On Us vs. Them

Print Friendly

The movie, The Matrix, explains a great deal.

Most people are brought up from birth within the system – “the matrix” – and psychologically and socially and culturally conditioned to accept it as their world. And more, the world as it is supposed to be. What separates people like those here from everyone else? Somehow, for whatever reason, we questioned. And we saw a flaw in the pattern (the green screen with zeros and ones, if you like, as in the movie). Something clicked – and we knew. The curtain fell away. We began to realize how thoroughly we’d been lied to about almost everything. Saw the fundamental violence of the system. The lie behind the facade of “democracy” and “consent of the governed.” Once you see, you cannot unsee. The pattern becomes obvious, transparant. And all of sudden, things make sense. A bleak sort of sense, to be sure. But for the first time, you truly understand.

But the downside is you are now an outlier, more or less alienated from the society in which you live. Other people are like zombies – because in a way they are. Just as in the movie. As in real life.

I have noticed two qualities that separate the people like us here from the Clovers out there: First, the habit of conceptual thought. Of reasoning from (and accepting the necessary consequences of) principles. Thus, we understand why it is so profoundly dangerous to countenance such things as “safety” checkpoints in order to (ostensibly) “get dangerous drunks” off the road. Because it follows that if the state arrogates unto itself the power to detain (that is, to arrest) people and search/interrogate them (no matter how cursorily) for no specific reason, without actual probable cause, then a principle has been accepted – ceded – and much more and worse will inevitably follow. Clovers cannot grasp this. They only see “safety” – and “getting dangerous drunks off the road.” The same point can be applied almost universally. For instance, “taxes.” A Clover will turn up his nose at a person who stuffs a Snickers bar in his pants at a 7-11 and walks out the door with it. He sees this as theft, which it is. But he does not see that it is also theft when he (and others like him) band together at the ballot box and vote to take much more than merely someone else’s Snicker’s bar. The Clover mind is unable to make the conceptual connection. Theft is somehow transformed into not-theft when it is done under the auspices of the state.

Second, Clovers have an under-developed (or crippled) sense of empathy. Though superficially, they often posture as the caring benefactors of their fellow men, in truth they have more in common with sociopaths who, like them, view other people as cardboard cutouts to be manipulated and controlled. The proof that they do in fact think this way is revealed by the fact that they will not or cannot confront the violence that is always at the end of their professed benefactions. The gun pointed at someone else’s head. The rough men in costumes who will come. Even the most petty-seeming failure to Submit and Obey will inevitably result in violence – possibly, lethal violence – being applied. What sort of human being countenances that? A human being who has lost – or never developed – the capacity for empathy. True empathy. Not the faux empathy of “helping” by controlling – and threatening. An empathetic man sees a fellow human being having difficulty and offers to help – himself. A Clover points a gun at someone else (or has men in costumes do it on his behalf) and forces that someone else to “help” – in the manner the Clover deems appropriate. In this way, the Clover satisfies his urge to control and direct – to apply force – and do to so under the guise of the humanitarian, even as his victims feel the boot on their throat, hear the handcuffs being locked.

They are asleep – or evil. There is no middle ground.

Empathetic humans see others suffering and feel terrible about it. But they feel even more terrible about the idea of official, state-sanctioned predation – violence codified and legitimized. The utter perversion of the concept of “help” which flows from the barrel of a gun. The utter perversion of humanity thereby. The warping of natural instinct – of goodwill – into something corrosive and yes, evil.  Because what else can be said o people who pit man against man, group against group?

It is either – or.

Either you take the position that no person has the right to use violence against another except in self-defense – and all that follows from that principle. Or, you take the position that it is acceptable to use violence against other people for reasons you deem appropriate. The trouble with that, of course, is that your fellow Clovers will have their own ideas as to what constitutes “appropriate” reasons for restraining and controlling other people – you included – with violence or its threat. And the result of that is what we have –  a hell on earth in which mutual parasatism is the essence of our politics. In which no one is secure, either in their persons or their effects (let alone their property) because all these things are subject to “the will of the majority” – as expressed by the vote of Clovers, the representatives of Clovers or the duly constituted agencies and bureaucracies of Clovers.

That is our Matrix.

A few can see it. Most cannot.

But some can be awakened. And that is where our efforts should be concentrated. Because if enough of them can be awakened, the Matrix will lose its power. And then it will lose its control. And that day, when it finally arrives, will be the day of humanity’s liberation.

It’s a goal worth working for – even if none of us now alive will live to see it.

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. 

  246 comments for “On Us vs. Them

  1. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    November 1, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Google the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

    How do those of us outside the Establishment Curtain counter the monster?

    Hint: Fight fire with fire, but first realize that without matches (knowledge equal or superior to that of the juris doctors} you are at an impossible disadvantage.

    tgsam

  2. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    October 31, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    GRAND JURIES AND THE “OTHER FUNCTION”
    by
    William Vosburgh

    Our form of government was designed to assure equality under the law. In theory, no one is immune from prosecution for criminal acts. For that reason, grand juries have been called the People’s Panel and the Fourth Branch of Government. Citizens chosen to exercise the power of grand jurors have a responsibility to investigate and expose all criminal acts including those committed under color of law.
    The purpose of this leaflet is to inform grand jurors of their lawful power and duty to independently investigate criminal activity regardless of official position. A grand jury has the authority to demand prosecution by issuing a Presentment where justified. Once armed with this knowledge and the inherent threat to expose such misconduct, grand juries will be able to overcome prosecutors’ efforts to cover-up crimes committed by government agents, officers and officials.

    POWER IN CONSTITUTION
    The most important and most neglected function of grand juries is to independently investigate criminal activity by those holding positions in government. Authority for doing this is provided in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says grand juries are to perform two functions: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”
    A “Presentment” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, “an accusation, initiated by the grand jury itself, and in effect an instruction that an indictment be drawn. A written accusation of crime made and returned by the grand jury upon its own initiative in the exercise of its lawful inquisitorial powers, is in the form of a bill of indictment, and in practice is signed individually by all the grand jurors who return it.”
    The grand jury’s two different functions can be described simply. Presentments are originated by a grand jury. Indictments are originated by a prosecutor. The Presentment power authorizes grand juries to independently investigate and demand prosecution for crimes committed by those otherwise shielded from accountability. When grand juries properly exercise their power, prosecutors and others in government are unable to act above the law. Unfortunately, the power is not adequately exercised.
    POWER NOT USED
    It is intuitively obvious the only reason grand juries need to issue Presentments is that prosecutors sometimes fail to prosecute. That might happen if crimes have been committed by government agents or officers, if the prosecutor has a corrupt self-interest in protecting wrongdoers by not prosecuting or if the prosecutor is directly involved in committing a crime.
    In practice, government agents and officials are often immune from prosecution for three reasons: (1) Citizens chosen to serve on grand juries are generally not aware of their powers and duties (2) Courts and Government lawyers do not tell grand jurors about their power to issue Presentments and such information is deliberately and systematically suppressed, (3) The first two reasons allow government lawyers to have a de facto monopoly on criminal prosecutions.
    JURY MANIPULATION
    Recent events demonstrate the unrealized potential of grand juries to render justice and control the outcome of national events by preventing cover-ups.
    Oklahoma City federal grand juror Hoppy Heidelberg performed an invaluable public service in October, 1995 by providing insight into how grand juries are manipulated. “Prosecutors treated us like idiots. It was like a programming sort of thing. They wanted to make sure he (Timothy McVeigh) looked like the man in the black hat… It was silly.”
    Mr. Heidelberg was dismissed by the Court for violating his oath to keep jury matters secret. He had granted interviews to a magazine while the jury continued to work on the federal building bombing case. In subsequent newspaper and radio interviews, Mr. Heidelberg revealed prosecutors did not provide information about the possible involvement of others in the explosion and never mentioned the possibility of multiple bombs.
    Mr. Heidelberg was also concerned that jurors were not allowed to directly question witnesses but were required to log their questions, give them to prosecutors and let prosecu- tors ask the screened and modified questions. (See pages 7-8 and 12 of the green “Handbook For Federal Grand Jurors” distributed by the court for the authorized procedure.)
    Under those circumstances, and without support from other jurors, a real investigation was circumvented. If an independent grand jury had properly exer- cised its investigatory powers, they could even have prevented the premature demolition of the federal building which destroyed vital evidence.
    WHAT CAN GRAND JURIES DO?
    In addition to direct questioning of witnesses, grand juries can independently issue subpoenas for witnesses or documents and have the U.S. Marshal serve them. Any twelve Marchers of a panel can vote to issue a Presentment. If the U.S. Attorney refuses to prosecute, the grand jury can request the Court to appoint a special prosecutor.
    In 1992, a special grand jury in Denver asked President- elect Bill Clinton to appoint a special prosecutor after U.S. Attorney Michael Norton refused to prosecute Dept. of Energy officials and Rockwell Interna- tional employees for environmen- tal crimes. Judge Sherman Finesilver had threatened twelve grand jurors for violating secrecy rules.
    Jurors went public with a demand to prosecute individuals who polluted the air, water and soil with plutonium and other highly toxic substances at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant. The jury’s action resulted in Congressional hear- ings and forced the Judge to release the grand jury’s report to the public. Clinton did not appoint a special prosecutor but took the unprecedented (although maybe unrelated) action of requesting that all U.S. Attorneys resign.
    WHERE CRIME CAN BE FOUND
    If the English historian Lord Acton was right that power corrupts, the logical place to look for crime and corruption is among those who hold powerful positions in government and are tempted to abuse their power. Citizens in general and the vast majority of grand jurors have been passive and derelict in performing the duties of citizenship. The Congressional hearings by politicians are not an effective method to discover and weed out the broad spectrum of criminal conduct and corruption by government agents.
    That is the job of the grand jury.
    This leaflet was inspired by a 1995 grand juror’s unanswered questions to a U.S. Magistrate in Portland, Oregon about jurors’ other duties and functions. It is provided as a public service and joint project of Portland FIJA (Fully Informed Jury Association) and Private Property Defense League (PPDL). You may contact either group for additional information at P.O. Box 219115, Portland, Oregon 97225, or at (503) 291-7439. It was written by William Vosburgh.
    Or contact FIJA National at P.O. Box 59, Helmville, MT 59843. Phone/ Fax (406) 793-5550.

  3. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    October 31, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    LAGJ Cleaner Version

    FOREWORD
    By
    Tinsley Grey Sammons
    bastlaw@yahoo.com

    Career politicians and legal professionals have done all they can to estrange the Grand Jury from the People they exist to protect. The resulting lack of accountability continues to be instrumental in the systematic corruption of America’s legal system. Bad law and an absence of accountability have spawned a profit motivated Judicial Industry that has no regard for the unalienable rights of the individual human being. If America’s Grand Juries are made aware of their PRESENTMENT power and their duty to wield that power, corruption in government can be halted, respect for principles can be established, and the Idea we call “America” can be pursued.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – Juvenal (c. 60 – 140 A.D.)

    Indeed, who will watch the watchers? The words of Roman satirist Juvenal are as relevant today as they were nearly a thousand years ago. In America today, if the People themselves don’t watch the watchers, they will simply not be watched; and if the People’s Grand Jury does not hold the watchers accountable, there will surely be no accountability.

    More than a century ago, an incredibly perceptive Frenchman penned words as relevant in America today as they were in his own country in 1850.

    The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely different purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
    If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it. – Frederic’ Bastiat (c. 1850)

    I urge my fellow citizens to join me in demanding that a convenient channel be created for individual citizens to communicate hard and empirical evidence to their Grand Jury without alerting agents of government.

  4. October 31, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Hello, I’m a peace activist. I’ve followed the philosophy of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. for a long time now.

    I like your piece but feel you’ve not gone far enough. Have you ever killed anyone? Or talked to anyone that has killed someone in self defense or in the ‘line of duty’? I have explored this issue of violence for a long time and in my opinion believe it is NEVER justfiable, moral or ok. You mention self-defense as an excuse. Pre-emptive invasion which is now the rule of law with the USA is a form of self defense.

    Once you give the stamp of approval for violence in ANY instance ‘they’ own you, because they will subvert law, lie, deceive, or find some may to justify it for any opening you leave them.

    Would I defend myself, even kill someone if I was in a life threatening situation…perhaps…but afterwards I’d take moral responsibility for it.

    If you have talked to as many combat vets, cops, even victims who have been in life threatening situations, and have used deadly force to defend themself, what you hear is that they NEVER get over it…some suffer nightmares daily, stress, divorces, lifelong emotional and psychological repercussions.

    I’d defintely suggest learning martial arts from a teacher who has a moral philosophy as strong as the art he teaches, as a way of defending yourself so that you can learn to avoid violence as much as possible. When you know how to defend you are not afraid or not as afraid and may be able to avoid situations as well as physical reactions that lead to violence.

    • October 31, 2012 at 4:48 pm

      Hi Producer,

      Thank god, I’ve never had to kill anyone – and hope to god I never have to.

      But that in no way de-legitimizes self defense. No decent person wants to harm anyone. But if he is placed in the position of either submitting to harm (possibly, even to death) by an assailant, then he has every right to defend himself and ought not to feel any guilt over having defended himself.

  5. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    October 31, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    Hi Tinsely,

    I had to delete your post – it was literally book length!

    You’re welcome to post a link – or, send the whole thing to me via http://ericpetersautos.com/got-a-question/ and I will print it under News as a separate feature article.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      October 31, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      I’ll work on that, thank you. Meanwhile anyone who is interested can contact bastlaw@yahoo.com

      Also, there is a wealth of information on the ‘net. What is not available is Title XII with my analysis and commentary. I have that on DVD and mail it to anyone interested with nothing more than a request for a reimbursement for postage and handling. In future I might include AMERICA’S FORSAKEN PROMISE along with a few other things.

      I’ve pretty much written all that Critical Thinking and Conscience have compelled me to write.

      bastlaw@yahoo.com

  6. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    October 31, 2012 at 8:07 am

    Re: Criminals and incompetents in government.

    I find it strange that not a single one of the contributors to these forums has shown interest in Grand Jury Presentment Power.

    tgsam

    • October 31, 2012 at 9:39 am

      Hi Tinsley,

      In re Grand Jury Presentment: I like the idea of it. The problem is implementation. Kind of like the whole Sovereign Citizen thing. Philosophically – and perhaps even technically/legally – it’s a “real thing.” But practically, it’s a non-starter just because the system doesn’t acknowledge it. (Just as it no longer acknowledges the Fourth Amendment.)

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        November 1, 2012 at 1:28 am

        Then there is really no point in learning more about it and discussing it.

        tgsam

        • November 1, 2012 at 9:54 am

          Hi Tinsley,

          Is this about grand jury presentment and your earlier post? The only reason I deleted it was because it was far, far too long for a post. But I’d happily print it in toto as a separate article, which people can then discuss in post form. Just send it to me via the link I sent you earlier, or look under “Questions” – top menu bar.

    • Boothe
      October 31, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      It would be fantastic if we could use Grand Jury Presentment against the official thugs, parasites and freeloaders in the system. Just having fully informed jurors would be a big step in the right direction within the current system. I understand that New Hampshire law now requires judges to inform the jurors, at least nominally, of their right to acquit on conscience. It has already worked to the people’s benefit in one marijuana case that I know of. The legal establishment does everything they can to prevent FIJA from spreading the truth about the actual rights and responsibilities of petit juries. They’re even more careful to maintain control over grand juries, rendering them little more than rubber stamps for ambitious prosecutors.

      And as Eric alluded to, Grand Jury presentment was attempted by some members of the Sovereign Citizen / Christian Patriot movement back in the 80’s and 90’s. Was it done correctly? Legally? I don’t know for sure. What I do know is some people got shot; others were locked up and or lost their property. Face it; the PTB have more men with guns (provided at our expense) than we do and they can and do use them against us with impunity. It does not matter how “right” you are or how just your cause when a SWAT sniper puts a 168 gr. JHP through your forehead at 2700 feet per second; you’ll be just as dead.

      And let’s say you, Eric and I all decided to learn enough about convening a Grand Jury to actually do it, got together and attempted it. Where would you find the other “citizens” knowledgeable enough, wealthy enough and willing to give up their time for this noble cause? I’m pretty confident we all know the answer. And if you were able gain some traction you’d face a hostile judiciary, prosecutor’s office and police force bent on preventing you from using public facilities at the very least. The local paper would brand us all nuts and (gasp) anarchists. We’d all probably end up audited by the IRS, our phones would be tapped, we’d get pulled over for bogus traffic violations and the local PTB would do everything they could think of to inspire us to move away.

      Like “free energy”, “allodial title” and “The Rapture”, the concept of Grand Jury Presentment sounds good; but I think we stand more of a chance of seeing a real live Unicorn in our lifetimes.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 31, 2012 at 4:38 pm

        Well, if you see a Unicorn, by all means ask it to restore respect for the principles that support the Unanimous Declaration.

        tgsam

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        November 1, 2012 at 1:22 pm

        The PRESENTMENT authority is the Fifth Amendment.
        as far as I know it remains unchanged.

        Folks can continue to vote and hope or simply not vote at all. I’m convinced that elections alone can never fix America. As long as juris doctors and those they serve are permitted to rule America, things will only worsen. I’m convinced that the Beginning of the End was the founding of the American Bar Association late in the Nineteenth Century.

        Folks can also try to instigate an armed Revolution but that is a hideous affair even when successful.

        tgsam

        • Scott
          November 2, 2012 at 6:12 am

          Tinsley, I for one admire your intention, however I recently spent a large amount of time, money and spirit fighting a very simple civil case in court. What I learned is difficult to boil down into a short presentation but I did lose the case. It was simple and both the complaint and answer were in plain language. What I learned from the experience is that judges do whatever they want and there is no recourse.

          You can disagree with a judgment and it moves to a superior court, which then reviews and remands. Very rarely does a superior court actually over rule, which means you spend a lot of money having the case heard again by the same bozo that heard it wrong the first time.

          Most civil cases aren’t allowed a jury trial if they involve statutory law. States have sidestepped jury trial on statute to “save money”, which means you just get a bench hearing on most cases *even if they involve private contract*.

          At the risk of sounding morose again I’ll suggest that there is no longer any redress of grievance available in US courts.

    • methylamine
      October 31, 2012 at 3:26 pm

      I spoke to my strongly libertarian criminal-defense lawyer friend; in Texas, it’s damn near impossible to convene one.

      Tinsley enlighten us; how does one go about assembling a citizen’s Grand Jury and indicting one of the Bastard PTB?

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 31, 2012 at 3:49 pm

        The GJ is already assembled and a Grand Jury can exclude ANYONE from it’s meeting. All that it need do is become a so-called RUNAWAY GRAND JURY and exercise it’s power to investigate. If sufficient evidence is gleaned to indicate that a crime has been committed, then a Presentment is in order. A Fifth Amendment Presentment is an order that an indictment be drawn.

        I do wish that every adult American would make himself aware of potential power that can be wielded by a Grand Jury, and endeavor to become a Grand Juror himself.

        The Grand Jury Secrecy nonsense is a lawyer created scheme to distance the Grand Jury from the Citizens that it is supposed to serve. It is not lawful.

        Tinsley Grey Sammons
        Gonzales, LA
        bastlaw@yahoo.com

  7. liberranter
    October 31, 2012 at 5:26 am

    Matthew recommends:

    Don’t date [Clovers].

    I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately, to adhere to that rule, given the demographic reality of the society in which we live, would leave one living a de facto existence as a monk/nun.

    • October 31, 2012 at 10:08 am

      I found a non-Clover wife! It is doable.

      Here’s how to know: If, after sex, you want her (or him) to leave then you shouldn’t date (much less marry) that person.

      • liberranter
        October 31, 2012 at 7:33 pm

        *LOL* Yeah, that’s an excellent test, although actually, it probably won’t even need to get as far as the “sex” stage. If, after getting acquainted with and talking with the person of the opposite sex for more than a few minutes, you find that the prospect of another word coming of their mouth fills you with the irresistible urge to vomit and/or Crazy Glue[TM] their mouth shut, then you probably don’t want to consider that person as “datable.”

        Congratulations, Eric, on finding a non-Clover spouse. Any of us who manages such a feat is incredibly lucky and has found the most precious thing they’ll ever have!

      • Scott
        November 2, 2012 at 4:32 am

        “How I Found a Non-Clover Spouse” by Scott:

        She was the person assigned to do quality assurance on my work. It was hard to differentiate her from a Clover since she was always telling me what I’d been doing wrong (a Clover characteristic).

        What differentiated her was that she wasn’t just telling me what I was was doing wrong, she was trying hard to help me do it better. After we released our first joint efforts to the accolades of the world, we were married.

        That was 30 years ago. She’s still the best engineer I’ve ever had the privilege to work with.

        • Scott
          November 2, 2012 at 4:36 am

          I should mention she throws great kids. Phd Biochemists don’t just fall off trees… :)

          • methylamine
            November 2, 2012 at 4:53 am

            LOL “throws great kids” I’m rolling here, thanks Scott.

            I told my wife she drops great kids, but she thought I was talking about her work :)

          • Scott
            November 2, 2012 at 5:35 am

            “throws” comes from livestock breeding. A mare throws good foals, a dog throws good pups…

          • Scott
            November 2, 2012 at 5:41 am

            Didn’t mean to get terse and technical on that one. Dropped is pretty good too :)

          • methylamine
            November 2, 2012 at 3:17 pm

            You better not let your wife read this sequence of posts, Scott, you’re digging yourself deeper and deeper!

            Christ you start with “throws” which is funny enough, then proceed to compare it to various barn animals!

            I’m dying over here. I’m going to have to show my wife this so she can add new terms for “delivery” to share with her patients.

        • November 2, 2012 at 9:35 am

          Top drawer, Scott!

          Also enjoyed “throws”… that’s one I’ve written down!

          Smart women are the ticket. I suspect mine’s smarter than I am but allows me to imagine otherwise.

  8. methylamine
    October 31, 2012 at 2:14 am

    @Scott re: semantics, the Constitution

    I can think of several glaring flaws in the Constitution, as much as I revere it Scott.

    For one, the vague phrases including “general welfare” and the “supremacy” clause (which is no such thing but mis-interpreted). The regulation of interstate commerce–which again is mis-interpreted, the original meaning of “regulate” being “to make regular”…not “kill at will”.

    I suppose if one HAD to bow to minarchism–which I don’t, my goal is pure statelessness/voluntaryism/agorism–one could:

    1) rip out the offending clauses
    2) remove ALL power except perhaps national defense; and even that’s a stretch, I’d limit it purely to voluntary contributions from the states. Perhaps a clause to prevent warfare between states?
    3) a specific, exhaustive specification of the non-aggression principle stated in at least eight different ways to prevent future “interpretation”
    4) a complete prohibition on ANY tax on ANY citizen; all federal funds to be collected from the many states–which remain superior to the fedgov but NOT sovereign
    5) specifying in at least eight different ways that the PEOPLE are the sovereigns
    6) a highly specific statement of natural law, i.e. “no victim no crime”
    7) absolute prohibition on any hindrance to travel–enabling the “voting with your feet” below
    8) no more laws. Period. No delegating to agencies to create laws. None. What’s in the document is it.

    Really the trick is to devolve power to the local level; run 50 simultaneous experiments in government. If you don’t like your state, vote with your feet.

    Even then–the resulting prosperity would launch us to heights unknown, we’d become fat, stupid, and apathetic again because the same psychopaths who engineered our defeat over the last 100 years would take over AGAIN.

    Only anarchism, combined with an educated populace, achieves long-term freedom. I suspect anarchism would force education, or you’d be penniless and fleeced in short order.

    All that said–I’d go for a minarchy under the Articles of Confederation or a strictly interpreted Constitution any day.

    The fedgov shouldn’t exist.

    • methylamine
      October 31, 2012 at 2:15 am

      Forgot to add: an extensive section on private property rights, the meaning of sovereignty being largely that people can own property in allodium, subject to nothing.

      As in, “Git off’n my lawn ya damn kids!”

      • Boothe
        October 31, 2012 at 3:21 am

        Or “Git off my land ya damn cops!” and there’d be nothing they could do about it!

      • Scott
        October 31, 2012 at 4:45 am

        You’ve no doubt heard the myth of William Wallace. It makes a good story and a passable film, but Scotland, last I heard, was still a subject of the Crown.

        • methylamine
          October 31, 2012 at 3:46 pm

          Not for long!

          And that’s the beauty of what Zbigniew Brzezinski bemoaned as the “massive global political awakening”; world-wide people are becoming aware of their slavery and moving to cut off the shackles.

          As fake as the “Arab Spring” was, it got those people thinking in new ways. In Europe, secession movements are everywhere–Catalonia, Bavaria, the UK…

          All I want is a new Republic of Texas.

    • Scott
      October 31, 2012 at 4:21 am

      I sort of think your second paragraph dealing in vague language is probably the most powerful indictment. “promote the general welfare” and “regulate commerce”. The founders were naive thinking the words couldn’t be misinterpreted.

      But what words can’t be? Lawyers are paid to misinterpret words and if you give them enough time they will; and they have. What if so called “case law” were at the root of our problem? How would we address that?

      • liberranter
        October 31, 2012 at 5:43 am

        The founders were naive thinking the words couldn’t be misinterpreted.

        I’ve come to join the ranks of “Philadelphia Conspiracy Theorists” such as Gary North and Gary Barnett whose writings carry the them that the founders knew damned good and well when they wrote these vague words that they would be misinterpreted and corrupted over time and that’s exactly what their goal was. Untrustworthy as many of the founders proved themselves to be, they were anything but stupid. We can thank the Hamiltonian faction, in particular, for the inclusion of this ambiguous text (whatever the 18th Century equivalent was of the term “weasel words”).

        • October 31, 2012 at 9:47 am

          I agree, Lib.

          Many of the Founders were of genius level intelligence (much as I loathe him, Hamilton, for instance) and all were exceptionally bright men who chose their words very precisely. The Constitution was written to establish a centralized state whose powers would inexorably and predictably grow. It was more than anything else a repudiation of the Articles of Confederation. Don;t forget that some of the Founders openly desired an authoritarian state. John Adams, for instance. Of all the founders, the only two who seemed to really believe in the sort of decentralized, live and let live society most of us here pine for were Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson – and Franklin more so than Jefferson (much as I admire the man).

        • Mike in Spotsy
          November 1, 2012 at 2:56 am

          I’ve been tempted by the Philadelphia coup d’etat theory. My current reading, however, is John T. Flynn’s “Decline of the American Republic”, originally published in 1955. Flynn points out that the original meaning of “general welfare” and “interstate commerce” was not seriously questioned for 148 years after the Constitution was ratified. ok, the sneaks who met in Philly might have been far sighted enough to realize that eventually…even if it took almost a century and a half…those words would be misinterpreted.

          But Flynn goes on to make another excellent point: without the destruction of federalism in 1861-1865 and the institution of the unlimited income tax in 1913, even a bad interpretation of those phrases would have had little effect. The central government was just too limited in its ability to raise revenue to do much damage, and the states would have been able to resist encroachments on their authority. I just can’t believe that the founders could have foreseen those developments.

          btw, for anyone who is not familiar with Flynn, I highly recommend his 1944 book, “As We Go Marching”, tracing the origins of fascism in Germany, Italy, and the US. Hence the title of the book: as we go marching off to fight fascism abroad, we have installed it here. Great stuff.

          • methylamine
            November 1, 2012 at 3:34 am

            Mike thanks for the book recommendations…between kids and work my book stack keeps getting deeper, but we MUST stay educated!

            I’ll look for those.

            May I put in a plug for a very interesting book, Rise of the Fourth Reich by Jim Marrs.

            Well-researched and makes a terrifying case that the administrator-minions of the NWO in America are not just Nazis, but some of THE original ones imported here in Operation Paperclip.

          • November 1, 2012 at 9:48 am

            Good points, Mike (and thanks for the reading recommendations)!

            The misconstruing of “general welfare” is of a piece with the misconstruing of “well-regulated.” As you note, the original intent can be inferred by the lack of “welfare” as we use that term today for the first 100-plus years of the country’s existence – just as the lack of any intent to “regulate” firearms as we understand that term to mean today can be inferred from the fact that there were no restrictions of firearms ownership/possession for the first 100-plus years of the country’s existence.

          • Mike in Spotsy
            November 1, 2012 at 10:13 pm

            You’re welcome, Methyl and Eric. LRC and the Mises Institute have led me to so much great reading about economics and liberty that it would take a day and a half to compile a list. And Eric, this site is one of the best sources I’ve found through LRC, from your articles to the analysis in many of the comments. I feel privileged to be in the company of such great minds.

            Flynn’s 1955 book makes arguments that are eerily similar to ones we hear today (i.e., excessive debt will eventually bring down our economy; Repubs spend just as much as Dems, etc.). If I can get off my lazy ass, and it’s ok with you Eric, I will write a separate article to post here on that subject.

            • November 1, 2012 at 11:24 pm

              Thanks, Mike – and, looking forward to your article!

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 31, 2012 at 8:16 am

        I share Ayn Rand’s opinion of the Founding and the Founders. Philosophically at least the old cunt generally got things right. She was right on when she skewered the Commerce “Claws”.

        tgsam

    • Scott
      October 31, 2012 at 5:26 am

      I don’t want to pour rain on the parade Methyl, but after reading somewhere close to 200 arguments on this thread and being personally responsible for about 10, I have a desire to summarize.

      There are a few people who jealously guard they’re freedom at virtually all costs; we call these folks “elite” because they’re very, very rich and have names that end in “II” or Rothschild. We admire these people more than we would like to admit.

      We aren’t them, but we believe we’re smart enough to attend the same cocktail parties. They don’t agree. They pretty much have a sharp dividing line; you’re either one of them or you aren’t. If you aren’t you may be invited to stand at the back of the room if you’re cute or smart. Otherwise you can eat in the kitchen.

      Then there are the great unwashed, who make up the balance of the population, on the order of 95% or more. They get treated like cattle and have IQ’s below their body temperatures. There’s no help coming for these people.

      The 1% have figured out how to make the 95% happy by feeding them bullshit on TV and making hamburgers, pizza and beer affordable for almost everyone.

      You’d like to instrument social change. You haven’t got a fucking chance.

      • liberranter
        October 31, 2012 at 5:46 am

        There are a few people who jealously guard they’re freedom at virtually all costs; we call these folks “elite” because they’re very, very rich and have names that end in “II” or Rothschild. We admire these people more than we would like to admit.

        “We” admire them? Speak for yourself, please. I hold these despicable creatures in nothing but the strongest contempt. May they all soon perish and may nothing like them ever blight the Earth’s surface again.

        • Scott
          October 31, 2012 at 6:19 am

          It will come to you Lib. Really.

        • Scott
          October 31, 2012 at 6:26 am

          Sundance Kid: “If he invites us then we’ll stay”

          Butch Cassidy: “What would you say about just asking us to stick around?”

        • Scott
          October 31, 2012 at 6:29 am

          Gambler: “Hey Kid! How good are you”

        • Scott
          October 31, 2012 at 6:38 am

          Woodcock:”I work for the Union Pacific Railroad! And D.H. Harriman!”

      • October 31, 2012 at 10:04 am

        Morning, Scott –

        I don’t admire the people you mentioned – much less desire to join their club. They repel me. The dividing line between us – and them – is the lust for dominion (power over others) these people have. Do you have it? Or are you nauseated by the idea of it?

        You’re right, though, that many people here are certainly smart enough to have “joined the club.” But, again, they lack the essential characteristic, which is not intelligence.

        I do share your biting cynicism about the state of affairs and prospects for social change. However, the wheel does turn. Brent and others here have pointed out the example of the late Middle Ages, just before the Renaissance. Things seemed pretty hopeless then, too. The PTB (the church in particular) as eternal and entrenched as Cloverism and “democracy” seem to be today. And yet, in just a few years, things did change – dramatically. There is also the more recent of example of the collapse of Soviet Russia. When I was in high school in the 1980s, it was taken as a given that the Soviet monolith was forever. But just a few short years later, it imploded.

        In any event, we have to try – right?

        • Scott
          October 31, 2012 at 8:12 pm

          Eric, what’s the difference between a US Marshal and an assassin?

          A: The US Marshal’s checks come in every month.

          Of course they repel you, they repel me also, but we always come back to practicalities: how would things be different? Practically speaking, the so called 1% are free; they can do whatever they like within the boundaries of their society. You and I don’t count, we’re livestock.

          So how do you extend that privilege to everyone? What would they do with it if you gave it to them? *Can* you give it to them?

          What is, is. Gloria Patri.

          • Scott
            October 31, 2012 at 8:24 pm

            My father died about an hour ago. I’m not in a good mood.

            • October 31, 2012 at 8:46 pm

              Scott,

              Very sorry to hear that; best wishes to you and your family…

        • Mithrandir
          October 31, 2012 at 9:38 pm

          Scott,

          Sorry to hear about your loss. My prayers go to you and your family.

          • Scott
            November 2, 2012 at 3:56 am

            Thanks Mith & Eric and Methyl & Booth and BrentP and TGS and Clark and Bevin if he still reads this stuff. I have very little hope for the world right now and if it weren’t for you I would have no hope at all.

            • November 2, 2012 at 9:39 am

              And: There are certainly many more out there… it just seems as though they don’t exist. Never forget: People who aren’t control freak Clovers tend by nature to avoid being conspicuous. They just want to live their lives – and wish only to be left alone and free to do so. They tend to be nonconfrontational – and so, invisible.

              But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

              They do. This little corner of the web is one example. There are others.

              Have faith!

      • BrentP
        October 31, 2012 at 2:07 pm

        The so-called “elite” know we are as smart or smarter than they are. Their fear of such is an undercurrent in their actions. It’s their sociopathic ruthlessness we lack, which is the source of their wealth. That’s likely why they feel we don’t deserve a spot at the party.

        As to admire, don’t be absurd. The only people to admire are the ones who made their money fair and square in the market by pleasing others and then don’t use their wealth to control and rule others. Over on LRC they talk of the “good” Koch brother… the one who instead of messing in politics builds himself a wild-west town. That’s a trait of a human being.

        One thing I’ve noticed about this sociopathic elite and those that serve them is they don’t seem to have creative hobbies like human beings do. Their entire being seems to be driven by the desire to control, to acquire power, to have everything no matter what it is.

        • methylamine
          October 31, 2012 at 3:35 pm

          Brent I think you’re right, at least as far as the sub-Elite…the “minions”.

          I remember vividly some university and medical school professors I had, and their snarky, pale, skinny-armed grad students.

          They were intellectually threatened by some of their very bright students; some of them obviously more gifted than the prof/grad student himself.

          They used their positions and sly political tricks to hamstring anyone who thought outside the Academic Orthodoxy. Hell, I felt it personally; I remember doing rounds once on the cardiothoracic service. They use a drug, warfarin (coumadin), to block clotting in cardiac patients. It’s a helluva dangerous drug–too much, you bleed out from every pore, too little, your precious (and useless) coronary stent clots up. We spent countless hours chasing people’s coumadin levels. One day on rounds I wondered out loud–“Isn’t there an effective coumadin antagonist, or partial agonist we could use instead?” To which the chief resident replied “Shut the fuck up, what the fuck are you taking about?”

          Such is the level of intellectual curiosity in Academic Orthodoxy!

          Those minions HATE creativity, and they jealously guard their academic positions–because deep down, they know they’re inadequate little nothings and only the trappings of academia provide them some status.

        • Scott
          November 2, 2012 at 4:04 am

          “and then don’t use their wealth to control and rule others.”

          I don’t think there is a truer test than this. To have the ability to oppress another, but not do it for moral reasons.

          I could oppress the people who work for me but I don’t; I don’t want to. It gives me no pleasure and it actually makes them unhappy, which would lead to poor performance.

          I don’t understand it. It doesn’t make economic sense to oppress people. Free trade leads to economic growth for everyone, oppression is a death spiral. Yet we somehow consider these people intelligent?

          I admire them for their freedom. I don’t admire the methods they’ve used to achieve it. There’s a complicated lesson here.

      • methylamine
        October 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm

        Scott:

        Au contraire, mon frere!

        Eric, lib, and Brent beat me to the punch so I won’t repeat them entirely…except to agree completely that the Elites repel me–with the same revulsion I feel upon stumbling across rotting roadkill boiling with maggots and bursting with gas.

        Moreover, I feel wholly superior to them. Does that sound arrogant? Not at all, and you should elevate yourself just as much.

        But surely they’re possessing of keen intellects; titanic wealth; often good looks, the charm of a serpent, the good health bought by the best foods, medicines, and awareness to avoid the poisons they feed us.

        N’est-ce pas? So how do I, barely middle-class scratching my way along as a very good but not elite computer programmer, think myself superior?

        Because they’re idiot-savants. Idiots, in all the ways that make man a noble creature–and yes, I do ascribe to the romantic Enlightenment ideal. Are they versatile in their intelligence; learned in science, letters, and art? Do they have pursuits outside their narrow specialty (raping and pillaging by other means)?

        Idiots in the most important human characteristics–empathy, love, compassion, creativity, passionate inspiration. Those numinous qualities that separate us from hyper-fast computers; the “ghost in the machine” that even as an optimistic techie I don’t think we’ll ever fully capture. It’s those numinous qualities that lead us to yearn and strive for better, while simultaneously enlisting our fellows with warmth and engagement to assist us; “co-opetition”, congenial competition and cooperation. Acts that require empathy and love.

        Savants? Yes–in the overweening lust for power and its handmaiden wealth. And as psychopaths, totally lacking in empathy; that ruthlessness has gained them their wealth and power.

        As for “…haven’t got a fucking chance”, Scott why so glum?!? Of course we’ve got a chance and it’s inevitable! Look at history; as others point out, just the Reformation/Enlightenment* are shining examples of a seemingly impossible revolution. I mean, the Dark/Middle ages were a thousand years of near-stasis in human affairs. Rome, when it was a Republic. The various Chinese revolutions before that.

        America itself at its founding and the early 1800’s–when before had there been such a flourishing of human freedom, the casting off of shackles, and massive social change?

        It’s inevitable. Enough of us yearn to be free that we eventually spread the meme to the majority of those who don’t care or actively want to be slaves.

        Those who want to be slaves but live in a free society find ways to become enslaved! The trick is to design “safe” slavery for the slavery-inclined, without allowing them to enslave us, as well.

        In fact as I write that last paragraph, it may very well be what the Elite think, and the world they’re building is our “safe slavery”. The difference is, I want as many to flourish, prosper, bloom, and thrive as possible; they want as FEW as possible. They hate life and fear competition. I love life and welcome competition. I pity those who seek slavery; they hate them and want them dead.

        * The Enlightenment can in some ways be described as a counter-revolution by the Elites that went somewhat awry for them, but planted the seeds of a-religiosity leading to moral collapse…topic for another day

        • Scott
          November 1, 2012 at 10:57 pm

          Methyl, the reason America happened in the later part of the 18th century were multiple, but I think they can be boiled down to two critical factors:

          1) Distance and the cost of enforcement.

          It simply was too expensive for Britain at the time to protect it’s interests in America. The Atlantic is a big pond and at the time it was expensive to cross in force. Britain had other fish to fry.

          2) Homogeneity of purpose.

          The people who emigrated to North America were individualists who’d given up hearth and home in a settled land to find freedom and prosperity in an undiscovered country. They were all here for the same reason. They had a common value and purpose.

          These characteristics don’t exist among the general population of America today and there is no undiscovered country left to explore.

          That’s pretty much why I’m so glum.

          • MoT
            November 2, 2012 at 4:35 am

            It’s easy to get sucked into a negative tail-spin but it needn’t be so. Pointing out that the bridge has collapsed, and we’d likely die if we attempt to cross, doesn’t mean we can’t pull on the brakes or jump to safety. It isn’t the end unless you resign yourself to it. Every empire collapses and the American one is no different.

          • Scott
            November 2, 2012 at 4:49 am

            MoT, thanks for the kind words. Stiff upper lip! We’ll get through this with grace and honor.

        • Scott
          November 2, 2012 at 4:13 am

          Methyl, as usual you’ve given me more credit than I deserve. Your argument is impervious to logical attack. I repent my early doomsayer words. Death has an effect on my mind. I’m still working through it.

          You have my apologies and sincere thanks for bearing with my dire mood. I’m particularly fond of your plan to find safe ways for the wanabe slaves to realize their destiny. I have difficulty improving on the free beer and pizza approach in use by the PTB :)

          The problem remains that you don’t seek slavery and neither do I :)

          What’s wrong with us?

          • methylamine
            November 2, 2012 at 4:49 am

            @Scott:

            “What’s wrong with us?”

            The clinical term is “fucked in the head”; I think they now use “ODD” or “Oppositional defiant disorder” to describe us when we’re black-bagged in the psykushkas.

            Scott I was sad to hear of your dad. I can only imagine; I do not look forward to dealing with that myself.

            Best way to create “safe slavery” for the clovers in our new free world? Start companies and give’em jobs!

            Benign company towns? A kind of work-to-pay Disneyland?

            I’m starting to envy the religious.

          • Scott
            November 2, 2012 at 4:58 am

            Ah my friend (mon frere?) you suggest we take the lead? Maybe not you and I personally, but as a fraternity.

            I’ll join that fraternity, but I don’t like leading much. I can tolerate leading by example but that’s as far as I can go. I have strong reservations about leading by coercion and that seems to be the coin of the realm these days.

            I continue to believe the best approach is to just *be* free and encourage others to do the same. It’s a slow process.

            Maybe we should become Amish?

            • November 2, 2012 at 9:30 am

              Wouldn’t it be marvelous if we could just be free to live our lives?

              Sad, isn’t it, that such a simple thing has become a pipe dream.

          • methylamine
            November 2, 2012 at 5:04 am

            Funny you mention Amish, I actually ran the idea of going Mennonite and living in Uruguay or Paraguay past my wife…and I was more than a little serious.

            But I’m coming to the idea that running away from this fight may buy a few years’ peace, but the NWO will catch up where ever you are. And once America falls, they’ll button up the rest very quickly.

            I like the “leading by example” theory too, I’m not a “leader” and never wanted to be.

            I suspect that’s exactly the case for Eric, dom, liberranter, Brent etc. We’re reluctant to lead by our very nature; not because we’re not confident, but because it’s almost embarrassing. It’s putting on airs.

            But the time will come; we are mentally prepared, intellectually armed, and spiritually convinced we’re right. People gravitate to that in times of crisis–

            –so you’ll lead whether you want to or not.

            And that’s perhaps the best quality of leadership–reluctance with resolve.

            • November 2, 2012 at 9:27 am

              Hey Meth,

              Would you believe that I, too, looked into the Mennonite thing? (It’s one of the few avenues available to legally get out of having to “contribute” to Socialist Insecurity.)

          • Scott
            November 2, 2012 at 5:11 am

            And “chance favors the prepared mind”

            We are of a piece. Funny how this has worked out.

  9. the velvet cage
    October 30, 2012 at 3:59 am

    What a great comments forum discussion. Being a rugged individual I’ll have to check with the hive mind and see what my opinions are. This storm has me so frightened I hope comrade dear leader and mommygov can save me. I’m going to snuggle with the teevee and the dear talking head that loves me and would never lie to me. My last cry to mommygov and omnipotent golden bureaucrats will be Save Me!

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      October 30, 2012 at 12:26 pm

      Government did well by the victims of Katrina. As a survivor who lost his home and everything in it in St. Bernard Parish, I am satisfied with the Government Response and that of the wonderful Volunteers who filled in the gaps and prevented a nightmare from becoming a genuine horror.

      My then teenage wife is also a veteran of Hurricane Betsy. As the water quickly rose during Betsy she left her parents’ home in St. Bernard Parish through a window. Government assistance was sorely lacking back then and she, her siblings, and her parents had a very tough time recovering. Volunteers did well, in many cases, but there is no effective substitute for dedicated Government Action.

      As long as Naked Apes are imperfect, Limited Government is a must. It is Excessive Government that must be despised, not Limited, i.e., “Just” Government. In 1776 WE the People were given a blueprint for limited government. WE the People failed to respect it and the negative consequences are upon us and rapidly growing.

      Tinsley Grey Sammons

      • October 30, 2012 at 12:35 pm

        Morning, Tinsley!

        The problem is: Government cannot be limited. It inexorably waxes. Once the principle that anyone’s need (no matter how earnest it may be) entitles them to take from others at the point of a gun is established, there is no longer any principled way to object to future (and eventually, open-ended and unlimited) demands based on a multitude of needs.

        Result? We haggle over a hierarchy of “needs” – each of us clamoring to serve our own at someone else’s expense – with politicians collecting the dividend (power).

        I would gladly help my neighbors in the event of a disaster – even to the extent of opening our home and cupboard to them (temporarily). What I will not gladly accept is being told I owe them such – and that I will provide, or else.

        Most people do not need a bayonet shoved in their ribs to help their fellow man. They do so freely, voluntarily. But when a bayonet is shoved in their ribs, they come to resent – even hate – their fellow man.

        Forced charity – redistributionist policies – acts like an acid on human nature and upon civilized society.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          October 30, 2012 at 11:05 pm

          It damned sure won’t limit itself. To hope that one can be created that will limit itself is absurd.

          tgsam

      • October 30, 2012 at 12:48 pm

        Right, so we need to put imperfect naked apes in power as a check on the imperfection of naked apes.

        • liberranter
          October 30, 2012 at 3:43 pm

          Perfectly stated! To paraphrase one of Murray Rothbard’s many incontestable observations, once you give government, at any level, any power at all, you are giving it all power. It’s a natural law as immutable as that of gravity.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          October 30, 2012 at 11:51 pm

          If not Naked Apes, then what. Robocops?

          • October 31, 2012 at 1:53 am

            I’m fine with Robocops as long as they are programmed to obey the Three laws of Robotics:

            1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

            2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

            3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

          • Boothe
            October 31, 2012 at 3:25 am

            Yeah, robocops would be preferable because they couldn’t be bought off with money, dope or pussy and they wouldn’t be carrying a bunch of emotional baggage from being picked on in grade school.

      • methylamine
        October 30, 2012 at 4:22 pm

        Tinsely–

        Government did well by the victims of Katrina

        Let’s accept your premise first, that it “did well”–arguable but I’ll run with it for now.

        Then the question becomes–by what means did it “do well”? And the glaring answer is: it “did well” by confiscating money at gunpoint from everyone else, to bail out a few unfortunate folk.

        There are so many things wrong with that it’s hard to find a starting point; let’s summarize the points first then:

        1) Money was stolen from me, Eric, Mith, Boothe, etc
        2) It was highly inefficiently allocated
        3) Government “help” directly and indirectly crowded out more-effective private measures
        4) Government “help” further engendered dependency among already-helpless people
        5) The lessons that SHOULD have been learned, were not

        Details:
        1) money stolen–takes no explanation. Would I voluntarily help Katrina victims? Yes! And, I did–despite the fact that at least half my money is stolen from me. I and everyone else could give a lot more if we had twice as much! As it is, Americans give $300 Billion per year to charity. The mind would boggle how much they’d give if they had twice as much to start with.

        2) government is inefficient. In fact it’s criminally inefficient; its purpose is its own perpetuation and power, any “help” it offers is either PR or purely accidental.

        3) multiple rescue efforts were turned away by government; fleets of boats to help evacuate, trucks of goods from Walmart, Lowes, etc turned away, volunteers were sent for three days of sensitivity training before being allowed to dig in and work. DHS with fucking American troops went door-to-door in the richest areas confiscating weapons at gunpoint, blowing up gun-safes to steal legal firearms. Don’t believe it? Click the link. They forced people into the Dome, then withdrew the police (most of whom were too busy looting XBoxes to bother with “protecting and serving”). Trying to walk out of NO? Too bad, police set up sniper-posts and shot people trying to walk across a bridge.

        4) government “help” creates dependency–which is the goal. It disables people; because if I don’t have to protect myself and prepare for natural disaster because Uncle and his Fists of Fury(tm) will save me, of course I’ll act like a slovenly chimpanzee.

        5) instead of learning to prepare next time, all they’ve learned is to whine and bitch more loudly next time for gubmint help. Although, as ineffective as it was, I suspect the ones with IQ’s above room temperature did in fact learn that next time, they’re on their own…and that is exactly the lesson they SHOULD have learned!

        The most frightening words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

        The corollary is “There’s no situation so bad that a cop can’t make it worse.”

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          October 30, 2012 at 10:57 pm

          Dream on. It failed to do so when Betsy struck in 1965. If you think a country the size of the United States can exist with no Government dream on. Even the Founders realized that there must at least be a limited Government. The fact that Americans have failed to insist that the Law of the Land be respected is no fault of theirs.

          *****

          Between the two of us my wife and I paid taxes at gunpoint so to speak for a total of 98 years. Ninety three years before Katrina and the total rose to nine-eight years when Kathy retired in 2011.

          I feel neither shame nor guilt for the assistance we received following Katrina.

          tgsam

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            October 30, 2012 at 11:31 pm

            BTW most of our “recovery” has been a product of insurance. We made a bargain with State Farm and State Farm honored the bargain. However, I appreciate the part played by government following the storm. The National Guard did what it is supposed to do and did it well.

            Natural disasters in other parts of the world cause greater loss of life and suffering than they do in the U.S. and that is surely no coincidence.

            tgsam

          • Scott
            October 31, 2012 at 12:55 am

            Tinsley I don’t think Methyl was saying you shouldn’t have taken whatever assistance was offered you, it sounds as if things worked as well as could have been expected for you personally after Katrina and I’m happy to hear it.

            But the video he cites really is sort of scary, they have film of police or national guard in full battle dress roaming the streets of NO looking for guns and handcuffing property owners. They got a kid on film saying he wasn’t comfortable doing what he was doing. I can’t believe that whole thing was staged.

            I think your right, it’s no fault of the founders, but it’s still a real problem. I’m sort of concerned about what might happen to the east coast during the next few days. Wasn’t it Obama who said crisis presents great opportunity? That sounds like the slogan of the Free Shit Army to me.

          • methylamine
            October 31, 2012 at 2:24 am

            Sorry for all the bold type in the last half of the message, I forgot my “</b>”

            Tinsley, the principle still stands–funds stolen at gunpoint from anyone are morally tainted.

            I’m sorry you’ve paid a cumulative 98 years of taxes; we all suffer under the yoke of our would-be slave-masters.

            It doesn’t justify taking it.

            As much as they’ve extracted from me, I’ll never take a dime from the bastards!

            To do so would put me in the compromising position of feeling at least a grudging bit of gratitude–and it would sicken me.

            Follow Solzhenitsyn–“Don’t fear them, don’t believe them, don’t ask anything of them.”

            Because the truth is, every dime you put in was spent the moment it was received. There’s no “trust fund” or “lock box”. It’s hand-to-mouth, or perhaps more accurately victim-to-assailant.

            And you can see what it’s done to you–a kind of sniveling gratefulness that’s created a blind spot the size of a Winnebago.

            It’s how we domesticate wild animals; set some food in a field. They’ll cautiously approach it one day, take a nibble, and run. Next day, a bit more. Erect an open pen around the food. A little more food. And one day, they’ll be waiting there in the pen for their handout–close the gate, own the animal.

          • Boothe
            October 31, 2012 at 3:13 am

            You’re right Tinsley. A country the size of the United States can’t exist with no government at all. It wasn’t supposed to either. It was supposed to remain the several States that were United only for a few limited purposes. Now we have a national government with powers far exceeding anything Jefferson intended under you Unanimous Declaration and I would dare say even far exceeding anything the criminal Hamilton dreamed of when shilling for the Federalists.

            Some of us *have* insisted that the Law of the Land be respected and we are soundly admonished to shut up and pay up; the PTB have more men and guns. The fact that those same men cause me to live under the implied threat that they will shoot me if I don’t regularly hand over a portion of the fruits of my labor so they can give it to folks like you that voluntarily choose to live in a toilet bowl that sits below sea level and Nature periodically flushs is no fault of mine.

            Just because you’ve been mugged collectively for 98 years with your significant other doesn’t exonerate you when you receive stolen goods from “Big Paulie” or “Uncle Sam.” Sorry dude, theft is theft and receiving other people’s stolen property is wrong regardless of the fact that the property was taken by men in funny suits and sanctioned by a plurality of your fellow countrymen.

            So if you were in prison and the first night they dragged you into the shitter and everyone had their way with you, would you feel no “guilt or shame” when you were first in line to screw the next new guy? Come on Tinsley, I know you’re smarter than that. You’re arrangement with State Farm was a legitimate, free market, risk based transaction. You “won” so to speak, if having to replace all your stuff can be considered winning.

            Your “arrangement” with the gun-vernment on the other hand was a threat based coercive act of fraud where you handed over a portion of your labor because you believed that if you didn’t men with guns would come to your house. Then when your high risk place of residence went where most things built along the Gulf end up (out to sea), you figure taking money from the other mugging victims is okay, because you got mugged first? Explain what make’s that right. I’m curious about your rationale.

          • Mike in Spotsy
            October 31, 2012 at 3:23 am

            Powerful and correct analysis, Boothe.

          • BrentP
            October 31, 2012 at 3:39 am

            Boothe, I wouldn’t be too hard on TGS and other residents of New Orleans and surroundings. Essentially the federal government came in there and screwed things up over decades.

            Their management destroyed the natural buffer zone between the city and the sea. The city as I understand it still relies on pumps and other infrastructure built over a century ago, before the feds.

            The feds steal our money and don’t use it for the people New Orleans, they just steal it telling us they use it for things like that. Had they actually used it to protect New Orleans most Katrina damage could have been prevented.

            Government steals our money telling us it will protect us and/or others and just keeps the money and does nothing or a half-assed slip-shod job. It’s a shakedown. But when the incompetence and poor work is there for all to see the majority just say they need more. So more gets stolen. It’s quite the scam.

            If New Orleans had been left to their own devices and had competent local government they could have protected themselves. Essentially the feds did what government is best at, breaking both of someone’s legs, and handing him crutch saying without them he couldn’t walk. (yes, that’s a famous quote I am borrowing)

          • Boothe
            October 31, 2012 at 4:50 am

            BrentP, it wasn’t that I was trying to be hard on Tinsley. He’s far more intelligent than to try using circular logic like ‘they took my property for X number of years, now it’s my turn.’ And I stand by what I said about the Gulf coast as well as Cape Hatteras and a number of other places along the Atlantic coast: build a house, hotel, restaurant or anything else there and expect to lose it sooner or later.

            What I don’t expect them to do is bill me because they wanted to live in an area that is seen as “desirable”, but is risky. We all know that Nature will give these areas an enema periodically. Let’s face it, the barrier islands along the Carolina coastline protect the inland. Who in their right mind would build something out there on those dunes with any expectation that it would last? And who in their right mind would insure that something? No one except the gun-vernment!

            So just like the bad bets, wasted money and bad decisions made by AIG, Goldman Sachs, Solyndra, GM, Chrysler, ad nauseam are Eric, methyl, Mike, Mithrandir, you and I supposed to work our asses off and then gleefully pick up the tab so other folks can live on the ocean front? It would sure be nice if someone underwrote my follies, but I don’t expect it. Furthermore, I moved off the coast and away from the Communist-wealth of Virginia because I am risk averse to certain extent. If you’re willing to assume the risk of living along the ocean, prepare to pick up the tab when your house becomes drift wood.

            • October 31, 2012 at 10:16 am

              Amen, Boothe –

              I understand the desire to live by the sea. But is it not like desiring to partake of a hobby that necessarily entails high risk? Why should someone’s free choice to live in a known risk area be subsidized at gunpoint by others who prefer to avoid such risks themselves?

              Whoever wants to build a home six inches above sea level and 50 yards from the ocean on a barrier island has every right to do so. But he should accept as the price of his enjoyment the very real possibility that his home likely will be washed into the ocean at some point – and not expect his fellow men to pick up the tab.

          • BrentP
            October 31, 2012 at 1:58 pm

            I am all for people dealing with their own risk. I simply feel in the case of NO the federal government did harm, not good and that the people of NO should have been left to their own devices to protect themselves instead of relying on the feds.

  10. October 30, 2012 at 3:42 am

    FB friend posts article”A Big Storm Requires Big Government”. Predictable Clover comments:

    http://www.facebook.com/carlosmiller/posts/424846200897241

  11. George Elliott
    October 30, 2012 at 1:20 am

    “The idea that it will limit itself to legitimate uses of force is fantasy IMO.” There is no legitimate use of force by humans on humans. Humans have never been free. Humans never will be free.

    • Scott
      October 30, 2012 at 1:59 am

      George I must disagree. There is such a thing as legitimate use of force.

      Use of force in defense is legitimate in my opinion; I may use force to stop you from doing me harm without question. Whether I may use force to stop you from harming someone else is open to debate.

      This is the “Tom Horn” quandary. I see no clear resolution.

    • BrentP
      October 30, 2012 at 2:14 am

      Self defense is always legitimate. However the state will not limit itself to sending the cops in order to aid your defense at your request.

      • Scott
        October 30, 2012 at 2:20 am

        Brent, no it will not. If the State is called, all bets are off. If they show up at all they’ll act as judge. If there are any questions of law they will first cover their butts then maybe act as witnesses.

        You’re best off not calling the cops. I was a cop. My friends are cops. We all understand this.

        • October 30, 2012 at 10:36 am

          In re cops:

          I know a state cop; we both like old motorcycles, so we have “shot the breeze” over bikes. He seems like an ok guy – and has always been friendly toward me. But that is only because he does know me. And even then, I wonder how he’d treat me if say he happened to be coming the other way one day when I was “speeding”?

          One of the many pernicious aspects of “law enforcement” is the gulf it puts between people who – in a sane society – might have been friends.

        • Boothe
          October 30, 2012 at 1:32 pm

          To paraphrase Will Grigg, there’s no human condition so tragic or situation so bad that the police can’t make it worse…

      • Scott
        October 30, 2012 at 2:44 am

        Brent, it might be time for a little “coming out” party.

        I have actually stopped cars at checkpoints. I have made people who had done nothing more than drive a car on New Year’s Eve get out, do the Perp Walk, then maybe go to jail because their registration was out of date.

        I’ve done that. Wearing a uniform. With badges and everything. I’m not particularly proud of it but I got hornswaggled into doing it. Perhaps this is my penance.

        I just wanted to set the record straight. I’ve done other things I was actually proud of. That was not one of them.

        • methylamine
          October 30, 2012 at 4:37 am

          Go say 6.02×10^23 Hail Mary’s, and all will be forgiven.

          Scott please share your awakening from state-worker to reasonable person.

          I think it’s crucially important we all help cops and military in our lives wake up; they’ll be our best allies when SHTF.

        • October 30, 2012 at 10:30 am

          All of this have done things we’re not proud of. The important thing is to try to avoid doing them again!

          • Boothe
            October 30, 2012 at 2:48 pm

            It’s called “repentance”; genuine heartfelt sorrow and regret for the things we’ve done wrong and then striving not to ever do them again. It is one key thing we “naked apes” can do on our own, as compassionate and thoughtful individuals, to help clean up this world. Sadly, too many people are only sorry that they got caught…

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      October 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      That’s because the Naked Ape will never be perfect. There must be an impartial check on his imperfection. Sadly the check itself will never be perfect.

      tgsam

  12. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    October 30, 2012 at 12:55 am

    Rush Limbaugh is hypocrite blowhard pussy. The slimy bastard supported the Drug War while he himself was a legal-drug abuser. Oh, he was sooo… embarrassed and repentant. Didn’t he cry REHAB! when he got popped?

    I don’t keep up with him. Is the swine still an overpaid blowhard?

    tgsam

    • Scott
      October 30, 2012 at 12:59 am

      Hey Tinsley! Ever had to come off oxycontin? Pussies don’t do well :)

      Could be Rush is a blowhard, let’s try not to discuss his medical problems in a derogatory fashion? Fair play?

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 30, 2012 at 12:56 pm

        Twice successfully. Withdrawal discomfort peaks in about 72 hours as does delirium tremens caused by abrupt withdrawal from ethyl alcohol.

        In my experience, and the experience of several alcoholic acquaintances, delirium tremens is much more unpleasant that Restless Legs Syndrome and other withdrawal symptoms experienced during withdrawal from an opioid.

        tgsam

        • Scott
          October 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm

          But when you’ve been on a pretty high does of oxy for a year or more, it goes well beyond restless leg. You have to titrate down over months sometimes. It took me 5 months to come down off 60mg/day and I’m still taking 10mg/day. I went through withdrawal each time I stepped down in 5mg cuts every two weeks. Not fun at all and I still maintain it isn’t a job for pussies :)

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            October 31, 2012 at 12:20 am

            No two individuals have the same body chemistry. For me and for others I’m acquainted with cold turkey has worked best. In fact, I tried but never succeeded in tapering off. The individual must do what is best for himself.

            Do whatever works for you.

            Chippers are likely much more numerous than we will ever know . . . and much more numerous than government and those who profit from Drug Prohibition would have us know.

            tgsam

    • BrentP
      October 30, 2012 at 2:23 am

      Rush Limbaugh has made himself rich by playing the game and selling out. That’s how it’s done in the modern USA.

      Forget about building something yourself from the ground up. Sell out, get allies, get help and win.

      The democrats will never destroy Limbaugh. They need him too. He helps keep the D vs. R distraction going.

      Limbaugh can be caught with way more illegal stuff than his addiction to prescription drugs and not be imprisoned.

      • October 30, 2012 at 10:33 am

        Limbaugh is both a sellout and a demagogue. He’s – in my estimation – a cynical opportunist who got very rich riding the “conservative” wave of the 1980s and ’90s. If the winds changed and the money went left, so would Rush.

  13. RichB
    October 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    And another who had dug out the Matrix recently. Not yesterday but only about a fortnight ago for the first time in a good few years. Perhaps there is something in the air. I remembered recently, a task we were set at school. This was back in the early seventies, the school was a good one and the pupils were well disciplined. Of course, we still used to have times when we used to fantasize about there not being any rules. We wouldn’t have to put up with being told what to do, full freedom, if you like. One day in class our wishes came true and we were told we could run the school (not literally of course, just as a classroom project). We had half an hour or so to collect our thoughts and then explain what life would be like under our own authority. Please remember before you all throw the C word at me that we were only 9 years old at the time. I mentioned in my explanation that there would be far fewer rules but that they would be, (and I remember my exact phrase here) “mainly safety rules”. I had in mind not letting nine year olds cross a busy road unsupervised etc. etc. but the fact of it is the seed of the clover mentality. I found it a sobering thought. Maybe it’s inherent in our nature.

    • MoT
      October 30, 2012 at 3:31 pm

      Rich, it’s not your nature but your environment. When all around you the atmosphere is polluted with statist propaganda and mind control it’s inevitable the very “culture” reeks of it. I don’t blame people, especially the young for not knowing better, because most of us have all been through it.

      • methylamine
        October 30, 2012 at 4:30 pm

        Yet it blows me away that the largest single support group for Ron Paul is…

        The Young!

        How did that come to be? I won’t argue it though, I’m just ecstatic. I try to evangelize them at every opportunity.

        There’s a cadre of young guys who work at the Whole Foods near me; I chat them up at every opportunity. It helps I’ve made two of them significant money–I encouraged them to buy silver when it was $24/oz :)

        There are two young guys who work with me, and one of them is 100% awake and aware, the other about 70% there and growing quickly.

        Humans just instinctively KNOW when they’re being enslaved, and the ones who don’t like it will overcome any brainwashing agenda and object.

  14. DD
    October 29, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    “They are asleep – or evil. There is no middle ground”

    They are tribal monkeys…Sociopaths…They have been programmed by the political terrorists to be inferior and violent toward humans.

  15. lee
    October 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    Once the realization that Eric drawn attention to sinks in, it’s tempting to preach to the choir and to hope that if only “we” could awaken enough of “them,” things would change for the better.

    This is a consoling, if mistaken, belief. Preaching to the choir is a way to vent the energy of frustration, but that’s pretty much all it does. If “cloverism” is going to prevail, as it may for the long denouement until the resources, material and spiritual, of this culture are spent, it may be more productive, for those who share the sentiment that Eric has expressed, to band together, quietly and unobtrusively, to live as mutually supportive “outliers” while Rome burns.

    The system will do as it does until it can do so no more. Meanwhile, how to move beyond complaining about the system to such alternative arrangements as may be practical and rewarding without attracting the attention of those who might have reason to try and prevent the silent secession.

    • October 29, 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Hi Lee,

      In re “silent secession.” I like it.

      But, it’s also important to gather up around us as many like-minded as possible.

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 5:41 pm

      Very good argument there. It’s like what I’ve said to people about various topics like this… You wouldn’t hold a symposium on the nature of combustion in a burning building would you? You’d first get the hell out and either assess and work to save it from the outside, if it’s worth bothering with, or let it burn and build something better. What we have today are people who have been conditioned to accept the fire as natural and are often times actively fanning the flames of their own demise.

  16. Donald Wagner
    October 29, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Dear Eric: Would you please be so kind as to send me a copy of your very interesting “Us vs. Them” essay via my E-Mail. My access to the I-net is mostly through the public library, so when I spot something on the web I want to review later I tuck it aside for more concentrated reading. Thank you very much. (Donald) seahorsedonald@Yahoo.com

  17. John G.
    October 29, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    “…even if none of us now alive will live to see it…”

    Eric, you are part way there.

    Libertarianism is step one, and naturally follows (at least it did for me) once one realizes how much the ruling junta in government, big business, military, medicine, science, and teaching has lied to us, now — and really forever — in our past.

    The next big step is religion.

    A fascinating book just came out last week, ‘Proof of Heaven’, by a Duke-trained neurosurgeon who taught at Harvard for over 10 years. His account of the afterlife — he was in a coma for seven days — accords perfectly from accounts that I have read from ETs who channel through humans (The Law of One, Seth Speaks), humans who were abducted (Secrets of the Saucers), and LSD takers (Heaven and Hell, The Doors of Perception, The Psychedelic Experience).

    We have fascinating (and scary for the unawakened) times ahead of us through December 21st and through 2013. I highly recommend ‘The Source Field Investigations’ to give you a summary of the science that underlies what is going on now and in our immediate future. The path will be bumpy — lots of earthquakes and storms as the earth undergoes physical changes — but the destination — an upgraded earth and humanity — is nothing but good.

    I write this as a logical person (U. of Chicago MBA, former naval officer) who was a life-long active Catholic until last year, when I concluded that the Bible — both OT and NT — was corrupted by the Money Mafia/Ruling Cabal from its very beginning.

    • October 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm

      Hi John,

      Thanks for the kind words – and the tip!

      I will look into The Source Field… sounds interesting -

  18. jwolf
    October 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy#Lack

    “Unlike the control group, the youths with conduct disorder did not activate the area of the brain involved in self-regulation and moral reasoning.”

    Perhaps cloverdom is physical, not unlike iny or outy belly buttons! They may fall along a continuum from zero empathy to some flakey middle ground with their moral reasoning, such as it exists, easily dulled by fear or self interest. No wonder clovers dig “authority”….the poor bastards physically lack the wiring of a moral compass required to discern “the right thing”…..one can see how freedom would scare the shit out of these lost souls.

  19. Texas Redneck
    October 29, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    One morning, while on my way to the office, I spotted a car ahead of me that had a bumper sticker with the following slogan:

    Charity is nice
    Justice is better

    Of course, I HAD to speed up to get a look at the driver, in order to know what “box” to put them into. Turned out to be a upper20/lower 30-something young lady with few distinguishing features, riding alone. I thought for a moment what is inside a person that makes them feel strongly enough about something to put any kind of bumper sticker on their car. I remember the early 90’s when I used to see all the “Rush is Right” stickers, and the usual compliment of political ads in election years. You can tell a lot about a person this way.

    What precisely is this young lady trying to say with her sticker? Charity is an easy-enough word to categorize: generally speaking, charity is when I willingly give up something of mine, for the express purpose of benefitting someone else. Justice, though, is not as easy to pin down. The first question is to ask whose definition of justice is, well, just? It seethes with relativism and subjective opinion.

    So, in order to avoid being accused of constructing this young lady’s opinion into an easily-dispatched straw man, I will offer no speculation as to what she is thinking. I will instead declare out front that I disagree with her slogan at face value, and state my reasons why.

    The reason I believe that charity is better than justice is primarily because charity is generally regarded as voluntary, and justice often comes about by coercive force, and any good that I choose to do willingly is always better than something that may be orders of magnitude “better”, done under the threat of violence.

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 5:33 pm

      Correct. Charity, true charity, comes from the heart. Justice? As “defined” by whom? When man is in that equation you’ve reason to fear.

    • October 29, 2012 at 5:37 pm

      Hi Texas R,

      Excellent story – and reasoning!

      Justice all too often comes down to the advantage of the stronger (Plato). Thus, what was meted out to Herr Goring, et al, was “just.” But The Chimp (and his successors) can do much the same things (and perhaps worse) with impunity. Because – for the moment – they are the stronger.

    • BrentP
      October 29, 2012 at 6:10 pm

      If I am understanding that bumper sticker correctly it comes from the same mentality as the “Prosperity is my Birthright” bumper stickers I’ve seen.

      But as to “Rush is Right” bumper stickers… many years ago all too often in my morning commute I would see a tan volvo wagon driven by a fat guy very aggressively had that bumper sticker.

      With the exception of Ron Paul bumper stickers and those like them I see political bumper stickers as a sign of an asshat driver. Usually of the clover variety…. but every so often like that “Rush is Right” Volvo driver.

      • liberranter
        October 29, 2012 at 10:56 pm

        With the exception of Ron Paul bumper stickers and those like them I see political bumper stickers as a sign of an asshat driver.

        Whenever I see bumper stickers of any kind, my first thought is:

        “How shallow and insecure must you be to feel compelled to advertise your thoughts and beliefs on your car bumper, and how arrogant you must be to think that perfect strangers actually want to see them!”

        • MoT
          October 30, 2012 at 3:27 pm

          Much like vanity license plates except in that case you pay the State for the privilege of naming your masters dog tags.

          • liberranter
            October 30, 2012 at 3:36 pm

            That boggles my mind even more than the bumper sticker thing. Why ANYONE would pay one extra thin dime to the State that they didn’t have to, especially to inflate their own pathetic ego, is completely beyond rational explanation.

  20. COMMUTATUS
    October 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    How many of you vociferous pundits train with weapons with your family and friends on a monthly basis?………………Until all will stand for one and one for all it’s all coffee house bullshit!
    “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Good suggestion but I wouldn’t “admit” as much. Big Brother is watching.

    • October 29, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      I try to as often as I feasible can. The problem (for me at least) is that practicing is getting pricey!

      • liberranter
        October 29, 2012 at 10:50 pm

        Yep, especially if you own weapons of different calibers and need to stock up on ammo for each. A typical “training day” can easily blow through a C-note worth of shells!

  21. Roger and Lynn Bloxham
    October 29, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Excellent thoughts, lucidly written.
    Also great commentary from your readers. Eric, I do believe you have a very perceptive assembly of admirers. Thanks for such a great article.

    also, my best thoughts for those who, like Ray, have run into trouble with the powers that be. Seven months is a long time. Hope it works out better for you.

    • October 29, 2012 at 5:49 pm

      Thanks!

      One of the best things about this site is the quality of the people posting. And interestingly, the few who post negatives replies – Clovers – are almost all near-illiterates who emote rather than reason.

  22. jyarry3
    October 29, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    When the subject of paying taxes comes up I always state that the reason I pay taxes is because the government has a gun pointed at my head to make me do it.
    Most people that hear me say that don’t get it.
    Some think I am being “radical”, whatever that means.
    A few nod their heads in silent agreement but rarely defend that postion in front of those who think paying taxes is patriotic.

      • stinky
        October 29, 2012 at 4:15 pm

        SALES TAX! Nooooooo. NOT. An income tax requires the government to keep track of everyone’s income. With your nice “fair” sales tax, they get to keep track of every penny and every thing everyone buys and sells. Great.
        http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/fairtax.htm

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          October 30, 2012 at 1:12 am

          I find it impossible to believe that a single sales tax is worse than the IRS.

          For most sales, why would your name be included in an inventory? Unless a person is existing under a boulder in a remote forest area, government knows just about all they want to know anyhow.

          Gun rattling secrecy bullshit is just that . . . bullshit. Why would a self-sufficient Citizen want to live in secret anyhow?

          I figure that if government wants me behind bars it would take them less than an hour to put me there. The burden would then be on me to be released.

          tgsam

          • Tre Deuce
            October 30, 2012 at 1:48 am

            The ‘Value added’ tax is the only way to get the IRS off of our backs.

            Businesses are equipped to handle tax administration book keeping and payments, so releave the individual tax payer from the intrusion of the IRS in their life, and increase the ratio of tax paid/collected.

            Legally, this is the only way the IRS can collect taxes, because of the 10th amendment, and only then, if the business does intrastate business.

            • October 30, 2012 at 10:50 am

              Well, except for the businesses charged with collecting the VAT! So, if you transact in any way, you must collect the tax – which implies an enforcement mechanism to collect it. What would happen to individuals buying and selling among themselves (such as eBay)?

              I grant that a sales tax is preferable to a direct tax on income (and property) but it’s only a slight improvement and ultimately doesn’t challenge the underlying tyrannical premise. Humanity has lived under the yoke of tithing to the state for endless countless generations. I think the time has come to end the practice. And to end it, we must challenge it – the very idea of it.

              All human interactions ought to be voluntary. Force should be regarded as morally legitimate only when it is necessary for defense of persons or property.

              This may seem impractical at first (it seemed so to me, too). But I’ve around to the idea that it’s just not so. Even now, most people do not murder, steal, rape. And would not, even if “law enforcement” went away tomorrow. The few who would could be dealt with more effectively – and righteously – without a system of violence-backed law-enforcement. Indeed, if society were to be based upon natural law (the basis of common law) then probably crimes such as thievery, murder, rape, etc. would diminish as society became more morally healthy based on clear lines of demarcation between right – and wrong.

              Today, we have a society based on grift and opportunism – permeated by violence. Is it surprising that crimes waxes rather than wanes?

          • MoT
            October 30, 2012 at 3:54 am

            There is nothing to constrain a VAT from ever increasing. What constitutes “fair”? What the collectors dictate? In their twisted lizard brains there is never enough to satisfy their desire to control and accumulate power. As they say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          October 30, 2012 at 1:18 am

          You speak of a so-called fair tax. I do not. A so-called fair tax is bullshit.

          Beware of the word “fair” it is a dangerous buzzword.

          tgsam

      • Bill
        October 29, 2012 at 4:40 pm

        Why are all these people ready and willing to pay taxes at all? I just don’t get it. Clovers to the left, clovers to the right and I’m stuck in the middle.

        • Bill
          October 29, 2012 at 4:43 pm

          Posted that before I finished my thought. They have me surrounded, I don’t understand what is so hard to grasp about the fact that TAXATION IS THEFT!

        • October 29, 2012 at 5:42 pm

          They’ve been conditioned from birth to accept it as their obligation – the “price of civilization,” as it is often (ironically) called.

      • October 29, 2012 at 5:48 pm

        I’ve come around to the view that all taxes – that is, compulsory fees taken at gunpoint – are precisely that: Compulsory fees taken at gunpoint. Even though I would be ecstatic if the taxes on income and property went away, it’s inevitable they’ll return if we admit any tax as morally permissible.

  23. October 29, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Eric, this is brilliant and succinct. This theme of the “The Matrix” has been gnawing at me for the past week. Thank You for this piece. I’ll share this one, for sure.

    Final thought: Just because a belief makes us feel good, does not make it true. Just because something is unsettling, does not make it untrue.

    Being on the outside of “The Matrix” is very unsettling.

  24. L C HOWELL
    October 29, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    A good article – makes sense to me – but wish it is written more in “laymans terms” for the less learned to understand.

  25. Ferdinand A. Hoischen
    October 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    Brilliant! Your best article for a long time!

  26. skunkbear
    October 29, 2012 at 8:50 am

    A gun to the head. That is the very essence of government. And I am glad to see you use that term, Eric. It is the way I argue with the unseeing.

    I have found it amazing how people react when you put everything in terms of “a gun to the head” when discussing government or new laws etc. Ninety-nine percent of the people I talk to can not even grasp the idea of what government truly is.

    I always make it personal too. For example, when discussing drug laws, I will ask the person, So you would put a gun to the head of a person you do not know and is not harming anyone else but is smoking pot – a plant found in nature – and would march him into a cage and deprive him of part of his life?

    And I press the point by asking them if they are not personally willing to do that to someone – to look that human being in the eye while holding the gun to their head – then how can they morally justify having this thing called “The State” do it on his behalf?

    • October 29, 2012 at 9:08 am

      Hi Skunk,

      I’ve rattled it around in my head for years and am now convinced that they only way to make the point is to make your adversary confront the violence. It is not pretty or pleasant – and it will make for some uncomfortable social interactions. But that is precisely why it must be done. We – those of us who oppose aggressive violence – must make those who speak in gentle-sounding euphemisms and platitudes confront what they really support – and what they really are if they continue to support it.

      • Aelfric
        October 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm

        you know, eric, you are so right about your conclusions. i have a question for you…what if you were to make them confront the consequences of their vague actions…made them confront the violence that they never see, only exuberantly vote for every four years…….and they LIKE IT?? what then? what if they are a-ok with the amorality of their choices? ….well, so what? it ain’t me! i aint the one bein “gitmo-ed” for X reason….so what of it?
        what do we do then? i posit that it is already too late to make the clovers face their “waterloo” in terms of facing the consequences. they don’t CARE. …and they never have, as evidence from around the world seems to favor repeating history, no one has cared to learn the many lessons from the many conflicts …why and how is the present time any different? i am not trying to piss on your parade here, please don’t walk away with that idea…i just re-read my own post and it does sound a bit cynical and hopeless, but i was just wondering what do we DO at the point where the clovers don’t seem to care…is all i’m asking….b/c after the events of the last twenty years or so, we seem to be headed for round x….what number does this one make? lol peace.

        • liberranter
          October 29, 2012 at 10:37 pm

          i have a question for you…what if you were to make them confront the consequences of their vague actions…made them confront the violence that they never see, only exuberantly vote for every four years…….and they LIKE IT?? what then? what if they are a-ok with the amorality of their choices? ….well, so what? it ain’t me! i aint the one bein “gitmo-ed” for X reason….so what of it?

          You’ve hit the nail on the head and have found the crux of the problem. That really IS the conundrum we face: far too many of the Clovermajority believe that “as long as it’s happening to somebody else (“poodles” I call them, which stands for “People “We” ["we" being the majority] Don’t Like), then it’s not a problem and the ends justify the means.

          While it’s tempting to want to force the Clovers into a situation where they get a nice big personal (and hideously painful) taste of the aggressive violence that they advocate for the “poodles,” anyone of libertarian bent realizes that to do so would probably mean violating the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), an unacceptable option for those who value integrity, morality, and honesty. Yet it’s hard to think of any other way that the point can be driven home. Given human nature, the only way many people ever “wake up and smell the coffee” is if the scalding-hot stuff is poured on them and gives them third-degree burns.

          So, in short, I don’t know what the answer is other than to just hope and pray that Clover is compelled, by circumstances not involving you as a committed libertarian, to re-evaluate his devotion to the lie that he has lived all of his life.

          • Matthew
            October 31, 2012 at 12:59 am

            Sorry to reply so late in the game.

            So what do you do? Take them at their word and WALK AWAY. Just like you would in any other situation where someone is threatening violence.

            Tell them ” I don’t feel safe/comfortable around violent people. Good bye.”

            Don’t be their friend. Don’t buy from them or sell to them. Don’t talk to them. Don’t hire them. Don’t date them.

            Also don’t go around badmouthing them to others, but if asked, explain it. Simply.

            I know this is easier said than done, but I’m convinced this is the path to freedom.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      October 29, 2012 at 10:48 am

      Or injecting heroin,or drinking ethyl alcohol or introducing any other substance into one’s own body.

      Half measures avail us nothing in the end. When it comes to Liberty and Justice one must go for the jugular. There must be an across the board repeal of de facto Prohibition.

      “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.” –Juvenal

      tgsam

    • October 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm

      Only once did I have a conversation where the other individual admit he believed that a coercive government is necessary for a peaceful, cohesive, just, and moral society. Most other conversations usually involve “love it or leave it”, “move to Somalia”, “write your congress critter”, “elect someone who believes as you do” “it’s a social contract”, a highly emotional reply that involves some choice words, or just plain hands over ears “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

      Sometimes I feel like I’m in the movie Groundhog Day.

      • Mithrandir
        October 29, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Only difference is you do not get to change things the same way as Bill Murray.

      • Monty
        October 29, 2012 at 1:05 pm

        You must be careful when attempting to point out the matrix to a clover. Some of them are allergic to the red pill.

        Some of them have a rather VIOLENT reaction. They are also dangerous in herds. You must never attempt to administer the red pill to a herd….you will be trampled in the stampede from reality.

        Usually you must start building up a tolerance to the red pill by slipping it in slowly over time.

      • BrentP
        October 29, 2012 at 5:56 pm

        I’ve cornered a couple who to get out of the corner admitted they were fine with the violence. It doesn’t work as well as stefan molyneux says IMO. There are more people out there that are just fine using violence to do their ‘good deeds’.

      • Scott
        October 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm

        In any stable society coercive government absolutely *is* necessary. Consider the complete lack of organized force against the murderer, the rapist, the gun toting bully; whether force is used by an individual directly effected by the aggressor or it’s used by proxy, it will be used to control predators. Eventually this force evolves into an agent of society we call “government”. It’s happened in the past, it will again.

        I think the important conversation concerns the limits of society. What assurance of liberty and freedom does the individual have? What are the rules of engagement? When can society use force against the individual?

        The folks who founded the United States took a shot at writing down those limits when they drafted the Bill of Rights. They recognized that some rules were necessary and they tried to express them as purely as possible, however they’ve pretty much been abandoned two centuries later. Now we have lethal force being administered against homeless sick people in downtown Los Angeles in complete abeyance of any law that would prohibit it. Now it’s a matter of officer safety, Bill of Rights be damned.

        Liberals talk about a “social contract” but deny the Bill of Rights is the contract. That’s the disconnect.

        An Anarchist can get away with living by himself in te woods, but if you’re going to have any sort of society you’re going to need ground rules. The US had them once but it doesn’t anymore. That, in my opinion, is the problem.

        • Kratoklastes
          October 29, 2012 at 8:33 pm

          “In any stable society coercive government absolutely *is* necessary.” NONSENSE.

          The notion that, in the absence of monopoly government, there will be no capacity to protect property or person from encroachment, is ignorant nonsense.

          The very best example I can think of is the Icelandic Commonwealth – which lasted 400 years and had a legal system in which all violations of rights were remedied privately (and where the victim could actually SELL their right to prosecute to a third party). There were competing jurisdictions – both (quasi-)political and (quasi-)judicial: a person ould live in one ‘Thing’ (the name for the quasi-political regions) but be a sworn member of a completely-different ‘Thing’.

          The Icelandic Commonwealth lasted over 400 years, and was stable. It began to be eroded only when the Christian nutjobs invaded – because they would NOT PERMIT ‘competitive’ government[s]: they insisted that they, and ONLY they, were the ‘right’ people to be in charge.

          Honestly, you should do a good course in economic history (and economics more generally) – to simply prate like a moron about how a set of ruling parasites is REQUIRED for stability just makes you look like a serf.

          • methylamine
            October 29, 2012 at 8:58 pm

            Kratoklastes–while I agree completely that coercive government is not necessary…as evidenced by the Icelandic experience…

            …I wouldn’t cast aspersions on Scott. He’s a long-running and erudite member on the board here and I guarantee what he says he’s spent long and hard thinking about.

            I do like the “‘phyle” concept, especially as fictionalized in Neal Stephenson’s “Snow Crash” and “The Diamond Age”. It’s completely workable.

            The key to abolishing the State is to simply DO IT; in a post-crash situation, establish a ‘phyle and live by the NAP. Create private security, totally voluntary courts, and other private measures for justice.

            The chief argument I’ve heard against it is that neighboring ‘phyles will gang up and rob smaller, weaker, stateless ‘phyles. But I remain unconvinced; if every member of a ‘phyle believes strongly in his ‘phyle and the NAP, and is armed, it would be impossible to “take over” a phyle.

            In fact–no leaderless organization can be “taken over” by definition. It is nation-states that create war, because it is profitable to topple the leadership–and thereby gain for oneself new cattle formerly under the toppled regime.

            If it’s a bunch of wolves, they’re no good to you!

          • Scott
            October 29, 2012 at 9:06 pm

            I’d say where you lost me was when I used the word “government” prematurely in the sentence. The use of coercive force is necessary in any society, that use evolves into government almost all the time. Even the case you cite (Iceland) recognizes the ability to exchange a judicious use of force via a legal system, which is, by any other name, government.

            I’m not fond of being called a moron.

          • Scott
            October 29, 2012 at 9:17 pm

            BTW Kratoklastes, I don’t just look like a serf, it’s my surname.

          • October 29, 2012 at 10:02 pm

            “The use of coercive force is necessary in any society, that use evolves into government almost all the time.”

            Coercive force could be justified in a free society. For instance, minus the monopoly protection service we are all forced to pay for and use at the point of a gun, private protection/investigative services would spring up. If someone were to commit a violent act against me or my family, I would engage the private service I use to investigate, and apprehend the individual(s) involved. Stateless or not, violent thugs are not necessarily going to give themselves up voluntarily, so some sort of aggressive action may be required to get the matter resolved. There are three very good vids that go into detail on how it could exist: Man Against
            the State – http://managainstthestate.blogspot.com/

            The are found in the right panel

          • Scott
            October 29, 2012 at 10:35 pm

            lberns1, use of force is always coercive. When a thug shows up at my door, shoots my dog and comes into the living room, I can assure you my shotgun is meant as a form of coercion :)

            What I think we need to focus on is not whether there will be coercion, but under what circumstances it will be allowed. The pendulum has swung so far in favor of the State that there are essentially no limits to the use of force against the individual. I believe it’s wholly naive to propose a society in which coercion is never used, simply because I believe there are justified uses of force. Having accepted that, we can move on to discussing the real problem.

            I propose the so called “social contract” that protects individuals from abuse by the collective has been violated. I don’t think it’s productive to spend time biting ourselves on the small of the back arguing about whether or not the use of coercive force is *ever* necessary, rather I think we might want to devote some time to considering the conditions under which it is never allowed. I think that was the approach taken by the authors of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights; they were documents that either enumerated specific rights of the state, or rights of the people. Anything not expressly allowed the State was forbidden. Specific rights of the individual we’re absolute and could not be violated under *any* circumstance.

            Those documents have been horribly eroded over the course of years. Maybe they need an update but I’d rather think they just need to be read, understood and lived by.

          • October 29, 2012 at 11:05 pm

            “simply because I believe there are justified uses of force.”

            I believe force is justified when used defensively.

            “Maybe they need an update but I’d rather think they just need to be read, understood and lived by.”

            How about the part where it claims the state has the right to steal your money? I don’t adhere to the magic Scroll theory anymore. Suggesting that I’m obligated to obey the words on some piece of paper written by a bunch of guys who’ve been dead for 200 years is patently absurd, anymore. It was their contract, not mine.

            I like how Larken Rose puts it:
            I’m Allowed to Rob You! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

          • Scott
            October 29, 2012 at 11:38 pm

            lberns1, we agree on the justified use of force, it may only be used in defense. Where we’ve lost track is in what constitutes defense.

            Clover will claim stopping you for speeding is “defense”, since you could run into him or lose control and cause property damage. Therefore you should be coerced to not speed. Your property may be seized and your livelihood taken from you. It isn’t necessary for you to actually cause harm, you may be subject to forcible coercion because you *might* cause harm. This is the Doctrine of Preemption.

            The doctrine is fairly new. Under it, you may be required to remove a propane gas grill from your deck because your neighbor is concerned it might explode. There’s always a chance his kids might burn themselves on it while you aren’t looking or that one of your other neighbors might run over it in a fit of drunken frenzy. Since no one can deny the possibility, you can’t have your barbeque.

            Then there’s Iran. It may be true they’re just doing good business selling a high priced commodity like oil and using the proceeds to refine cheap uranium (which they have in abundant supply) for power. Heck, none of the big petrochemical houses want to build refineries in Iran anyway and it’s relatively easy to refine uranium. But Iran *could* MAYBE build a nuclear device. Never mind they have no delivery system, they could build a BOMB! Of course, if they did they’d be turned into 20,000 square miles of radioactive glass in about 15 minutes, which is why we built the Trident D5 system back in the 70’s. But who’s really paying attention to that?

            On the subject of stealing money; the State had the right to raise taxes in times of defense when the nation is threatened. The income tax is not part of the Constitution, I’m certain you already know that. I’d bet you also already know that the Constitution deliberately limits a standing army, using words that were too easily sidestepped. We should probably have that part fixed?

          • October 30, 2012 at 12:08 am

            The state is a legal fiction, an idea, and is about as believably legitimate as Santa Claus. What we really have ruling over us is a gang of thugs that makes the mafia look like choir boys. Call it what you want: U.S.A., Brazil, Iran, Jets, Sharks… It’s all about protecting turf at all costs.

          • Scott
            October 30, 2012 at 12:18 am

            @lberns1

            Yes.

          • Scott
            October 30, 2012 at 12:38 am

            @Kratoklastes

            The surname Cherf was originally Cerv (from the Czech) when my Grandfather emigrated from Bohemia to Wisconsin in 1902. Cerv, in Czech, simply means “small white worm” or “maggot”. It’s not clear the word follows from the Latin for “serv”, which is the root word for servant and means “a worker on a feudal holding”.

            I prefer the Japanese version; Samurai.

          • Kratoklastes
            October 30, 2012 at 1:36 am

            Two things (for Scott, mostly)…

            (1) Semantics (but relevant). If someone writes that you’re “prating like a moron”, that’s not the same as saying “you’re a moron” – simply that you’re acting like one in this instance. We all have blind spots where, despite being otherwise intelligent, we screw the pooch (hands up someone who knows a person with an above-average IQ who smokes?).

            (2) Coercion and force are two very different things (coercion requires force or the threat thereof; force does not require coercion).

            The application of force (o violence) is not coercive per se: think about defensive/responsive violence.

            To say ‘all violence is coercive’ is incorrect: I may (say) beat the crap out of an adversary NOT in order to force him to my view, but simply to punish him for a prior wrong. I seek only to be ‘made whole’, not to have the adversary change his stance.

            YMMV, but when I think of the word ‘coercion’ in the context of rights-enforcement, I take it to mean that membership of, or contributions toward the funding of, the enforcement institution is extracted by force or threat of force.

            Now it is entirely possible (and desirable) to have competing, voluntary rights-enforcement mechanisms where the targets (i.e., the malefactors, as far as the membership is concerned) make no contribution whatsoever to the maintenance or funding of the institution that’s punishing them.

            I also disagree that the Icelandic Commonwealth is supportive of your hypothesis: competition (for membership) BETWEEN ‘Thing’s meant that to the extent possible, the leadership of each ‘Thing’ had incentives to administer the Thing as efficiently as possible.

            The very existence of competitors serves as a bulwark against concentration of power and the tendency of ‘top’ positions to be captured by sociopathic parasites.

            Bear in mind also, that the IC ‘experiment’
            * lasted longer than any democracy has (to date);
            * was entirely peaceful (no ‘going abroad in search of monsters to destroy’); and
            * took place in a pre-Industrial, pre-Technological period where there was precious little productive surplus (which is what funds .gov).

            So in the IC, a society with a LOWER per capita productive surplus, was able to support and sustain several competing non-State, quasi-government/judicial structures without ANY of it experiencing funding pressure or needing to raise gargantuan debts in order to survive. Under ‘democracy’ (and State systems generally) there has never been, and will never be, a set of institutions that can make this boast.

            Of course there was also not a raft of bullshitters and parasites lining up to rake the productive surplus into their own coffers – the Cheneys, Fulds, Paulsons, Rubins and their ilk.

            The idea that all non-State rights-enforcement mechanisms eventually transmogrify into State apparatus, is a straw man.

            The only way such a transformation could occur is by eliminating competition: it is not possible to eliminate competition without ALREADY being a State – because it is literally impossible to attain the scale necessary unless you’re already a State. (Blackwater/Xe/Academi could not ‘run’ the US – it could not run a town).

            And here’s the thing: if all .gov functions were delivered on a voluntary basis with only those who used .gov services being responsible for their funding, there would be IMMENSE pressure for .gov debt to be zero… because otherwise, ‘clients’ would cease to subscribe the moment the bill became due.

            Just as we Industrial/Technological Age humans have never tried genuinely free markets, neither have we ever tried actual political freedom (which includes complete freedom FROM politics, of course). That said… prior to the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial and Technological Revolutions, nobody had ever experienced life with RELIGIOUS freedom.

            But then we did – and there was no going back.

          • Scott
            October 30, 2012 at 1:42 am

            Kratoklastes let’s have some Huhu and talk about this another time.

          • Scott
            October 30, 2012 at 2:05 am

            @Kratoklastes

            A parting thought would be not to argue or apologize to a moron, even one named after a Huhu.

        • BrentP
          October 29, 2012 at 9:23 pm

          What is a coercive government but an institution where the murderer, rapist, and bully may go about their activities without risk to themselves?

          Governments spring from criminal gangs or are taken over by criminal gangs.

          I learned that government would not protect me when I was in government school. Did government school, the institution, the people who operated it protect me from the bullies and thieves? No. They tied my hands with regard to defending myself but offered no protection. This why ultimately I know government does not protect me. I learned that not being attacked, not being robbed is not because big bad government protects us but because most people don’t want to be attacked or robbed themselves.

          When people look to the government to prevent these things they run rampant. Why? Because the state isn’t morality. The state is an institution. A bunch of people who are looking out for their own interests. Not an almighty good protector. It’s a cop who wants to go home on time. It’s legislator who wants to get re-elected. Protecting your stuff? Bah.

          The criminal is a criminal. He doesn’t fear the state and those who fear the state aren’t likely to be criminals without one. What criminals fear is self defense or the neighbor who cares. That’s who criminals fear. The cops will come along later and maybe catch them, maybe not. Then they go to prison which might be an improvement in living standards. The empowered homeowner may likely shoot them dead.

          Of course the smart criminal gets a government job or gets elected.

          • Scott
            October 29, 2012 at 9:35 pm

            Brent, I’d only rephrase “What is a coercive government but an institution” into “What is a government but a coercive institution”

            That was my point. The nature of “society” is government, without government there can be no society, only individuals who never interact.

            To have a society there must be rules. Even a family has rules.

            Like I said, an anarchist can live free in the woods (as I do), but a society, by definition, has rules:

            society |səˈsīətē|
            noun ( pl. -ties)
            1 the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community : drugs, crime, and other dangers to society.
            • the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations : the high incidence of violence in American society | modern industrial societies.

          • BrentP
            October 29, 2012 at 10:32 pm

            Um government is an institution for criminals to thrive in. Your rephrasing deletes the point I was making.

            Society is not government. Those who want power want us to think that, but government is an over lording parasite upon society.

            If government disappeared entirely tomorrow morning at 6am and people weren’t told of it, it would hardly be noticed. If the people decided tomorrow they didn’t want government it would fail in an instant and society would continue.

            Society is the voluntary interaction of people for mutual benefit. Government is coercive for the benefit of those with power and influence.

          • Scott
            October 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm

            I agree government would not be missed at 6am if were to suddenly vanish, but I’ll ask you to consider what would take its place?

            You speak of voluntarism, I agree. After government faded away (or fