    However, they never let a good crisis go without using it to clamp down. Take the OK city bombing for instance. It had nothing to do with the Michigan Militia. But both the press and the government (same thing) used it to kick them in the teeth. I still have friends involved, but it’s not what it was. They used to be able to run live fire drills on the National Guard base. My friends brother was in charge of the base at the time. They told him the base was being locked down and no militia was ever allowed in again. (He is the one training the military in Liberia now) Think about the logic that goes into that. He can no longer allow local militia to train on the National Guard base, but he can go half way around the world to train corrupt regimes that protect corporate interests. Talk about fascism.

  8. Fabian
    June 22, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Bikes, salt and red meat are the next targets of the Puritans.

  9. IAFARMER
    June 22, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    I told my congressman, Steve King, that we need to go back to the laws and regulations at we had on the books in the year 1900. (NO, NOT THE POST SLAVERY JIM CROW STUFF) He wholeheartedly agreed. Think on this: we had a perfectly good country in the 19th century. The US had the strongest growth in the whole world, led the industrial revolution, invented almost everything that needed inventing, and the whole world was coming to us for their sustenance. Every law that is passed takes freedom from someone and costs the taxpayer money. The 20th century wasn’t two decades old and we had allowed the Federal Reserve to be put into place and the federal income tax to pay the interest on it. Worst two mistakes in our history.

    • dom
      June 22, 2012 at 10:53 pm

      The “I told my congressman” or any such similar statement conjures this saying to mind.

      “Wish in one hand, s..crap in the other. See which one gets filled first.”

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      June 23, 2012 at 1:54 am

      How many gun owners serving on juries have voted to convict defendants charged with violating an unconstitutional law?

      Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

      • June 23, 2012 at 1:57 am

        Dear Tinsley,

        A friend of mine is big on FIJA, the Fully Informed Jury Association, and “jury nullification.”

        I say there’s no reason not to use every tool at our disposal. It’s not either/or. It’s both/and.

        • methylamine
          June 23, 2012 at 4:37 am

          Judges are terrified of informed jurors. Have you read about the case of that gentle old man who hands out FIJA information in front of courts? Numerous arrests.

          It’s the scariest aspect of this occupation government takeover; the brainwashing preparation over the last 50 years has been so effective, that nobody has the wherewithal to even question the arrests–least of all the prison guards effecting them.

          Almost no-one seems to remember we have a 1st amendment. The 2nd is clinging on–actually making progress as Eric points out. The 4th and 5th are essentially dead.

          • June 23, 2012 at 5:05 am

            Dear methylamine,

            Being from China, much of my libertarian blogging has been about non-interventionism.

            It always kills me when the political class in the USSA gets on its high horse about “human rights violations in China.”

            Of course there are human rights violations in China. But what does that have to do with human rights violations in America?

            Leave Chinese government human rights violations to the Chinese people. They will deal with them as they see fit, in their own time, and in their own way.

            Don’t use human rights violations in China, the Balkans, the Middle East, or anywhere else, as justifications for human rights violations in America.

          • Scott
            June 25, 2012 at 6:53 pm

            Amen Bevin!

            What was that biblical verse about the mote vs. the beam in your eye? Or the one about stones and people who live in glass houses?

            The self-righteousness of US politicians apparently knows no bounds.

          • Mithrandir
            June 25, 2012 at 9:50 pm

            @Scott: Matthew 7:3

          • June 26, 2012 at 2:53 am

            Dear Scott,

            If the crusaders were lecturing the Chinese people about anarcho-capitalism/ free market anarchim/voluntaryism that would be one thing.

            But to brainwash them into adopting “democracy!?”

            It really makes my blood boil. China has already been through hell with another failed Western ideology — Communism.

            Must it suffer through “democracy” as well?

            Just listen to what Ron Paul says about what democracy has done to America.

            Nobody with a shred of decency would ever wish that upon China, or any other country struggling desperately for freedom.

        • June 23, 2012 at 10:18 am

          For a long time, I avoided jury duty. I didn’t register to vote (the method by which jurors are called up in my county) and had made up my mind to disqualify myself somehow if they found me and sent the call-up letter. But now I look forward to the opportunity to help a fellow citizen escape the maw of Moloch – and will do all I can to get on a jury, if the opportunity presents itself. The county authorities in my area are especially vicious when it comes to prosecuting the “war on (some) drugs.” This one really sticks in my craw because it is the apotheosis of non-crime. The idea of throwing someone in a cage merely because he chose to ingest or grow or freely sell to another consenting adult an arbitrarily illegal “drug” is literally unbelievable to someone like me who cherishes human liberty.

          • June 23, 2012 at 11:33 am

            It’s a great way to prevent the clovers from railroading innocent people.

            Just one juror who understands jury nullification can ensure justice.

            Shades of the Henry Fonda character in Sidney Lumet’s classic courtroom drama, “Twelve Angry Men.”

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm

          Have you read any of my posts concerning the Grand Jury and Fifth Amendment Presentment Power?

          We can go on forever exposing and re-exposing criminals in office and their cronies but nothing moves until it is on the record.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 23, 2012 at 4:23 pm

          Almost twenty years I had a rather unpleasant exchange with FIJA when I suggested that they include Fully Informed GRAND Jury in their agenda.

          Nearly twenty years have passed since my introduction to FIJA and I am not familiar with a single case of nullification that has occurred in all that time. Laura Kriho tried but she made a costly error during the attempt.

    • June 23, 2012 at 7:15 am

      Think on this: we had a perfectly good country in the 19th century. The US had the strongest growth in the whole world, led the industrial revolution, invented almost everything that needed inventing, and the whole world was coming to us for their sustenance.

      I’m afraid your history is off:-

      - The US did not have the strongest growth in the whole world, rather first Britain, then Germany did. At the end of the century, Australia did. The U.S.A. took over in the early 20th century.

      - The US did not lead the industrial revolution, rather first Britain, then Germany did, in terms of implementation. As far as technological development went, it was first France and then Germany, with Britain leading for a brief period in between, roughly the 1870s.

      - The US did not invent almost everything that needed inventing. In fact, at various times Britain, France and Germany did. The U.S.A. did a lot more in the early 20th century, like aeroplanes and radio, but in the 19th century it did little more than the mechanised reaper and the phonograph (the electric light and the practical steam boat are not exceptions; they were first invented in Britain). I’m of two minds about the telephone and the telegraph, because Alexander Graham Bell was a Canadian born in Scotland working in the U.S.A. and Samuel Morse did his first work on the telegraph before returning to the U.S.A.

      - The whole world did not come to the U.S.A. for its sustenance. Most of it was undeveloped and grew its own food, France and Germany tried for self sufficiency for protectionist reasons and only imported a little – and Russia was a food exporter. For nearly half the 19th century Britain also tried for self sufficiency for protectionist reasons and only imported a little – and after that it mostly imported from France, Germany and Denmark at first, and then by the time it was importing from the U.S.A. it was also importing from Canada and Russia (with South America and Australasia joining those later), so the U.S.A. wasn’t even the majority food supplier for Britain once you allow for remaining domestic production.

      That said, your conclusion is mostly sound. It’s just that the history and economics you used to support it aren’t what you made out.

      • Boothe
        June 24, 2012 at 12:59 pm

        P.M. Lawrence – According to the University of Houston, “By 1890, the United States had by far the world’s most productive economy. American industry produced twice as much as its closest competitor–Britain.” So you need to get your history straight; 1890 preceded the 20th century the last time I checked. In “A History of Money and Banking in the United States” Rothbard points out that from 1879 – 1888 “Gross domestic product almost doubled from the decade before, a far larger percentage jump decade-on-decade than any time since.” The Smithsonian claims “The middle and late 19th century was a golden age for American invention.“ The U.S. patent office records show that there were 1,791,956 patents granted from 1800 – 1899 (excluding those granted to foreign residents). Of those 1,763,122 were granted from 1850 – 1899. Regardless of one’s position on intellectual property rights, those are impressive numbers from a relatively small percentage of the world’s population.

        The fact is Samuel Morse set up the first practical telegraph line from Baltimore, Maryland to Washington, D.C. in 1844. By 1849 he filed for a U.S. patent on a working telegraph register that actually recorded dots and dashes on paper. The telegraph was pioneered here and it was a game changer. It not only allowed long distance communication, but greatly improved the safety of rail travel and transport. This major innovation for commerce was subsequently exported worldwide. His original ethnicity is irrelevant P.M., because many “Americans” are Anglo-European immigrants or their offspring. You bring up Edison and the light bulb. The concept certainly preceded him (possibly even by acient Egyptians), but Edison came up with the evacuated bulb and long lasting filament that actually made it commercially viable. Then there is Nikola Tesla the father of modern poly-phase alternating current rotating equipment; he just happened to be a Serb. So what? It was the freedom of 19th century America in no small part that led Tesla to immigrate here. And let’s not forget that it was Tesla, not Marconi that invented the radio. You know good and well that I can go on because there are countless more 19th century American inventions and accomplishments to cite.

        That atmosphere of Liberty in 19th century America is what attracted so many great minds and fostered innovation, invention and heretofore unheard of wealth generation by *common people*. In mercantilist, socially stratified England and Europe, the “commoner’s” dream was to come to America where you could innovate, build something for yourself and actually keep most of the fruits of your labor. How about George Washington Carver? Born into slavery and racial discrimination, 19th century America yet allowed him to become director of agricultural teaching and research at the Tuskegee Institute. Carver alone came up with over 450 products from peanuts and other plants. Show me his equal in Europe or England.

        I don’t dispute that a great deal of invention occurred in many other countries at various times. After all, the Chinese invented moveable clay type 400 years before Gutenberg. They also gave us gun powder and paper money. Killing all the Indians and the Buffalo with gun powder and infected blankets were other Anglo-European ideas merely implemented in America. There’s also this little issue of paper money stealing our real wealth and its progeny – digital credit – wrecking the world’s economy at the behest of international bankers; another nefarious plan with European basis. But 19th century America was truly remarkable in the annals human history all it warts aside.

        • June 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm

          Boothe, I do have my history straight. Let me clarify:-

          - It is indeed true that “By 1890, the United States had by far the world’s most productive economy. American industry produced twice as much as its closest competitor–Britain.” But I never denied that, I only pointed out that the U.S.A. did not have “the strongest growth in the whole world” in the 19th century. Before about the 1870s, Britain had that, and then Germany had until the early 20th century (with Australia having a brief, freak run). When the U.S.A. overtook Britain in growth it still had not overtaken Germany, and growth isn’t the same as production (it’s a different measure; that’s why Australia could have had far higher growth, and briefly did have it around the 1880s-’90s, and yet had lower production – when used in meaningful comparisons, growth is the percentage change of production over time). Of course, Germany was not a competitor with the U.S.A. in the same way that Britain was anyway, since its production wasn’t for those markets.

          - ‘The Smithsonian claims “The middle and late 19th century was a golden age for American invention.“’ So it was; but, practically everything that was invented that was useful was in fact invented elsewhere, even though a lot was invented there too, so the point that “[t]he US did not invent almost everything that needed inventing” stands. The fact that the U.S.A. did a lot doesn’t mean that it did more than a tiny proportion; vastly more happened elsewhere.

          - “You bring up Edison and the light bulb. The concept certainly preceded him (possibly even by acient Egyptians), but Edison came up with the evacuated bulb and long lasting filament that actually made it commercially viable.” This perpetuates a widespread myth. No, he did not. Joseph Swan did. That was why he was in business making and selling them first (by a matter of months), and why Edison lost the court case when he tried to start selling his own version in the U.K. Edison was merely the first in the U.S. market, and later went into partnership with Swan in the British market.

          - “That atmosphere of Liberty in 19th century America is what attracted so many great minds and fostered innovation, invention and heretofore unheard of wealth generation by *common people*” is also wrong, both because those same effects drew foreigners to Britain well into the 20th century, e.g. Da Cierva, and because most of that “wealth generation” rested on two other legs as well: natural resources, and foreign capital (mostly British and Dutch, which got alienated; Skidelsky estimated that this wealth transfer exceeded Marshall Aid).

          - ‘In mercantilist, socially stratified England and Europe, the “commoner’s” dream was to come to America where you could innovate, build something for yourself and actually keep most of the fruits of your labor’. Bluntly, no. That’s why most of them didn’t, and why many that had those dreams avoided the U.S.A. Only those who couldn’t afford better went there then, unlike the 18th century. In the 19th century there were better opportunities in South America, South Africa and Australasia – but it cost more to take those opportunities up. That was because the U.S.A. had built up its own protectionism, social barriers and shortages of land just for the working by then – still far lower than Europe, granted, but higher than in those other areas.

          - “How about George Washington Carver? Born into slavery and racial discrimination, 19th century America yet allowed him to become director of agricultural teaching and research at the Tuskegee Institute. Carver alone came up with over 450 products from peanuts and other plants. Show me his equal in Europe or England.” There you have me. I freely concede that nobody in those places faced quite such difficulties as he did in the U.S.A. That means that people like Brunel the engineer (son of a moderately successful refugee), Parsons of the steam turbine (son of an aristocrat), Perkin of mauve fame (merely lower middle class), and so on – all inventors of that sort – really had quite an easy time of it in comparison. And that’s not even looking at France or Germany. But there were lots of people like that in Europe, apart from not facing the obstacles the U.S.A. generated.

          - “But 19th century America was truly remarkable in the annals human history all it warts aside” is something else I didn’t deny. I merely pointed out that most of the measures you think the U.S.A. was a world leader in during the 19th century are things it actually attained in the 20th century. Think about it: if you work back from (say) 1950 levels using the high rates of progress you claim, then necessarily levels must have been far, far lower fifty years earlier. And they were, so much so that the U.S.A. wasn’t a world leader in anything but a few areas and for a few periods during the 19th century.

          • Boothe
            June 27, 2012 at 3:55 am

            P.M. Lawrence – I must concede on your first two points; nicely put. Sorry about the delayed response; we’re coming out of a major turbine outage and boiler modifications. I’ve had little time to compose and write anything (these confounded Americans think they should have reliable electricity and air conditioning no less, on tap 24/7). But since start up support is mostly hurry up and wait…

            I will agree that Joseph Swan did come up with an improved carbonized thread filament, but it did not achieve the 1200 hour service life of Edison’s carbonized bamboo filament. Nor was he able to achieve the greater vacuum or the high filament resistance of Edison’s bulb which made it commercially marketable. Irrespective of the (twenty or more) inventors of the incandescent lamp that preceded him, Edison had the superior product which was developed independently of Swan’s work. Swan wanted to merge with Edison and Edison was opposed, hence Swan’s lawsuit and the forced merger. But keep in mind that the Ediswan Co. is long dead and buried and General Electric (blight upon the planet they may now be) remains extant. Swan had the concept, but Edison had the better product(s).

            I think you missed my point based on your third and forth paragraphs; many of the great minds came to America were “poor” folks. I can’t argue about people of means seeking opportunities elsewhere. But America was the place where a common laborer from Scotland in the 19th century could become a steel magnate (and Carnegie did just that). Or where a German immigrant could not only design and build a wire twisting machine that created the steel cables (or “wire rope” if you prefer) that construction, industry and agriculture have relied on worldwide ever since; and Roebling went on to pioneer the steel suspension bridge. Now, I’m not saying Roebling couldn’t have accomplished the same thing in Prussia, but it was easier to break into practically any market here and thrive (like my Prussian great grandfather did). There was a whole lot more happening in America for the common man in the 1800s. And there were many more literally world changing 19th inventions from America than just the McCormick Reaper, the telegraph, moving pictures or the phonograph. It was on this foundation that the high levels of growth and productivity you well note in 20th century America were indeed built.

            Please note that many of the 19th century émigrés to Britain were on their way to the U.S. from Europe, but didn’t make it; many settled in Britain because that was where they ran out of money. I completely agree with you that many if not most noteworthy American accomplishments were by immigrants (or first generation “natural born” Americans). But when it comes right down too it, the American Indians are most probably of Mongolian origin and a 17,000 year old tool discovered recently on the east coast appears to be made of French flint. This patch of dirt has been a magnet for immigrants since time immemorial, so I’m not sure why the ancestral origins of who invented what in America are so important; unless one is a “blue blood” Anglophile. But then again, I’m a mongrel of German, Scots, English, Blackfeet and Cheyenne ancestry so I may be a bit biased being uniquely American myself. ;)

            You state “That was because the U.S.A. had built up its own protectionism, social barriers and shortages of land just for the working by then-.” I’ll concede on the protectionism point – Morill’s tariff being but one egregious example. Social barriers are always there, from primitive tribes to modern “corporate culture” to country clubs. Everywhere there are people there are some that think they’re better than others, they form cliques and stratify even in the ghetto. But land? There were still wide open territories with land that was very cheap or even free for the taking by homesteaders in the late 19th century. The Oklahoma land runs being but one example. I was still able to by 120 wooded acres with live springs in Ozark County, Missouri in 1997 for $375 an acre twenty minutes from a town of 10,000 with a hospital, community college and decent shopping. Much larger tracts than that were readily available in 19th century America for considerably less (inflation adjusted) money than that. So you’ll have to explain your take on that to me.

            P.S. – P.M.L., Eric, BrentP; the preceding thread is exactly what makes this site my favorite place on the web. Thank you all for the intelligent dialogue and debate. It really makes one think and do their homework. You guys are great!

          • July 14, 2012 at 4:10 am

            Sorry about my own delayed response, Boothe; I didn’t come back to this thread for a while, and then it went on the back burner as by then it seemed less urgent than some other things.

            I will agree that Joseph Swan did come up with an improved carbonized thread filament, but it did not achieve the 1200 hour service life of Edison’s carbonized bamboo filament. Nor was he able to achieve the greater vacuum or the high filament resistance of Edison’s bulb which made it commercially marketable. Irrespective of the (twenty or more) inventors of the incandescent lamp that preceded him, Edison had the superior product which was developed independently of Swan’s work.

            Not the point, and not quite true. The point at issue was who got to a commercially viable product first; that wasn’t Edison. Granted, Edison’s product was superior, but on the one hand Swan’s product did in fact pass that barrier, and on the other hand, if you want to bring out who developed the best product, that still wasn’t Edison but the Germans a bit later still, with their argon filled bulbs and osmium/tungsten filaments (that’s where the company Osram got its name, from a blend of the words osmium and wolfram, another word for tungsten in German). And the court case did bring out that Edison at least had access to some of Swan’s work.

            Swan wanted to merge with Edison and Edison was opposed, hence Swan’s lawsuit and the forced merger.

            No, he only wanted to merge in preference to a Pyrrhic Victory. He would much rather not have had the interloper in the first place.

            But keep in mind that the Ediswan Co. is long dead and buried and General Electric (blight upon the planet they may now be) remains extant. Swan had the concept, but Edison had the better product(s).

            See above about the Germans having the better product. Also, Swan did not have the concept; as you remarked earlier, that went back earlier. Again, the point at issue isn’t who had the concept (neither Edison nor Swan), nor who had the better product (neither Edison nor Swan but the Germans), but who had the first practical product (not Edison but Swan).

            From one point of view, Edison had only one “real” invention: the research and development centre. Tesla noted that Edison’s approach was centralised brute force, whereas he (Tesla) had in mind where he is going. What happened in Britain was a more traditional free market approach, with lots of individuals working on their own things and only the winners making it to the history books with what look like one offs – only, the free market was doing the job of generating the wins that Edison was doing inside his controlled environment.

            I think you missed my point based on your third and forth paragraphs; many of the great minds came to America were “poor” folks. I can’t argue about people of means seeking opportunities elsewhere.

            Not “people of means”, or at any rate no more than went to the U.S.A. Rather, there was a spread created by a number of other things. Really poor British people found it easier to go to Australia because of subsidised passages, the French mostly went to North Africa, many Italians found it a culturally easier leap to go South America, and so on. It’s just that in my earlier remarks I was addressing those who went somewhere because of the opportunities on offer; by the middle of the 19th century, the U.S. opportunities were mostly already taken up or most open to people already there.

            But America was the place where a common laborer from Scotland in the 19th century could become a steel magnate (and Carnegie did just that). Or where a German immigrant could not only design and build a wire twisting machine that created the steel cables (or “wire rope” if you prefer) that construction, industry and agriculture have relied on worldwide ever since; and Roebling went on to pioneer the steel suspension bridge. Now, I’m not saying Roebling couldn’t have accomplished the same thing in Prussia, but it was easier to break into practically any market here and thrive (like my Prussian great grandfather did). There was a whole lot more happening in America for the common man in the 1800s.

            The immediate point I was bringing out was that those were people who found those opportunities once they had settled in, they didn’t go to the U.S.A. for them – or else, they did and often got disillusioned later in the 19th century. On the other hand, a lot of people with ideas (e.g. da Cierva as late as the 20th century) went to France and Britain where they knew they could get them commercialised without getting ripped off so much (which was what often happened in the U.S.A., e.g. to Tesla). So, you are quite right for the first half of the 19th century, but after that there was a lot more big business and other ripping off spoiling the dream after that.

            However, that was just supporting material for what I wanted to bring out: it cannot possibly have been some particular U.S. atmosphere of liberty that drew innovators et al, since a whole load of those went elsewhere. That means that either there was nothing special about the U.S.A. that way (my own view, since Britain had that atmosphere too), or else that innovators weren’t much moved by that anyway (e.g. the British engineer Whitehead went to the Austrian Empire where he could sell his torpedo work).

            And there were many more literally world changing 19th inventions from America than just the McCormick Reaper, the telegraph, moving pictures or the phonograph.

            Um… in an odd way, the McCormick Reaper was the reverse of world changing. It allowed new lands to become large scale net agricultural producers for export without the world having to change first, i.e. they didn’t need to be settled on a large scale first, the way Russia had to conquer and settle its own new lands. Contrariwise, it made no difference to established economies. What it did change was the ability of countries to industrialise on the backs of not having so much population movement (that includes the industrial belt of the U.S.A., as well as much of Europe – though it wasn’t just U.S. food production they got that way). And I thought the French developed the first moving pictures (as opposed to short cycle toys that had been around for years)? I’m not talking proof of concept stuff like that galloping horse thing, but actual generalised recorded performance.

            You state “That was because the U.S.A. had built up its own protectionism, social barriers and shortages of land just for the working by then-.” I’ll concede on the protectionism point … But land? There were still wide open territories with land that was very cheap or even free for the taking by homesteaders in the late 19th century. The Oklahoma land runs being but one example. I was still able to by 120 wooded acres with live springs in Ozark County, Missouri in 1997 for $375 an acre twenty minutes from a town of 10,000 with a hospital, community college and decent shopping. Much larger tracts than that were readily available in 19th century America for considerably less (inflation adjusted) money than that. So you’ll have to explain your take on that to me.

            Um… we have to be careful with our definitions and tests. I wasn’t claiming absolute unavailability, and I didn’t spell out some hidden things. There was still a lot of U.S. land that was nominally free to take and work, or nearly so, but by the middle of the 19th century or so (a.) the work was harder, since people had to get there and get far more stuff to help them work it, (b.) it was far less worth working it anyway, e.g. because it wasn’t near access routes (the railways had often taken that as part of their subsidies), and (c.) it had passed the tipping point where there were more takers, making land availability a bottle neck of the sort Henry George observed (the frontier was considered closed by the 1870s, Oklahoma notwithstanding). Contrariwise, earlier on someone could use water transport to find somewhere to settle, and then work it productively with very little equipment and stored reserves; compare and contrast hillbillies taking up easily cleared high ground reasonably near rivers with later sodbusters in the prairies.

            On social issues, you might be surprised to learn just how much the British class structure actually helped. On the one hand, it allowed a lot of social mobility for those who did well (look up just how many of those names I dropped earlier got knighthoods), and on the other hand the upper classes weren’t completely into consumption but provided a wide source of capital, e.g. the way Rolls teamed up with Royce later on. So BrentP’s remarks on how well the U.S. approach worked when it did work are correct, but other countries also often had approaches that also worked – so it doesn’t make for a stand out feature for the U.S.A.

        • BrentP
          June 25, 2012 at 3:41 am

          As the epautos resident engineer in product development I have a few things to say on this sort of topic. The short version is that you are both (Booth and PM) correct in the general sense.

          The USA in it’s freer times allowed the work to make something marketable to be done. It allowed people to profit from their advancements. Companies often rewarded those who made the money for the companies. When the corporatists take over they want to freeze technology. Everything will be done the way its done now forever. This is how government thinks. The freedom to create with implementation and the reward to profit from are taken away.

          The USA today is a -political- society. In the late 19th through early 20th centuries it was a technical society. It turned political and then after the war became more technical again. Only for the political to take over. So long as this is a political society there isn’t much reason to invent.

          Remember all the inventions and ideas of the 1960s that corporations told people to get stuffed on? Who listened to them? Companies in Japan. Who listens to the new ideas now? Companies in China it seems. Beware the copiers. They will listen to new ideas to one up those who remain static.

          Creativity comes from everywhere. It only settles and grows where the soil is good. US soil isn’t too good these days.

          • BrentP
            June 25, 2012 at 3:43 am

            I forgot one thing, as companies became political, the rewards within the corporation for creativity vanished.

          • June 25, 2012 at 10:29 am

            The story of John DeLorean is a perfect example of this….

          • June 25, 2012 at 10:22 am

            Excellent observation in re the political vs. the technical!

            Today, it is too burdensome for most individuals to be technical – precisely because everything is now so political. As an example or case in point, just think about what we were discussing earlier – the backyard mechanic building a simple, lightweight, high-mileage “basic” car. Technically, this is a very doable thing. But politically, it is an almost impossible thing – for the individual, or even a small business. Politics has created a Big Business automotive cartel.

            There hasn’t been a single successful new American car company (not subsidized by government, like Tesla or spun-off from one of the “majors”) in what… 50 years?

            In contrast, there were once many more American car companies – including numerous smaller outfits – because it was relatively easy, technically, to get into the business.

            Today, it is politically all-but-impossible.

  10. Javabear
    June 23, 2012 at 2:20 am

    I’m glad to see that some people are waking up to what a police state the US has become. I bugged out a few years ago and while where I live now the police are definitely corrupt it usually doesn’t take much to get them to see things from your point of view.

    • methylamine
      June 23, 2012 at 4:33 am

      Where did you bug out, Javabear? And where else did you look before choosing your spot?

      I’m thinking on it, hard…I may not move immediately, but I’m 100% certain I’m buying a property.

      I’m not putting my kids through a Nazi Germany nightmare. The smart money left there in the early 30′s…before 1/3 of them were killed over the ensuing decade.

      I hate what my idiotic fellow “Americans” (they’re not really) are allowing here; and I loathe even more the chicken-necked soupy-eyed globalists and their psychopathic powerlust who’ve planned it all. I wish with all my being we can turn it around; but it’s not noble to go down with the ship.

      It’s noble to survive and rebuild afterward.

      • Javabear
        June 23, 2012 at 5:23 am

        I came to Southeast Asia. That’s as specific as I’m willing to be. The only other places I looked were Central and South America. I even owned some property in Belize for awhile. The problems there are that the governments of most of those countries are really not very stable when you look at them closely. Southeast Asia has lots of natural resources, most governments are relatively stable, and the USD still goes a fairly long way.

        • GW
          June 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm

          I would venture to guess that your screen name gives your approximate position…am I right?

          • Javabear
            June 23, 2012 at 2:32 pm

            Sorry…I just like coffee.

          • methylamine
            June 23, 2012 at 5:17 pm

            I thought from your name you were a fellow software guy…but on the evil Java side, not the enlightened C# side :)

        • June 23, 2012 at 8:59 pm

          I concur. I think the best places to be when the real trouble hits will be developing countries that are used to hardship and don’t rely on a government check arriving every month in order to survive. I saw pictures of Thailand with two feet of water in the street and people calmly waiting to get food from their favorite food vendor just like they always do. I spend a lot of time in Thailand and Belize and they are both the kind of place I’m talking about. Your gold will buy a lot in S.E. Asia.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      June 23, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      If everyone wakes up, how far will they go with the restoration of respect for Individual Rights, and Liberty and Justice for All?

      Will they go back to a time before the Harrison Act in defending Principles? Or will they merely pick and choose which freedoms will be permitted.

      If I could collect from beyond the grave I’d bet on the latter.

      Where is that giant asteroid when it is so desperately needed?

      • June 24, 2012 at 1:05 am

        Dear Tinsley,

        If a giant asteroid were to approach today, the POTUS would declare martial law and Jack Bauer would be looking around for someone to torture.

  11. Tor Munkov
    June 23, 2012 at 7:08 am

    I’m not really a verbal thinker. American English especially is a defanged derivative feminabet of inane Slave Talk and vague caveman Gruntings.

    I need to learn more Japanese Kanji or equivalent. An elite scholarly syllabary where a pictogram of a man fishing means exclusively and precisely that, and not a mishmash amalgam of 1000 tangential nonsense concepts like fishing licenses, fishing for compliments, and being a fish out of water.

    The best way I can explain the American Quandry is like this.

    Around the time of our founding, somewhere near Philly with 1600ish real life heroes like William Penn, The Frumpy Colonial Power Brokers, and the Primitive Native Reps, and assorted frontier Luminaries, America got her start in the frontier wilds with the ragtag mercenaries like Governor Schwarzenegger & Governor Ventura and the other actors in the movie the Predator.

    Then, 1780ish, we had the Alien & Sedition act, and Freddy Kruegger Wooden Toothed Slavebanger George Washington Zombie General took over our nation, and from then on, our leaders were more like the Predators that lead all the other nations and not really very human any longer.

    In 1830 it became terminal, we started running deficits, and rapidly expanding the hives and termite piles of federal government dungheaps. Now our leaders were like the Aliens in Alien vs. Predator. Somehow the insects were mating with our politicians and generals, and their offspring hatched humansized and able to walk in a biped fashion, in the creepiest real-life horrorshow ever conceived.

    The Starship Troopers and the Bug Totalitarians emerged from everywhere. In reality, both the handsome Starship Troopersy and their Bug Nemeses were one and the same.

    The slobbering head-within-a-head Aliens have ruled America with a reptilian fist since the 1860s, and they can’t being reasoned with, bargained with, or in any way humanly interacted with.

    These demonshell drones are just palate-clacketing, mucus-slobbering, egg-laying, Alien Kafka-esque Babushkas of infinite and inhuman chitinous exoskeletons. They can only be studied and observed, from within their interplanetary ant farm, of which we are all encased.

    The last 150 years makes me miss those goodtime Bandits for hire who “aint got time to bleed, or to nanny us into a thousand points of lighting bug oblivion, from before the 1790s.

    I could even attend a beer summit with the pre 1860s Predators. At least they had cool tech and liked to hunt and do their own relatable shit and rituals. A mundane human could at least take his place at the Predator’s hearth floor like a best friend. Much in the way a domesticated Asian wolf can be a canine friend to human, as long as he has food, and is allowed to do his canine stuff on his own time.

    The post 1860s Aliens, though, are hopeless and a real nutcruncher. How doped up and junk ridden do you have to be to keep on walking their pestilent paths. How can a human relate and coexist with the Aliens? Do you say, “Gosh, its real impressive the way you lay your eggs inside us and then your young burst out of our abdomens as we lay stuck in the gluetraps of your vast prison egg chamber mausoleums and stone enscribed warships and cattle runs.”

    It’s only the deepest layers of group deception and fascinatoreal pheromones that makes us hear words and relatable truth, when all the Aliens who rule our nation really do is make thoracic clatterings and mandible clicks while they savor their latest predation webs and human grubworm meals.

    Its bad enough that super evolved cockroaches have managed to encase themselves in human looking flesh and maintain the illusion of being actual people.

    Lets quit hanging our loved ones and neighbors from the rafters like pinatas and batting at each other until all the candy and goodies hidden inside spill out to the delight of our La Cucaracha Alien Overlords.

    Stop being gullible and accepting invitations to the political parties where you are both the invited guest, and a layer of the human sacrifice birthday cake.

    There nothing

    • June 23, 2012 at 9:56 am

      You are a poet, my friend.

    • methylamine
      June 23, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      I want whatever you’re having, Tor!

    • June 24, 2012 at 12:57 am

      Dear Tor,

      Yes!

      Never underestimate the value of popular entertainment as an indicator of the Jungian “Collective Unconscious.”

      It’s uncanny how revealing they can be, once one learns how to interpret them.

      An enormously useful tool for champions of liberty who need to be able to read mob sentiment.

      • June 24, 2012 at 3:43 am

        So…if mob sentiment seems to indicate that a concept such as The Hunger Games is very popular, we should all be very very worried?

        • June 24, 2012 at 4:02 am

          Dear michael,

          At the moment I wrote that I was thinking more of the steady diet of TV shows that glorify federal agents, especially those that rationalize torture, oops, “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

          To wit, “24,” and before that “La Femme Nikita.” Both created by Joel Surnow, Chief Apologist for the Bush/Cheney Police State.

          These shows and others have more than a passing connection with 9/11, the War on Terror, and the fascistic DHS and TSA.

          These are indicators that the sheeple have been successfully stampeded into accepting a national security state with “curtailed freedoms.”

          But yes, most films and TV shows reveal something about the Zeitgeist if one knows what to look for.

        • June 24, 2012 at 4:24 am

          Dear michael,

          I should add that there’s an upside as well.

          TV series like “Firefly” and SF films like “Serenity,” by Joss Whedon, or “The Matrix” and “V for Vendetta,” by the Wachowski Brothers, implicitly or explicitly champion free market anarchism.

          They are indicators of a counter current. Which will prevail waits to be seen.

  12. June 23, 2012 at 10:00 am

    I don’t think it’s enough to just incrementally take steps forward, it’s also a matter of convincing people to stop taking steps backwards. As the system has ramped up, they can make it exponentially worse, virtually overnight. What we really need is a moratorium on new legislation. If something within the system is unjust (though I would say the system is unjust), then let’s repeal the beginning imbalance. That is the attitude we need to foster (in addition to working our way backward through the system).

    • June 23, 2012 at 10:23 am

      Hi Mike,

      Agreed.

      But we must always do so on the basis of a moral principle – never on utilitarian grounds. This is how you beat back Cloverism. Challenge the premise. Don’t argue that it’s more “efficient” to do something another way. Argue that it’s wrong to do it the Clover way – because it assaults a basic human liberty, and if that is countenanced for any reason, then many more liberties are threatened with assault.

      • June 23, 2012 at 11:25 am

        Dear eric,

        Amen to that.

        The importance of feeling confident that one occupies the moral high ground cannot be overestimated.

        It’s a funny thing, but human beings, even sheeple, have some dim awareness that what is morally right trumps what it morally wrong.

        This was one area where Ayn Rand shone. She spoke of the “unearned guilt” that left businessmen morally disarmed against the self-appointed Robin Hoods in and out of government.

        • Libertymike
          June 23, 2012 at 3:32 pm

          Yet, where Rand did not shine was in her fanatical advocacy of giving the state a monopoly on the administration of justice, including the use of violence.

          There are none as blind as those who do not see.

          • June 24, 2012 at 12:40 am

            Dear LibertyMike,

            Amen to that.

            Ayn Rand was never able to get past the mental block in her head vis a vis the folly of a government monopoly on the use of force.

            Ironic. She helped many others make their way to Free Market Anarchism and total consistency regarding natural rights and individual liberty.

            But she herself remained trapped in the well-intentioned but logically defective minarchist paradigm, unable to break through.

      • June 23, 2012 at 11:17 pm

        Agreed. The bottom line is that you don’t fix unjust legislation with more unjust legislation.

        But because of the absolute indoctrination of the average person, they’re unable to comprehend anything outside of “standard” solutions. Vote for some moron who is going to make a law in their favor. If people can understand principle, then of course this solves the problem both ways..

        The death of imagination has been a blessing to government.

        A huge step we should all be able to agree on is the decentralization of schooling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBNh543A81U

  13. Mike
    June 23, 2012 at 11:45 am

    May I suggest that you and your readers visit Teamlaw.net which goes into some detail on how to use the Law to get your rights back.
    Basically, we unknowingly, and some times knowingly, contract with ‘them’. They can control us because in those contracts, we say that ‘they’ can. Licenses are contracts….all licenses. You’d be surprised at the contracts hidden within licenses.
    At the below site, you will find out about some of those contracts.
    http://teamlaw.net/

    Here is the History of the U.S. which will show you who we are in contract with.
    http://teamlaw.net/HistoryOutline.htm
    and
    http://teamlaw.net/history.htm
    and
    http://wayofkings.net/history.htm

    Good luck,
    Mike

    • Libertymike
      June 23, 2012 at 3:29 pm

      Don’t be fooled into buying what teamlaw.net is selling.

      In order that liberty reign, it is not a pre-requisite that one be conversant with, and abide by, that which teamlaw.net dictates.

      Freedom is not dependent upon subservience to jesus christ. In fact, if one is a christian, and one is faithful to christianity, one must reject the proposition that there is only one true god and that god is jesus or yahweh or jehovah or zoroaster. That is a ticket straight to hell.

      • Mithrandir
        June 25, 2012 at 10:12 pm

        As a Christian it is not for me to judge who goes to hell or heaven. I can only follow my Christian beliefs to the best of my abilities and hopefully provide a good example to others.

    • June 23, 2012 at 8:46 pm

      A “contract” you sign with a gun to your head is null and void. “Sign this our we’ll jail you for driving” is not a contract.

  14. Bryce
    June 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    What really did in gun control was 9/11. That day, it became starkly clear what happens when you disarm good citizens.

  15. June 23, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Great article and comments! I would like to introduce something not mentioned specifically, but which underwrites everything said here.

    “We must reject the underlying premise of these intrusive, obnoxious laws”

    Very true… but the underlying premise of all non-voluntary government and their “laws” is the presumption of state ownership of everything. The “state” can only control what it owns. If it can convince people that they do not own themselves, and are actually owned by the state… then they can be controlled.

    The state only has as much control over us as we are willing to tolerate. Self owners are very hard to control. Let’s become self owners, and teach others to do the same.

    I own my life and body. I am the only one responsible for that life and my safety. That’s why I carry a gun. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/2012/04/02/editor.html

    Guns represent self ownership, and true independence. They mark me as one who is responsible for myself and willing to risk everything to protect myself and others. It marks me as a free human being and not a slave. Slaves are not “allowed” to own and carry guns. Free people can’t be stopped from doing so.

    I love my guns, and the liberty for which they stand.

    • dom
      June 23, 2012 at 1:38 pm

      Just read your story about shooting the guy in 1982. That is crazy!

      • June 23, 2012 at 3:12 pm

        What’s crazy about it? I mean, except for the fact that I survived the experience. :) No matter what else can be said, I was one lucky lady. I try not to trust only to luck these days.

    • Brad Smith
      June 23, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      Right on! I love my guns. I love breaking them down and cleaning them up. I love the way they feel in my hand. One of my oldest and dearest friends in this world is my 870 wingmaster. 30 years ago when I was only 12 years old I bought it for $120 with two barrels, and two boxes of shells, along with a fishing pole. As I sit and type this it’s within hands reach. (loaded)

      I have never had to use it in self defense and hope like hell I never have to, but it has helped feed my family for two decades.

      • dom
        June 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm

        I keep my .45 in close proximity too (loaded) along with my .38. Have a few other units stationed around. I don’t mess with my units often, or much like shooting them. But I have them and know how to use them.

        • RICK
          June 23, 2012 at 8:38 pm

          Eric.

          Yes , it is easer to get a CCW but they tied it to the “beer war” Now when I HAVE my legal gun, I can be checked by the “Fish and Game Guy” if he smells beer and if I re-fuse, I lose my gun and my right to hunt on my private property for life..
          The way the law is written, Fish and Game can come on my private property, under fish and game laws, and demand I blow into the “drunk meter” just because I am carrying a gun. No warrant needed.

          • June 23, 2012 at 9:10 pm

            Hi Rick,

            I had no idea. You mean, they can trespass on your land – the land you own – and demand you submit to a Breath test? On your land? As bad as things are, I have trouble believing it. But of course, that by itself is persuasive reason for believing it.

          • RICK
            June 23, 2012 at 10:12 pm

            Eric,

            Type in “game warden wiki” then see no warrent needed section. Yes, they can trespass and if I have beer breath and a gun they have probable cause to do a drunk meter. Of course the laws vary from state to state but they are all almost the same.

            They can use probable cause, whatever that means and seach my car, freezer, house, private property even if I have never broke a law, trespass under the cover of “fish and game laws”

            Please read that and tell me what you think.

          • Willy P
            June 24, 2012 at 4:19 am

            I heard the same thing from a coworker whose son is going to the academy to be a game warden. He was bragging about how his son doesnt need a warrant so i looked it up. Not sure if its like that everywhere but thats how it is in pa.

          • Tor Munkov
            June 24, 2012 at 8:02 am

            яiск- Probably nothing is legal. Thanks to sheepholes your only option is to do absolutely nothing at all times.

            Every official has virtual carte blanche to do whatever to whomever they think they can get away with.

            Why waste a minute worrying about their latest secret gang sign decoder books, do whats right in your own sight and live like a free man.

            Most every state is awash in fed cash to hire legions of state Conservation Police Officers. Their beat is in the woods, on the water, or anywhere outdoors in America, pointing a carbon, alcohol, or flatulence detector at you and confiscating your shit and lining you up for a gavel bang in the wooden dungeon with some grabass tranny judge wearing a black dress.

            Check this out from isitlegalto.com michigan legal forum:

            re: alcohol & hunting in michigan
            I was recently approached by local police about a gunshot near the city. My friend & I had shot a deer and had left our blind after hunt hours in our Pickup to retrieve deer. We were approached by officers on foot and we got out of the truck and they asked if we had shot. They said a window had been hit in a nearby subdivision and then they asked if we had been drinking. We said we had had a drink and they gave us a PBT. My friend scored a .03 and I has a .01 (they had me use his straw because the did not have a spare). They then went to our blind and found bourbon and 3 muzzleloading rifles (2 loaded). They then confiscated all of the alcohol and all of our rifles. Michigan hunting laws only state that you may not hunt “under the influence of alcohol or drugs”. We were not cited for anything at that time and are awaiting further action. Have we violated hunting/drinking laws? (My CCW license allows alcohol content of .02 and you can drive snowmobile, car etc. up to .08) – law curious

            -Toя

          • RICK
            June 24, 2012 at 1:11 pm

            Tor,
            Joe, a buddy of mine here in Mich took a six-pack with him on private property in a private blind. But Fish and Game saw him do that. So they followed him ,with no warrant, and demanded a drunk meter test. Joe told them to got to hell and leave. They left and came back with SWAT.
            Now Joe is 4 years up the river.

          • June 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm

            I need to look this up, but I think it’s a PA issue. I don’t think they can (legally) do this here (VA).

            Will see what I can dig up….

          • methylamine
            June 25, 2012 at 5:18 pm

            On a different note, aren’t accidental shootings of “endangered” species handled by the “Three S” method–Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up?

  16. dom
    June 23, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    I had a friend/co-worker telling me yesterday this site and the content posted here is “radical.”

    He is highly educated too.

    I don’t think anything here is radical!

    He went on to say he doesn’t see anything wrong with surveillance/speed/traffic cameras, checkpoints, TSA pat downs, and then mentioned how grateful we should all be with the protection the government provides us.

    • Brad Smith
      June 23, 2012 at 5:04 pm

      Words like “radical” or “extremist” are used by people who don’t actually want to debate. They shut down any rational thought process. They stick their fingers in their ears, chant lalalalalala. I don’t Hear YOU.

    • methylamine
      June 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm

      The term “highly educated” all too often means “deeply irretrievably indoctrinated”.

      Ask him why it’s radical. Going ad absurdam with these people can be powerful; ask him if he’d like a security camera in his bedroom, bathroom, and shower. You know–for his saaaaafety just in case he falls or has a heart attack.

      And what about those crafty butt-bombs Al CIAda might try? Why not a rectal exam before flying the friendly skies? For your saaaafety of course.

      • dom
        June 23, 2012 at 6:11 pm

        He says it radical because it’s anti-government. I told him I don’t think it is. The site is about liberty and freedom for all.

        • Libertymike
          June 23, 2012 at 6:56 pm

          Dom, government is evil, in and of itself.

          The other day, iirc, Eric referenced the Terminatior scene in which Reece? told Sarah Connor (Linda Hamiliton)that the AI feels no compassion, no empathy, no forgiveness, no love and no pain and it does not have a conscience and that it will not stop until it kills you.

          The government is much like the AI terminator, only worse. The machine does not have ambition, nor hubris. It lacks desire, deviousness and duplicity. Most of all, it does not have busybody, cloveristic, do-gooder impulses or totalitarian tendencies.

          Do you think it is a good idea to relate to a clover upon the assumption that government is good and / or necessary? If you do, you immediately surrender the empirical and moral and logical high ground. If you concede that the government is good and necessary, the clover is going to inevitably to insist upon taking the premise and expanding upon it, i.e., if you admit that government is good and necessary, why not have more of it?

          IMO, too many of us are intimidated by the nomenclature. We are afraid of being called anti-government or extreme or radical. We allow ourselves to become intellectually buffaloed by the clovers and the king’s propaganda promulgators.

          Writing for myself, though I suspect most here would concur, being branded as anti-government is a compliment of the highest order.

          • June 24, 2012 at 12:30 am

            Dear LibertyMike,

            “I suspect most here would concur, being branded as anti-government is a compliment of the highest order.”

            Indeed.

            Hell, even a relatively recent American president, Ronald Reagan, came right out and said that “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

            Even a 12 term congressman from Texas, Ron Paul, says that “Government is the enemy of liberty.”

            Whatever we think of them, they were proud of their anti-government stance.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 23, 2012 at 7:22 pm

          Send him to scribd to examine AMERICA’S FORSAKEN PROMISE. Should he do so I’d like to know if he considers me a radical.

          Editor’s note: http://www.scribd.com/doc/95077388/America-s-Forsaken-Promise

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            June 24, 2012 at 12:50 am

            Thanks ed.

      • June 24, 2012 at 12:14 am

        Dear methylamine,

        You wrote:

        The term “highly educated” all too often means “deeply irretrievably indoctrinated”.

        Bingo! William F. Buckley spoke of how some people were “educated beyond their intelligence.”

        That always cracks me up.

        Leaving aside for the moment whether Buckley himself was as well of course.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 24, 2012 at 1:58 am

          Buckley was an educated blowhard. The man was living proof that a large vocabulary is proof of neither knowledge, wisdom, nor critical thinking ability.

          • June 24, 2012 at 2:22 am

            Dear Tinsley,

            You won’t get any argument from me!

            That’s the reason for the qualifier at the end.

          • June 24, 2012 at 10:02 am

            Buckley was a shill and a sellout – just as the majority of big money pundits are today. It is extremely difficult to make it, financially, without being a shill and a sellout. By agreeing – tacitly, at least – to never question the prime orthodoxies of our system and society. To, instead, debate around the fringes. To be either “right wing” or “left wing.” A “conservative” (like Buckley) or a “liberal.”

            Trust me on this one. I’m close enough to the inner sanctum (or have been) to know how the sausage is made.

          • methylamine
            June 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm

            Buckley was a well-planted CIA asset from Day One–google William F Buckley CIA.

            His mission–largely accomplished–was to bring the nascent conservative movement away from Goldwater libertarianism to neocon war-hawkism.

            I just about die laughing every time I see Robin Williams’ caricature of him in “Aladdin” as the genie…”some provisos, quid-pro-quos, addenda…”

    • June 23, 2012 at 9:30 pm

      In these days, defending things such as the rule of law and live – and let live – amounts to “radical” politics.

    • June 23, 2012 at 11:10 pm

      “highly educated” means he’s capable of reasoning for himself? Or it means he’s spent many years in a schooling institution and his brain is dipped thoroughly in the sauce?

      “radical” and “extremist” are ways that feeble-minded people rationalize things they may not understand. Just like calling a unique person “weird” allows you to dismiss any value they might bring to the table. Character assassination is a powerful tool of evil to enable intellectual sloth.

  17. June 23, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    “Voluntary? In America??” Now there’s an unpopular concept. Last night on Bill Maher I heard Nick Gillespie suggest food labeling should be voluntary according to market demand. The crowd booed and he made the point, “Voluntary? In America??” as if it was a ridiculous idea. People are completely conditioned to resort to coercion to get what they want – and every election they vote for their favorite coercers. The rest of us are victimized by the patriotic voters who still think they are making a better country by getting the right coercers on the job. (And the Gambinos are so much better than the Corleones.)

    • June 24, 2012 at 3:07 am

      Dear Pete,

      Well said.

      Ya gotta hand it to “champions of democracy.” They’ve pulled off the biggest con job in human history.

      Monarchists used to assert that Egyptian pharaohs, Chinese emperors, Roman Caesars, medieval kings, must be obeyed because they were of divine origin. The sheeple bought it.

      Champions of democracy assert that presidents and prime ministers of democracies must be obeyed because they represent “The People.” Once again, the sheeple bought it.

      In other words, when Obomber invokes NDAA and has you or me murdered in cold blood, he is actually representing us, he is actually deferring to our wishes.

      So I ask you, which of the two pulled off the bigger con?

      • June 24, 2012 at 3:35 am

        If you measure by the value of the property involved, there has never been a bigger con than the USA. Hands down. And you’re right, there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between ‘divine right’ and ‘will of the people’ to the poor guy looking into the muzzle of the gun.

        • June 24, 2012 at 4:10 am

          Dear Pete,

          There’s also the insult to one’s intelligence added to the injury.

          At least the Gambinos and Corleones don’t pretend they “represent” you when they make you “an offer you can’t refuse.”

          At least if you complain to the fruit vendor next to your butcher shop, he will agree, sotto voce, that he and you were indeed victims of extortion, and not lecture you about your “duty to pay taxes.”

          • June 24, 2012 at 6:21 am

            Exactly. One benefit of having a Pharaoh/King/Dictator is everyone knows where the blame lies. In our current system the blame gets passed from those in office with a majority, to those in office with a minority, to those who were recently in office, to the dumb voters who fall for the lies. Again, no solace to the victim staring down a muzzle.

          • June 24, 2012 at 6:41 am

            Dear Pete,

            Correct.

            The two major parties palm the “distinction without a different” between them off as “freedom to choose.”

            The sheeple nod obediently and break into a chorus of “Cause the flag still stands for freedom, and they can’t take that away.”

            Whatever failings the Framers might have had, if they were transported in a time machine to the present, I cannot believe they would tolerate the stinking mess we have today for one minute.

            Thomas Jefferson would say, “Didn’t I tell you clowns you need a revolution every 20 years?”

      • June 24, 2012 at 9:49 am

        The democratic con is by far the more ingenious because unlike monarchy it provides the illusion of consent – which legitimizes the system int he eyes of the average steer.

        The steer gets to “vote” – which implies he has a choice as well as that he gave his consent to whatever the government proceeds to do.

        There’s a reason why democracy is being pushed down the throat of peoples the world over. It may be the key to the first global tyranny.

        • June 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm

          Dear Eric,

          That’s why I resent the hell out of relentless efforts to ram “western liberal democracy” down the Chinese peoples’ throats by patronizing western neocolonialists and obsequious Chinese wannabes, including Wei Jingsheng, Harry Wu, and Wang Dan.

          Needless to say when mainstream statists hear me say that, they immediately assume I am defending Maoism and the Chinese Communist Party.

          Their ignorance would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. As if those were the only alternatives.

          Probably none of them have even heard of free market anarchism, which as Murray Rothbard noted was invented in China by the Daoist philosophers Laozi, Zhuangzi, Bao Jingyan, and Sima Qian.

  18. George
    June 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Great article Eric,

    Certainly there’s hope in regaining our Constitutional & Civil Rights!

    I just disagree on your next target… What loss of freedom do you really suffer by using a helmet or seatbelt??
    Sure its uncomfortable, perhaps constraining… But what you are protecting is the principle “to be left alone!”

    The problem is Eric, when you have an accident and end up in my Emergency Room with a fractured skull and multiple traumatic injuries, I am NOT able to just “Leave you alone”!!!

    We are obligated to save your ass, regardless of your inurance status or ability to pay.

    Most people could’t afford the cost of your care at a Level 1 Trauma center where we charge about $100,000 per day…

    So think of wearing a helmet or using a seatbelt is a small contribution towards reducing your “injuires” and subsequent medical costs if an accident should happen!

    I believe we should ALL concentrate on regaining some of our bigger Constitutional Rights on the Roads:

    1. Ban the TSA from our highways
    2. Ban Random Roadside checks
    3. Ban unreasonable search & seizures.
    4. Ban Tasering of unarmed drivers for a “driving” infraction.

    For starters!

    G

    • June 24, 2012 at 2:46 am

      Dear George,

      You’re missing the point entirely.

      I believe I speak for most others here when I say “we” hardcore libertarians also oppose government coercion that holds a gun to your head and forces you to provide emergency room treatment for us against your will.

      We insist on entirely voluntary arrangements for medical care, including emergency room treatment.

      We oppose brute force coercion, even to save our own lives.

      Whether you think we are wise is up to you. But we are not inconsistent. We are not hypocrites. We are willing to live or even die by our principle of non-aggression.

  19. Tor Munkov
    June 23, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    A Scene From Red Dawn

    “Dad, Dad, they’re shooting at me, they’re shooting at everybody. I think they’re speaking in Spanish.”

    Is speaking English that important, that we should kill whoever wants to rule over us while speaking another language. Do any of us really speak “Legal English” or are we already ruled by an elite who’s language we don’t understand and whose texts are obscurred and impossible to evaluate?

    What is the answer to the kid’s question, “is that helicopter one of ours?” Are we free men who can park a fully decked out Apache in our backyard, as part of our constitutional duty as members of a ready and able militia?

    Or has the troop drop, foreign occupation, and overthrow happened long before?

  20. Davidus Romanus
    June 23, 2012 at 10:56 pm

    The next thing after seat belt and helmet laws will be drunk driving laws. If you drive drunk and you make it home, you’ve harmed no one. Why should you be caged or fined? I am for laws that hold you responsible if you drive drunk and harm someone or their property.

  21. Winn
    June 24, 2012 at 12:58 am

    AGAIN… thank you, Eric for making your articles available on LRC.

    Rights??? UNalienable ones!!! (Let’s say it correctly — UN-a–lien–able) …

    Previously I told you about the work of Rod Class (south of you in N.C.) at http://www.talkshoe.com ID# 48361. However, since the two administrative judges in Ralaigh AND the N.C. Atty Gen have ruled ALL police, and other alleged state agencies are “private contractors,” Rod has filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina DoT, and the local tax collector. BECAUSE… IF they are NOT state agencies, what the HXLL are they, as “private companies”** doing asking for “public tax funds”? Should be interesting!!!

    ** You can access http://www.manta.com (of Dunn and Bradstreet) and enter the name of ANY government agency, and you will find it is a private company. For $150, I got from D & B, a 12 page report showing all the facts about the “Supreme Court of Missouri” and all state courts being traded as private companies and what they are worth. Government? anybody?

    BTW… Back to RIGHTS. A Christian couple, Fred and Nina Gutierrez, are going gangbusters (www.setoffdebt.com) in helping people eliminate debt (mortgage, credit card, autos, etc.) They do not charge… and their success is FANTASTIC. (You know THERE IS NO MONEY.)

    In the last few months, they have gotten SIX JUDGES removed from the bench in Hawaii. WHY? For failure to “protect the PEOPLE”S rights!!!

    As of last week they have helped Americans eliminate over $100 MILLION of debt. (It all goes back to The Bankruptcy of 1933).

    • June 24, 2012 at 10:13 am

      Hi Winn,

      You bet – and, thanks!

  22. Brad Smith
    June 24, 2012 at 2:12 am

    Educated idiots are a dime a dozen. Self educated (Autodidactic) idiots are hard to find.

  23. David Ward
    June 24, 2012 at 2:18 am

    There are several points I’d like to make. However, let me begin by saying I’m not a clover. I am a llover ((LLover=Liberty Lover) I’m not so hip on the term freedom these days. I mean after all the thugs in the military and police departments have the freedom to murder at will right?). :), many states have open carry that do not require registration. Registration is a form of gun control. It puts you on the let’s fuck with them list. My suggestion is to get a valid postal address in a state without registration claim a residence (get bills addressed to the valid postal address) get a state id if you have to. Then you can carry all you want. Let’s say like in Vermont that has no registration or concealed carry restrictions. :) When someone wants to see your carry permit. show them the state id you have. all states are suppose to have reciprocity agreements.

    OK, that out of the way. goonberment doesn’t give a shit about law. It only gives a shit about power. One must keep that in mind. The recent USSC decisions concerning guns did not rule against goonberments. The ruling clearly said, in violation of the second amendment, that goonberments have a right to regulate who gets weapons. So Eric, while I admire your post, where it regards goonberment and gun laws, it is naive at best. I’ve read where Fed courts have ruled a law unconstitutional and was told, “Well that only applies to the district the court was in charge of”. Be very careful because a case that made a landmark decision might not apply where you live. As a note the recent Heller decision only applied to DC. not the rest of the country. Which is why there was a suit filed in Chicago for basically the same thing.

    Lastly, all goonberments have always been corrupt. I read early in the thread where someone said the founding fathers would be crying if they found out the uS goonberment had turned into a thugocrazy. I say, they intended it to be this way. If you read all the, what would be called blogs now, pamphlets (federalist and anti-federalist (hate that term I call it confederate papers. Why? Because they were supporting the Articles of Confederation, which was the true Constitution at the time. The current one is a result of a coup de tat!) that were floating around then people were warned of the abuses of the statements listed in the constitution. Did that stop them from wanting a nanny state? Nope! Fact is, no matter what kind of goonberment you create, it is all based on one thing, killing a person if they do not obey.

    And that is my two cents and yes I know the Federal Reserve has made 2 cents pieces of copper worth (it now cost the uS mint 5 cents to produce a penny! LOL!) more than my opinion. LOL!

    David Ward
    Memphis, Tennessee

    • David Ward
      June 24, 2012 at 2:22 am

      Whoops, I left out that Vermont doesn’t have any concealed carry restrictions. My bad. BUT BUT BUT DON’T SUE ME I’M POAH!

      David Ward
      Memphis, Tennessee

      • June 24, 2012 at 9:50 am

        No worries, David – only Clovers get stomped here!

    • June 24, 2012 at 9:58 am

      Hi Dave,

      I don’t think it’s naive to be encouraged by the fact that the concept of gun control has been rejected by broad swaths of the public – which to me indicates a salutary change of mind, based on reality as opposed to pro-government propaganda.

      I don’t think it’s naive of me to be encouraged by the fact that the government has been forced to dial back restrictions on our right to possess and bear arms – a fact implicit in these relaxations.

      In any case, the laws have been relaxed. That’s a positive development, isn’t it?

      I agree we face a tremendously uphill battle – in terms of the “big picture.” But the process must begin somewhere – and almost necessarily, with small things.

      Remember: This is precisely the way Cloverism spread. America did not become a Clover paradise overnight – or even over a period of two or three decades. It took generations. Just in my lifetime alone – from the late 1960s to the current time – the country has become dramatically less free in so many respects it would take pages to describe. But each increase was incremental. One new law here – another there. It did not happen all at once – and it would have been hard to notice much difference between, say, 1966 and 1969. But between 1966 and 1980 – a noticeable change.

      So, don’t get too down – I tell myself the same thing. And most important of all: Do not give up!

      • June 24, 2012 at 11:33 am

        Dear eric,

        I’ve been away from the US for many years now. I really miss target shooting, one of my favorite hobbies.

        I must confess I was astounded at how far my comrades in the gun rights movement have been able to roll back gun control laws during my self exile.

        If we compare political liberty to financial markets, then gun rights are a stock that has not only recovered from record lows, but is now reaching record highs — even as the market indices, the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ, have been tanking.

        I’m happy to learn that my overall pessimism has been confirmed in at least this area of life in these United States.

        • June 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm

          I’m heartened by the resurgence of gun rights (human rights, actually) as well. It shows what can be done – and that all hope is not lost.

          Yet!

      • June 24, 2012 at 11:34 am

        Errata: not been confirmed

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      June 24, 2012 at 11:32 am

      I support the natural right to self-defense. Therefore I support the Second Amendment.

      However, I do not for a moment believe that Government, with police and the Armed Forces to do its bidding, fears the relatively puny weapons that Individuals may keep and bear. No serious revolutionary ever gave a damn about the legality of keeping and bearing arms anyhow.

      The Second Amendment issue is a distraction that favors Government simply because it IS a distraction.

      How many jurors who legally own guns have failed to nullify bad law while serving as jurors? Hell, I can’t count that high.

      • MoT
        June 24, 2012 at 11:49 am

        Yes. And how many Oath Keepers have ceased enforcing bad laws that are foisted off on those not costumed in the States garments?

      • June 24, 2012 at 2:10 pm

        One word: Afghanistan.

        Tribal bedouins aremed with AKs and RPGs managed to attrite the Soviet Union – a formidable colossus with every tool in the kit. And now, us.

        There are tens of millions of armed people in this country – equivalent to many times the operational strength of the entire US military. Remember what Stalin said: Quantity has a quality all its own.

        • Boothe
          June 24, 2012 at 3:05 pm

          Eric, I was recently speaking with a Pakistani acquaintance about the U.S. occupation of “The Graveyard of Empires.” He is very familiar with the situation along the border (and the fact that many neighboring tribes on both sides are fiercely independent gun owners who simply ignore the line in the sand) and told me that he knew how to bring Afghanistan to heel in 15 years for 1/20 the cost of military occupation. He said bring them a system of laws like the United States that gives them everything they need to live. He essentially said the U.S. gun-vernment would only need to create a welfare state there complete with EBT cards, WICS and HUD housing to take over. This guy’s a convenience store owner and has seen first hand what public dependency has done to Americans. As fiercely independent as the Afghani’s seem, they may not be immune to a NATO onslaught with *free* stuff. We’ll know they’ve lost when practically everyone is fat, slovenly, wearing sweats to Wal-Mart and has a sail fawn.

          • June 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm

            That’s probably true!

            Cut off their balls before you take away their guns – and it may not even be necessary to take away their guns….

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 25, 2012 at 2:07 am

          The Stinger nullified the air power advantage enjoyed by the Soviets. Absent the Stinger, the Soviets would surely have stayed a bit longer.

  24. sgthwjack
    June 24, 2012 at 4:08 am

    While I am heartened to read many of the responses here, I wonder how many are prepared to act on their professed beliefs. Liberty has a price, sometimes the so-called ultimate. I heard or read somewhere, that every man dies, but not every man really lives. Truth is there in that, for sure. My belief is that everyone dies, with any luck we get to decide where, and what for! Just food for thought, from nobody.

    Semper Fi!

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      June 24, 2012 at 7:52 pm

      Fully Informed Grand Juries would involve little personal risk yet have a devastating effect on individuals in government who violate the genuine Law of the Land.

      I find it surprising that the idea of unleashing Fifth Amendment Grand Jury PRESENTMENT Power generates virtually no interest among person who display angry concern about increasing unlawfulness in government.

    • June 25, 2012 at 6:39 am

      Dear sgthwjack,

      As John Adams observed:

      “But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean
      the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war
      commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the
      people… This radical change in the principles, opinions,
      sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American
      Revolution.”

      Or as Chinese military strategist Sunzi noted:

      “Every war is won or lost before it is ever fought.”

      First things first.

  25. June 24, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    increased “risk” – and potential “costs to society.”

    We, individually (no such thing as the collective, a FALSE abstraction ASSUMING that all members of an externally defined “group” are identical) NEED to realize that groups and those who claim to represent them ARE BULLIES and MOBS seeking to impose their OPINION on the rest. Take away the pretexts and, we are left with SURVIVAL ADVANTAGE, extracted by OUR guns of state, pointed at US.

    If “we, the people” want to survive, since we live in an “action PRECEDES consequence reality”, some sort of action IS TRULY NECESSARY, else NO CONSEQUENCES.

    Currently, we are faced with what appears to be an infinite number of rationalizations, backed by guns of arbitrary power. These a$$holes are innovative and can create new rationalizations faster than they can be refuted. They are also cowards and, for the most part hidden manipulators using idiot mobs (eg, OWS) to bludgeon dissenters. These mobs are mindless automations driven by lies they consider to be “truth” because, in general education and media has been regulatory captured (more than a century ago) by our slavers to program the general population to subservience, deference to self-proclaimed “authority” and in general, Pavlov conditioned, blindly reacting idiots.

    So, how to fight this? IMHO, currently, the freedom “opposition” is on a path to losing, since the lay of the land and the intellectual “paradigm” (turf, “rules of engagement” democracy itself) is a trap, defined by our slavers to simultaneously profit by opposition and guarantees a “win”, for them.

    This IS WAR and, to tolerate your enemies to “define the terms” and not questioning / contesting what they decree as “their turf” is sheer folly, a game for losers.

    99.999999% readers will conclude the above is a “proof” of “cannot win”. When the true meaning is “know your enemies”. Only then can you understand “the method of their madness” (and, unfortunately, your madness also).

    THINK!! What is the common element of all THEY DO? How is YOUR servitude achieved, independent of the exact specifics of the infinity of their arbitrary decrees which, should you “disobey”, results in OUR guns of state, pointed at you and an escalating cost of “dissent”?

    “They” give you A MAJOR CLUE when they state “OBEY”, “OR ELSE”. “Obey” is a very specific demand, “Or else” is pregnant with the possibilities offered by physical reality.

    So, what does “Obey” really mean? They demand you to “CHOOSE as they demand”. What does “Disobey” really mean? It means to “CHOOSE” something different, hopefully, according to what YOU, as a FREE, SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEING (not as a cog in a machine of some false group “perspective” FREE-WILLS.

    Now, YOU KNOW. What they demand is control of “YOUR CHOICE”. To comply is not a very bright move because: Survival EQUALS adaptation to environment EQUALS ability to choose correctly EQUALS freedom:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36

    If that is not enough to convince you to act in YOUR self interests, well, perhaps THINKING about it will help:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33

    So, the short answer to “how to fight and win freedom” is to DISOBEY and pursue your individual self-interests. This will result in a “war, on all fronts” which THEY cannot possibly win.

    Don’t believe me? If you do this, you have also made a choice to shift your productive endeavors from “paying THEM for your enslavement” to FIGHT, because the planet is too centrally controlled for “flight”. Then, by the unseen hand of our cumulative FREE CHOICE, the grim reaper of “Mathematics of Rule” will do the rest, by destroying the economic basis (and therefore, possibility) of our servitude:

    http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/32

    Current planetary economic stats PROVE this is exactly what the “unseen hand” is doing.

    Freedom is winning, but, like everything else, freedom is far from “free” (without cost).

  26. Attila
    June 24, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    An even better place to start would be to demand that federal authority be scaled back to constitutional limitations by revisiting the Commerce Clause and original intent. Only if we get serious about putting the beast back in its cage can we avoid the anything goes (Nancy Pelosi on constitutionality of Obamacare, “Are you kidding?) slide to tyranny and consequent necessity for the 2nd.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      June 24, 2012 at 8:12 pm

      The tendency is to effect an incremental recovery. I doubt it will work. Better a strategic effort. A strategic* effort would begin with a concentrated effort to repeal the unlawful power that will be the most difficult to repeal. Doing that successfully will create a precedent that will topple the other unlawful powers like a row of dominoes.

      “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” –Thoreau

      I identified the “root” twenty years ago.

      Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

      *If America had conducted a war of attrition instead of a strategic war during WWII, the war would have lasted much longer it is likely that many millions of Americans would have been killed or wounded.

      • June 25, 2012 at 12:00 am

        Dear Tinsley,

        Speaking only for myself, I see no contradiction between the two.

        The strategic and tactical campaigns can and should be waged concurrently.

        At the strategic level, we should continue to advance the foundational moral and ethical arguments for natural rights and individual liberty. We remember that the political high ground is the moral high ground.

        At the tactical level, we push for FIJA, CCW, and all the concrete and specific measures in Ron Paul’s campaign platform, such as elimination of the income tax.

        As I mentioned earlier, it’s both/and, not either/or.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 25, 2012 at 1:29 am

          The Tactical should serve the Strategic. It’s the strategic that is generally ignored by the politically concerned.

          Have you any idea why Grand Jury Presentment Power fails to interest anyone? In my experience lawyers certainly don’t like the idea of Fully Informed Grand Juries. Many years ago, lawyer Clay Conrad made it clear to me that he doesn’t care for it. Years ago Conrad was a supporter of FIJA.

          Which of the major unconstitutional powers would you attack first?

  27. Clover Simpson
    June 25, 2012 at 1:29 am

    You guys are mean.

    If you refuse to live for me then I will have my politicians make you live for me.

    So there!

    Forget your Ayn Rand and just be nice…And sacrifice yourselves to society/me.

    • June 25, 2012 at 10:41 am

      Yes, indeed!

      It is mean to prefer that others not point guns my way in order to force me to give them my property or to compel me to behave in a way that meets their specifications.

      Clovers are nice people!

  28. That One Guy
    June 25, 2012 at 2:18 am

    A little off-topic from Eric’s article, but this has been nagging me for the past couple days since I first saw the scare commercials and I need to vent.

    Here in WA the state overlords have doubled down on their traffic safety regime. They’re calling it Target Zero. The goal is to eliminate traffic deaths by 2030. They’re actually serious about this.

    http://www.wsp.wa.gov/publications/reports/shsp.pdf

    From the governor’s intro: “Seventy-seven percent of traffic fatalities involve impairment, speed, and/or no seat belt use.” The state even lists “no proper license” as a factor in almost one in five fatal accidents, as if having your permission slip revoked makes you a more dangerous driver.

    Impairment is defined as blood alcohol level above .08. Speed is defined as “driving too fast for conditions” or “driving in excess of posted maximum” for at least one driver involved in the collision. I know I don’t have to tell anyone here that nothing magic happens when you cross the .08 line, driving too fast for conditions is grossly arbitrary and driving in excess of posted maximum is just ridiculous. If you cause a wreck at 50 mph on the interstate speed won’t be considered a factor, but if you happen to be going 50 on a boulevard, voila, speed kills. Even if someone runs into the side of your car.

    This whole thing is just mind-blowingly idiotic. Even if you accept all of this nonsense, there is no way to eliminate the risk from traveling in a motor vehicle unless you can wave a magic wand and undo the laws of physics. It’s just not possible. But it sure rallies the Clovers behind our state rulers who are “doing something,” and that of course is the whole point.

    Of course the real reason behind this is found in the two most prominent of the proposed remedies. One is photo-radar automatic speed enforcement, which I’m sure is becoming more common across the country. Second is checkpoints of every kind. Sobriety, safety belt, child restraint, you name it. Checkpoints are one thing we don’t seem to have much around here. I’ve personally never seen one. I knew they existed but had no idea how common and intrusive they are until I came to this site and heard about people’s experiences with them. Of course there’s no way this will be abused….

    Tried and true methods keep paying dividends. Scare the rubes with an artificial problem and get them to grant you more power over their lives in exchange for a promise of safety. If it ain’t broke, why fix it right?

    • clark
      June 25, 2012 at 4:55 am

      checkpoints of every kind

      Yup.

      Your comment reminded me of this photo of some cops in Vancouver:

      “… upon visiting a popular bar called Opus, I couldn’t believe my eyes as the police were set-up on the back tables of the bar with a laptop and were photographing and observing the upmarket crowd. … Almost every bar in Vancouver requires identification and having your photo taken prior to entry.” …

      http://lewrockwell.com/berwick/berwick53.1.html

      Don’t the street cameras all over the U.S. do this same thing already?

  29. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    June 25, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Re: Marijuana Sell-Out

    Drug prohibitionists were alarmed last November, when voters in Arizona and California endorsed the referendums permitting the use of marijuana for “medical purposes.” Opponents of drug prohibition ought to be even more alarmed: The advocates of medical marijuana have embraced a tactic that retards the repeal of drug prohibition and reinforces the moral legitimacy of prevailing drug policies. Instead of steadfastly maintaining that the war on drugs is an intrinsically evil enterprise, the reformers propose replacing legal sanctions with medical tutelage, a principle destined to further expand the medical control of everyday behavior. http://www.druglibrary.org/think/~jnr/szasz3.htm

    I strongly recommend that folks study Dr. Szasz’ Marijuana Sell-out before calling for the so-called legalizing of marijuana. I realized long ago that, in their well-meaning ignorance, the Legalizers actually do more harm than good.

    Nothing less than an across-the-board REPEAL of de facto Drug Prohibition is acceptable. In the light of the Unanimous Declaration, anything less is simply unacceptable.

    –Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

    • methylamine
      June 26, 2012 at 12:29 am

      I’m not sure I agree, Tinsley. I thought it was a huge mistake, too; but it’s incrementalism, the same damnable strategy that won the Clovers what they have today–tyranny with a smile.

      And it’s one way we can beat them back.

      Today, “medical” marijuana; get the rubes accustomed to it, comfortable around it…and the next day, turn it on its head with the REAL principle, self-ownership.

      I really don’t know if it can be turned around like that–one step at a time, reversing the same course of incrementalism that got us here.

      Can anyone think of historical examples? Or are we doomed to crisis and revolution?

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        June 26, 2012 at 8:51 am

        Attempting to reverse the incrementalism that that has taken America so far away from the American Ideal simply will not work. It would be like trying to negotiate a long series of those one-way spikes that puncture tires when a driver tries to extricate his vehicle from an unpleasant position by backing over them.

        Those who plunder by law have had decades to consolidate their profitable position. Have you ever tried to remove a multitude of fish hooks from your punctured flesh by simply backing them out?

        Kill the Queen and the Hive will die.

  30. Clover Dumphuk
    June 25, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Gimme-Gimme-Gimme!

    The problem with little brat Clover is that it never had the little brat beat out of it. It is amazing to see 50+ year old Gimme-Gimme brat parasites in America voting for parasite liberal terrorists like Obomber…Public school and Hollywood seems to have made everyone mentally retarded children…aka, Liberals.

    • June 25, 2012 at 11:18 am

      They are just like screeching little brats, aren’t they? I want it now!!! Gimmeee! Cue screaming and red-faced breath-holding.

      Little kids have to be trained out of their barbarity – or else you end up with a Lord of the Flies style world. Which of course is just what we in fact have!

      • Mithrandir
        June 25, 2012 at 10:43 pm

        Is it whiny like this?

        ?

  31. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    June 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Re: A Place to Start

    Since every adult American must deal with both the lawful and legal relationship between Government and the Individual, I strongly recommend starting the recovery of Constitutional American Liberty with the repeal of de facto Drug Prohibition.

    “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” –Thoreau

    BINGO!

    • June 25, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      Absolutely.

      And progress is being made – at least in terms of people’s attitudes. I think more people than ever realize it’s a fraud – especially as regards pot.

      And of course, some states are trying to end the war – or at least, dial it back….

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        June 25, 2012 at 1:31 pm

        I rarely purchase wake-up books anymore because they have nothing to tell me that I’ve not known for years. When I visit the bookstores and see such books I always check the index to see how the “expert” author deals with the so-called Drug Problem. Some of the “experts” on government excesses don’t even mention the unconstitutional Drug War. I consider such works to be asswipe and waste neither time nor money on them.

        Next time someone mentions “legalize” call him on it and quickly gauge his knowledge.

        • June 25, 2012 at 3:57 pm

          “Legalize” means “with permission”. Pretty clear that free people are free, because they are un-coerced, not needing “permission” apart from what they, personally choose to trade and the terms therof, as free individuals according to the REAL Social Contract:

          http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/37

          And, if you choose to do “without permission”, in a peaceful, self or mutual consensual (peaceful) manner, it is clear that anyone who takes issue and wants to do anything about it must “initiate aggression”, contrary to the highest laws of mankind, peace and civilization.

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            June 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm

            Those who discuss American law would do well to refrain from using Legalize as a synonym for Repeal. A competent law professor ought to insist on a severe caning for any member of his class who used Legalize when s/he ought to have used Repeal.

        • June 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm

          You’re absolutely right – and I intend to champion the cause… because it’s as much a liberty issue as the 2A or seatbelts… arguably, more so, since the “war on drugs” attacks the most basic human right there is – one’s ownership of his own corpus!

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            June 25, 2012 at 5:17 pm

            “…the “war on drugs” attacks the most basic human right there is – one’s ownership of his own corpus!”

            Very well said, Eric. It’s a real Keeper. (Something is a Keeper with an upper case K when it cannot likely be said better.)

          • Tor Munkov
            June 25, 2012 at 6:17 pm

            The state jealously guards its absolute hegemony. Its war on private means of self-protection and freelance medicine men makes perfect sense. Your total impoverisment is irrelevant to their tiny incremental gain in additional authority.

            What doesn’t make sense, is how easy it is to impress otherwise decent folks into the peoples military for ridiculous causes. I mean come on, seatbelts?! Even the Nazi’s audience participation cattle drives and slaughterings never included something as ridiculous as seatbelts.

            Both Clovers and Mundanes go about their days in completely non-thinking indifference and compliance to whichever regimes are imposed on them.

            When the videos are posted of the seat belt scofflaw families drinking super-sized slurpies being gunned down by SWAT teams in the family station wagons, these poltroons will knowlingly cluck, “Well, They Were Asking For It, By Breaking the Law!” and then go back to laying their big white empty eggs.

  32. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    June 25, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    I kept an appointment with my primary care doctor this morning, something that I had to do if I wished to continue using an effective analgesic for pain control. In the half hour we spent together it was obvious to me that the last thing in the world she wished to discuss was pain control with an effective analgesic.

    Why are doctors so afraid of government? Licensed physicians make up one of the most potentially powerful factions in America.

    Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

    • methylamine
      June 26, 2012 at 12:40 am

      Why are doctors so afraid of government? Licensed physicians make up one of the most potentially powerful factions in America.

      @Tinsley: precisely. My dad was a doctor for almost 50 years; in the last twenty, he tried hard to dissuade me from following his footsteps. I foolishly did anyway, and discovered that medicine has become the most statist enterprise on earth, and doctors have been almost completely neutered.

      Why? Because the State cannot tolerate a wealthy, well-educated, highly-connected subset of the middle class. They’re vocal, they have enough money to cause trouble, and they’re in contact with many patients who trust them.

      They gutted that subsector real fast.

      You’ll notice now that pharmaceutical ads and other vehicles of medical “information” speak of “your healthcare provider“–not your Doctor. They’re destroying respect for the institution.

      Doctors make, adjusted for inflation, about 1/2 to 1/3 as much as they did in the 70′s and 80′s. Despite the escalating cost of medicine, they’re not seeing any of it. I got out–thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster–but my wife’s still stuck in it. Trust me, they’re getting hammered. I make considerably more per hour than she does–and I’m not under threat of suit and thumb of government 24/7.

      What we’ll get here is what they had in the Soviet Union–barely-capable doctors who a generation before wouldn’t have qualified as nurses. Nobody with brains wants to go to medicine anymore.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        June 26, 2012 at 2:09 am

        Meth, thank you for your input. America’s doctors are a potentially powerful asset that could be very useful in restoring respect for the Principles underpinning the Unanimous Declaration.

        But Would doctors support an across the board repeal of de facto Drug Prohibition?

        I wonder.

      • Mike in Spotsy
        June 26, 2012 at 2:27 am

        methlyamine, my cousin is a semi-retired doctor who started a general practice in the early 1960s. He told me some years ago that if he had it to do over again, he would not have gone into medicine. He started before Medicare and Medicaid, when medicine was a matter between a doctor and a patient. He charged $3 for an office visit and $4 for a house call.

        As the government got more involved, practice got harder and harder, and prices were driven up. He not only had to hire additional staff to keep up with mandates, but got less satisfaction from practicing medicine. So, I get what your father was going through and why he didn’t want you to go into medicine.

        The answer, of course, is to get government out of medicine. Methinks, though, that there is little chance that the grasping central government will ever consider that as a solution. They will instead see the awful results of their intervention as a reason for even more intervention.

        • methylamine
          June 26, 2012 at 5:20 am

          ‘Fraid you’re right, Mike.

          In fact it goes deeper than that.

          We are about to go through Hell and back. When you look around, and see the preparations the globalist banksters who’ve hijacked the country are making for total tyranny, it makes the hair on my neck stand up.

          Right now there are troops practicing driving tanks in St. Louis, MO. Why would they need to do that?

          The FEMA camps–they’re real. For whom were they built? Illegals? C’mon–they let those through a thousand at a time.

          We’re in for some truly profoundly deep shit unless there is a RAPID awakening.

          I love discussing all points libertarian with the smart and eloquent people on this site.

          But let’s not forget that there are thunderheads on the horizon. Let’s get out there and shake people awake!

          • Mike in Spotsy
            June 27, 2012 at 2:52 am

            Couldn’t agree more, meth. That’s why I am making plans to bug out. Just stuck here for a couple more years because of personal matters, and hoping the escape hatch hasn’t been closed off before then.

            I’m sure the Gestapo monitors this site and has dossiers on all of us. Imagine: people who just want to be left alone are considered a threat. What sort of pyschotic government does it take for that situation to exist?

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          June 26, 2012 at 8:01 am

          For a very long time now I’ve been wondering why the relative number of White, American born doctors seems to be decreasing. One would think as I did that a potentially lucrative profession would attract so many American born Whites that Third World doctors would be a rarity.

          Since I am White, I naturally feel more comfortable with one of my own kind.

  33. June 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm

    I strongly support everyone’s right to drive without seat belts, and ride motorcycles without helmets. Helps to stimulate the “organ donor” supply side.

    And I strongly support the right of those of you who like to “make a statement” with your Open Carry of handguns. That sign you wear that tells cops and other criminals to “shoot you first” makes it much easier for those of us who prefer to carry concealed to do so unobserved. :-)

  34. Tor Munkov
    June 26, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Here is a powerful illustration of the malice of an authoritarian Government. Ben was hired to be a paratrooping murderer and when his body is destroyed enlarging the war machinery, the state pretends to be benevolent by giving him metal legs.

    http://youtu.be/3Odkq8WyZxc

    Neither the U.K. military nor the soldiers who accept this kind of mission are good guys, they create nothing except victims.

    Turning the carrrying of the Olympic Torch into a Propaganda Farce full of mercenaries only reminds one how far we’ve fallen since the days of the Greek Enlightenment, it doesn’t inspire.

    • Willy P.
      June 26, 2012 at 6:35 pm

      the worst part is reading the comments, sigh…

    • June 26, 2012 at 6:55 pm

      The most disgusting part is the hero-worship of these deified praetorians….

      • BrentP
        June 26, 2012 at 11:49 pm

        When worship of the military employees comes up, I like to refer to this:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i00Jiiak0UE

        Good part starts about two minutes in.
        Thanks to LRC to pointing me to another James Garner classic.

        • Mithrandir
          June 27, 2012 at 12:17 am

          Thanks for the clip.

          I will need to see this film.

        • June 27, 2012 at 12:52 am

          Dear BrentP,

          Oh, yeah! That scene. Classic.

          Truly eloquent demolition job on the alleged virtue of self-sacrifice.

        • Tor Munkov
          June 27, 2012 at 12:57 am

          That Mom gave me chills. Love my Moms!

          http://youtu.be/MsYlU-fGx3M
          Walking On The Sun by slackertours

          It ain’t no joke when a mama’s handkerchief is soaked With her tears because her baby’s life has been revoked The bond is broke up so choke up and focus on the close up Mr. Wizard can’t perform no godlike hocus-pocus So don’t sit back kick back and watch the world get bushwhacked
          News at 10:00 your neighborhood is under attack

          So don’t delay act now supplies are running out
          Allow if you’re still alive six to eight years to arrive And if you follow there may be a tomorrow But if the offer’s shunned you might as well be walkin’ on the sun

          Twenty-five years ago they spoke out and they broke out Of recession and oppression and together they toked And they folked out with guitars around a bonfire
          Just singin’ and clappin’ man what the hell happened
          Then some were spellbound some were hellbound
          Some they fell down and some got back up and
          Fought back ‘gainst the melt down
          And their kids were hippie chicks all hypocrites
          Because fashion is smashin’ the true meaning of it

        • June 27, 2012 at 1:09 am

          Dear BrentP, et al,

          Speaking of “The Americanization of Emily,” film in general has long been an uncanny indicator of the public mood.

          The 2006 Zack Snyder war film “300″ is a revealing indicator of the militarism that has permeated the country since 9/11.

          The homoerotic military posturing is so over the top it’s embarrassing.

          The film 300 is a clear indicator that we have long forgotten the Lesson of Vietnam.

          • Tor Munkov
            June 27, 2012 at 1:33 am

            Too true Bevin. You’d have to be blind not to see it’s…

            Time To Say Goodbye
            http://youtu.be/QbN0g8-zbdY

            …to the Warr-mongerers!!

            Movies are all about conscripting kids into killing and caging the designated perps; and then the grateful parents thanking the kidkillers and perpcagers for ridding them of their “wayward” offspring.

            95% of U.S. films & other media come from the six ConGloms of the Warfilm Media Complex.

          • Mithrandir
            June 27, 2012 at 2:14 am

            Tor,

            Although your video sounded beautiful, I understood very little.

            The Von Trapp Family is more understandable to me.

            Unfortunately war is often portrayed unrealistically in the movies.

            I enjoy watching movies that take place during wartime (provided the story is good), but war is ugly and brutal.

            Few films do a good job of portraying the brutality and senselessness of war.

            One of the better ones is All Quiet on the Western Front.

    • Mithrandir
      June 26, 2012 at 8:42 pm

      I think propaganda is appropriate.

      Your comment led me to think about When the Tigers Broke Free.

      Basically how the commoners are left to die for the glory of the generals and leaders.

      I wish I could tell you that all who serve fought the good fight, and the Powers That Be would let them be. I wish I could tell you that – but the military is no fairy-tale world.

      Defending one’s home and country is one thing. Invading another home and country on questionable (at best) circumstances is not right.

      • Tor Munkov
        June 27, 2012 at 12:18 am

        Nice vid mithrandir, its jumps over The Wall I let them build inside me.

        http://youtu.be/xUmEmAlLsIQ
        When The Tigers Broke Free, GelreDome, Nederlands

        It is only just to defend the concrete reality that is your “home”, and the voluntarily assembled abstract of men you know who willingly call themselves “brothers”

        Deny & Nullify their: “Ich bin ein Massenmörder!” ( I am one with the mass murderers!)

        There is nothing to fear but fear itself, take courage and stop all the make believe.

        Ask not what your country can do for you.

        Ask not what you can do for your country.

        There is no We.

        There is no Country.

        • Mithrandir
          June 27, 2012 at 1:13 am

          Moving images. I like the ending. It left me with a smile on my face which I needed after watching the video.

          I was most annoyed when GWB was on the screen.

      • June 27, 2012 at 1:30 am

        Dear Mithrandir,

        “Defending one’s home and country is one thing. Invading another home and country on questionable (at best) circumstances is not right.”

        Amen to that.

        In that connection, I stumbled across the following article yesterday, entitled,

        Switzerland’s Military Defense Involves Blowing Up All Roads Into The Country

        http://www.businessinsider.com/switzerlands-military-defenses-2012-6

        The contrast between how Switzerland’s military spends its military budget and how the USSA “Department of Defense” spends its military budget is truly an eye-opener.

        The US Department of Defense is not really a Department of Defense. It is really what it used to be called, a Department of War. It is not an entity devoted to domestic defense. It is an entity devoted to foreign aggression.

        Switzerland’s Ministry of Defense, which is dedicated to defending Switzerland’s own territory rather than conquering the world, correction “making the world safe for democracy,” is far closer to being a genuinely defensive entity.

        • June 27, 2012 at 1:39 am

          Disclaimer:

          This does NOT constitute an endorsement of Switzerland’s universal military conscription.

          Whether a political entity imposes military conscription is a separate issue from whether a it engages in foreign conquest.

          Both military conscription and foreign conquest are bad. But they are not necessarily connected.

          • Mike in Spotsy
            June 27, 2012 at 2:32 am

            I hear ya, Bevin. I have long had mixed feelings about Switzerland. In many ways, it is one of the most free nations in the world. But they do have the militia requirement, and they have had an “individual mandate” to purchase health insurance for many years.

            On balance, I respect the Swiss, but would not want to be one of them, unless the only choice was to be there or here. At least they don’t try to bully the rest of the world into doing everything their way. Their non-interventionism makes them a far more desirable location than the USSA.

          • June 27, 2012 at 10:46 am

            I’m not 100 percent sure about this, but I believe one has to be either the child of Swiss parents or born in Switzerland to qualify for citizenship.

          • June 27, 2012 at 4:05 am

            Dear Mike in Spotsy,

            Right back at you.

            In the absence of 100% genuine freedom, it’s a case of taking what we can get.

            As they say on “democratic” Taiwan, it’s a case of picking through a barrel of rotten apples, finding the least rotten one, and trying to talk yourself into liking it.

            Works for some. For me? Not really. But as Tony Soprano would say “Whaddya gonna do?”

            I believe that through our continued efforts we will eventually effect a revolution in political consciousness.

            But until then, it’s a matter of picking through the barrel and finding the least rotten specimen.

            That’s what Jeff Berwick is doing over at The Dollar Vigilante.

  35. Brad Smith
    June 27, 2012 at 2:20 am

    There is nothing decent or humane about war. It doesn’t make a man of you or make you a hero. It’s simply a horror and should not be acceptable unless it’s done 100% for self defense. As for the draft it’s probably the one thing that would get me to leave this country. If they ever try and draft any of my children I will be gone. As it stands I will stay and protest and do my best to educate people regarding the evil that war is.

    He said, “Son, have you seen the world?
    Well, what would you say if I said that you could?
    Just carry this gun, you’ll even get paid”
    I said, “That sounds pretty good”

    Black leather boots, spit shined so bright
    They cut off my hair but it looks alright
    We marched and we sang
    We all became friends as we learned how to fight

    A hero of war, yeah that’s what I’ll be
    And when I come home they’ll be damn proud of me
    I’ll carry this flag to the grave if I must
    ‘Cause it’s flag that I love and a flag that I trust

    I kicked in the door, I yelled my commands
    The children they cried but I got my man
    We took him away, a bag over his face
    From his family and his friends

    They took off his clothes, they pissed in his hands
    I told them to stop but then I joined in

    We beat him with guns and batons
    Not just once but again and again

    A hero of war, yeah that’s what I’ll be
    And when I come home they’ll be damn proud of me
    I’ll carry this flag to the grave if I must
    ‘Cause it’s flag that I love and a flag that I trust

    She walked through bullets and haze
    I asked her to stop, I begged her to stay
    But she pressed on
    So I lifted my gun and I fired away

    And the shells jumped through the smoke
    And into the sand that the blood now had soaked
    She collapsed with a flag in her hand
    A flag white as snow

    A hero of war is that what they see
    Just medals and scars, so damn proud of me
    And I brought home that flag, now it gathers dust
    But it’s a flag that I love, it’s the only flag I trust

    He said, “Son, have you seen the world?
    Well, what would you say if I said that you could?”

    • June 27, 2012 at 10:51 am

      Numerous books have touched upon the madness of war. Of one young guy on one side of the line told he must try to kill another young guy on the other side of that line whom he has never met and who never did him any harm and who is probably just as terrified and mortified as he.

      Ever read about the Christmas Armistice during WWI? The Germans and Brits paused – forgot the war for a while – came out of their respective trenches, shook hands with, shared Christmas felicitations with, their “enemy.” The higher-ups on both sides got wind and put a stop to that, pronto.

  36. Carl
    July 5, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    You AGREED to it. There is no point getting angry about seatbelt and helmet laws for the simple fact that YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS. When you get a licence you are signing into a contract. The terms of the contract indicate that you will wear a seatbelt otherwise you will be fined $x. Of coarse there is no injured party but when you voluntarily applied for the license you used your own free will in doing so. The terms of the contract are the Act, these terms are deemed to be your terms in your offer to the government to get a licence. They didn’t hold a gun to your head, though they very well coerced you into making the application for a licence, you did it entirely on your own. There is no point in arguing because they are the receiving party therefore the courts will rule in their favour in regards to the contract when there is an ambiguity in the terms of the contract you are deemed to have written. If you don’t like it don’t offer to contract with them.
    Now don’t get me wrong they will have their minions harass you and attempt to coerce you into offering to contract with you but you are ultimately responsible for you. If you don’t know you don’t have to offer to contract with them then it’s your own ignorance that is too blame if you don’t like it.
    Licensing is simply a contract by another name. You certainly have the free will to not contract with anybody. The contract provides for you to have insurance which gives you limited liability in exchange for following the terms of the contract, i.e. wear a seatbelt, wear a helmet. One of the terms of the contract is also that you shall be insured. So say you are in an accident whether it is you fault or not, who pays? The insurance company pays. The insurance company charges premiums based on the cost of claims, this is what you get from the licence, limited liability. Otherwise it would be up to you to sue the other driver if it can be proven that it was entirely their fault for the accident, but until then you are on the hook for all the medical costs.
    If claims are substantially higher when the driver is not wearing a seatbelt who is going to be pissed off? The drivers that do wear seatbelts, because their rates are going to be higher because of the non-seatbelt wearers. So in tune they essentially lobby the insurance company to not insure drivers who do not wear seatbelts. But the insurance company cannot enforce this type of requirement within their contract for insurance because the accident isn’t caused by them not wearing a seatbelt, the seatbelt just increases the damage. So the driver can say it was just this one time they forgot to put the seatbelt on and the court will always rule for the injured party. So instead the insurance company lobbies the government to change the licensing law to require everyone in their contract agree to wear a seatbelt and if they don’t they agree to pay the fine.
    So ultimately if you don’t agree with the terms of the contract (licence) then don’t sign up…BUT…realize that you have to be fully responsible for your actions, there is no limited liability. If you kill someone because you sneezed at just the wrong moment, then who should make their family whole for the loss of a loved one? Who should provide for their family if the children become orphans because YOU killed their parents? If everyone took this responsibility seriously then people who engaged in an inherently dangerous activity like driving would definitely drive much safer. But because of the protection that the licence and insurance affords us (limited liability), we tend to worry more about getting somewhere on-time rather than the consequences that one errant action can have on a complete stranger and their worth.

    “All men are by nature created equal, made of the same earth by one workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto god is the poor peasant as the mighty prince.” Plato

    • methylamine
      July 5, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      @Carl

      Yes BUT. Do you live by this credo? Do you have a license, or do you claim when stopped by police that you’re not “driving”, you’re “traveling”, etc.? Is your car registered and plated?

      I’ve read, almost exhaustively, the sovereign citizen/UCC genre of reasoning. I see the appeal, and I understand the (highly convoluted) logic. Moreover I applaud the people standing up for it; their cause is just.

      I just don’t think their method is correct.

      What I mean by that is: no, we should NOT have “driver’s licenses”, nor mandatory insurance, nor income tax (or any other involuntary tax). In fact as an agorist/anarcho-capitalist–we shouldn’t have government at all. So there, we see eye to eye, the Sovereigns and I.

      But where we part company is when their Rube Goldbergesque legal arguments come to play. First, because they ignore the principle that all men are born free; we’re not granted rights, they’re inherent and un-alienable. Second, because the arguments are impossible to win with.

      On the second point–I’d like to see video of actual people winning actual cases making these arguments. “Judge by this line of reasoning, you are bound to let me leave this court freely. I have proven I do not need a driver’s license. Good day.”

      But I don’t. I’ve had one conversation on this site with a man in New Mexico who lived it–no license plate, no registration, no driver’s license–and he gave up. Why?

      Carl: I don’t want to piss in your Cheerios, I’m with you–we’re in the fight of our lives for our very freedom. What I’m arguing with is the Sovereign technique of achieving that goal.

      • Carl
        July 5, 2012 at 4:17 pm

        Thanks for your comment Methylamine. No offense taken whatsoever, any discussion is good for understanding.

        The system is designed ultimately to protect us, once you come to this realization then you can understand why it is written and enforced the way it is. The minions that we encounter every day are there to protect us from ourselves until you can show that you and you alone are responsible then and only then will you be free. I’m sure the system has seen countless claims of people being free and responsible when nothing goes wrong, only to have them claim hardship when it does. “I got a brain injury when I drove my car and someone hit me” who will pay? When the other driver is uninsured, who will pay? If you don’t have the means to pay, who will pay? A just society cannot just let you die, society has compassion, though it’s hard to see sometimes. But in any case society feels the burden of you should something happen.

        Now just so you don’t misinterpret my comments I am all for being responsible for myself but in doing so I feel the greatest gift I can give myself is understanding of who and where I stand within our culture. To understand the reason for the law not just the letter of the law. In doing so I have tried to understand how people just like me came to creating such laws. Now taking this position has given me greater insight into the why and for what that the laws/contract terms were created. As opposed to being for the purpose of imprisoning us can it be that they were created to protect us from ourselves. The laws/contracts presume we are ignorant and the courts are there to test us if we say we are not ignorant of the LAW, and I don’t mean statutory law I mean the law of men, God’s Law. Wherein we accept for accountability for our actions and look out for all. You can’t be considered responsible within the eyes of the beholder unless you are prepared to fight for what is right for ALL not just ourselves. If you can’t value another man regardless of them being friend or foe then you are not worthy.

        Now if I say appreciate the court and the soldiers that battle you on the front line as you would appreciate a difficult teacher. The teacher is giving you a hard time because if he doesn’t then how are you going to be prepared when life gives you a hard time? The easy classes are not where you learn, it’s from the difficult strict drill sargents who push you beyond your comfort zone to become something more. To work your body past exhaustion, to become more than what you are.

        I do agree it’s a fight, but is it really or is it more of a test? I get the feeling once you understand, then you can’t just sell out to everyone a solution, they must understand. You can’t just tell someone what to do, you can only guide them towards understanding. They must understand fully completely and that doesn’t happen by you giving them the teachers guide with the answers in the back. Real life doesn’t have a reference guide and it’s that way for a reason. You have it within you, it is the conscious, learn to trust it and you’ll see where to go.

        “Go to your heart and make all decisions from there and all will be well.”

    • July 5, 2012 at 4:19 pm

      Carl,

      What Meth said above.

      I’m with you in spirit; we’re on the same team – the liberty team. But as Meth said, the merits of your sovereign citizen arguments notwithstanding – they will arrest you. They will convict you. It’s therefore a futile strategy – aside from trying to make a point. Not many of us can afford to go to jail and so on in order to make a point.

      We need to change minds first – then the laws.

      • Carl
        July 5, 2012 at 4:32 pm

        Don’t get me wrong, I do believe we are on the right path and as far as I’m concerned that path leads right through our discussion right here.

        I’ll check back later but for now I have to attend to the responsibilities I have committed to others.

        “A man of honour hold himself to an ideal of conduct though is inconvenient. unprofitable, or dangerous to do so.”

    • BrentP
      July 5, 2012 at 6:08 pm

      Contracts agreed to by force or coercion are not valid as such. All government licensing is by force. You have the choice to either get licensed or not do it or do it and spend time in jail/prison/dead.

      Simple as that.

      There is no unlicensed option. At least not practically speaking.

      • Brad Smith
        July 5, 2012 at 6:37 pm

        It’s difficult to go without a license. Me and my wife both went over a decade without one. Eventually we got pulled over and forced to show id. My wife said she had forgotten to renew it, he laughed and said something like “for fifteen years?” Then he looked at me and said I’ll be pulling you over next and you better have a license. Like a dumb ass I went and got one and he hasn’t pulled me over. I wonder if he checked? When I got beat up and arrested for beating back I didn’t have a license and it was never brought up at trial. (locked up for four and half months until found not guilty) A friend of mine drove trucks for a beer company (Blatz) and never had a license. He is retired now and still has never got one.

        • BrentP
          July 5, 2012 at 10:24 pm

          I certainly believe that after taking enough of beating and fighting back one can get a single jurisdiction to leave a person alone and he can then go without license. I’ve heard enough stories to realize that it’s probably possible for those who want to suffer through it.

          Here’s my problem, my trip to work alone involves nine jurisdictions. (only about 9 miles too) Two counties, six or seven towns. The rest of my regular driving can probably get that up to 50 without much difficulty.

          Even if I knew the proper incantations to make in court that’s a lot of time training judges and cops on obscure law that defines their conditioning and that’s if they just don’t disregard the incantations.

          It’s coercive pressure to make everyone go along with the illusions.

          • Brad Smith
            July 5, 2012 at 10:38 pm

            For all practical purposes it simply isn’t worth it.

        • July 7, 2012 at 1:48 pm

          Suggest you read “Break the Rules and Win” on-line (Chapter 11 – Licenses) at sfamerica.net – You will read how that DL is not required by law, but it is a virtual “get out of jail free” card.

  37. July 6, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    TREATIES DESTROY YOUR RIGHTS!
    Everyone makes mistakes and our founding fathers were no exception. When they drafted and adopted our U.S. Constitution they only made a few – primarily because they did not foresee what a devious world could exist in the future! The seemingly harmless provision about authority to enter into “treaties” with foreign powers is being used to destroy America as we know it! Every so-called Free Trade Agreement (FTA) creates “courts” that cannot be over-ruled by any U.S. court – including the Supreme Court of the United States. All foreign businesses involved in U.S. operations under a FTA (treaty) are virtually exempt from U.S. (and state) laws, rules, regulations, controls and taxes. Small businesses, farmers and property owners cannot compete when they have to obey the law and the FTA firms are exempt.
    We must now amend the Constitution to prevent further erosion of our Rights and our governments! This is the SELF-DESTRUCT PROVISION in Article VI of the Constitution:

    “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    After reviewing numerous treaties entered into by our various Presidents since 1954 (with the advice and consent of Congress) this writer now sees how the tricks have been played and what it will take to prevent our nation from self-destruction, along with our unalienable Rights. In each instance the “treaty” creates an environment in which the foundations of our Constitution are steadily cancelled. THIS AMENDMENT WILL FIX IT!

    TREATY LIMITS AMENDMENT – _____
    Sect. 1 -No Treaty, agreement or provisions thereof, made or entered into by any act of any branch of government, agency or official, shall diminish, set aside, restrain or relinquish the authority or rights provided or reserved in this Constitution, of any branch of government, any court, any state, any enterprise or any individual.
    Sect. 2 – This Amendment limits provisions and authority of the words “Treaty” or “Treaties” as used in ARTICLES 1, 2, 3 and 6 of The U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution shall withstand any treaty.
    WE NEED THIS AMENDMENT, NOW! You can be for or against the results of any such treaties, but the fact remains that, regardless of your personal position, our individual liberty and our representative government is being eliminated by each treaty – step by step!
    Those “treaties” include every “Free Trade Agreement” (FTA) since 1988! More treaties of this nature are being entered into every year. Each creates an arbitration court system that cannot be over-ruled by any court in America. Not even the Supreme Court of the U.S. can cancel, amend or reverse a finding by the FTA courts. Cancels our Courts!
    When FTAs are set in motion, businesses and jobs leave the country. Foreign businesses come into the U.S. and are exempt from obeying any state law. Those foreign businesses, operating under the auspices of a free trade agreement (treaty) are exempt from most federal controls and even most taxes. American owned and operated businesses cannot compete with those FTA businesses. Included in the list of authorized FTA businesses are: Mining, manufacturing, transportation, farming, ranching, distribution, food processing, insurance, banking, oil and chemical business, publishing, consulting, and the list goes on. And now SCOTUS says those same people can spend money to influence our elections. Cancels Free Enterprise – Cancels States’ Rights – Cancels Elections!
    In an effort to adopt another FTA known as the “Trans-Pacific Partnership” the internationalist are trying to merge that agreement into the existing NAFTA. By doing so, they will circumvent having to get the “consent of Congress.” Cancels Representative Government!
    Your right to keep and bear arms (2nd Amendment) was first diminished by the Arms Control Treaty of 1954 which prohibited arms manufacturers from selling any weapons or ammo to a foreign nation or to the U.S. Military unless they agreed to follow the terms of the agreement. That resulted in our government requiring all manner of licensing and documentation of gun ownership by individuals. Today another treaty is being proposed to further erode Second Amendment Rights by prohibiting the transfer of any firearm from one individual to another. Cancels the 2nd Amendment.
    Other treaties are being created that allow the United Nations to control private property, natural resources, government-owned properties, parks, the seas and fishing. Cancels State, Federal and Private Property!
    Treaties are also being considered to reduce population growth by deciding how many children people should have – and who can have them. Cancels the Future!
    Whatever Rights you hold dear, they can be diminished or destroyed by a “treaty” in accordance with the U.S. Constitution as it exists today! The only solution is to amend the Constitution and the fastest way to get this done is to demand your Congress person or Senator submit and sponsor this Constitutional Amendment and send it to the States for ratification!
    Back when the Constitution was considered, the Pennsylvania delegation rasied the question as to why there would be a Treaty provision that could wipe out the Constitution – no answer appears in documentation. (Personally, I think Treaties” were included to cover the backsides of the American Revolutionists – just in case they ever had to surrender to the British Crown.)
    This amendment will not prohibit the government from entering into treaties! It will prohibit any treaty from over-riding our Constitution! Send a copy of this article and the proposed Amendment to everyone you know – and especially every member of Congress and every member of your state legislature. Send it to every candidate for public office! Not one of those men or women could give you a legitimate reason for refusing to adopt this Amendment! Fix It! Make It So! Do It Now! Don’t Surrender!

  38. November 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    Great article. I am a helmet-choice activist. I have been using the tactic of exposing the hypocrisy. Here’s a vid I produced where I called a senator “obese.” He dared claim that allowing motorcyclists the choice to wear a helmet was an abomination. Please check out my youtube so I can increase views and share it with him and with his colleagues – to give them an idea of the consequences for depriving riders of their liberties.

    Thank you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfsWFfzFoWk

    • November 30, 2012 at 12:57 am

      Hi Tiger,

      Thanks – and, you’re absolutely right. If I can be forced to wear a helmet because it decreases my risk of head injury (and the “social costs” that attend) then fat slobs like your senator friend should also be subject to similar restraints and punishments – for exactly the same reasons. In fact, being obese is objectively more of an actual risk in that being obese is always and necessarily unhealthful whereas riding without a helmet is only a theoretical risk unless I actually wreck. Fat bastards impose all sorts of costs on “our” system and “society.” Let’s make ‘em pay, too!

    • methylamine
      November 30, 2012 at 2:55 am

      TigerLily,

      Good for you! THAT’S what it’s going to take to get this country back–thousands upon tens of thousands of us fighting big and small battles…getting into these control freak, statist pedophilic cowards’ faces and saying “No!”

      I couldn’t watch the whole video. His collectivist driveling–”costs society…”, “cheaper when undertakers take them…” Just who the hell does he think he is?

      The sad thing is the Elites don’t even have to bother with the low-level stuff any more. They’ve successfully created morons like Schneider through Publik Skule who’ll dribble this sniveling to grateful sheeple who lap it up like caviar.

      But you did the right thing. I’m looking for dirt on Houston city council members; you can bet 90% of them are on the take somehow, whether it’s sweetheart land deals or kickbacks. Find out, get in their faces, expose them!

      Tyrants are cowards at heart.

      Let’s go after them; no more sleepy-time, we’ve been apathetic long enough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *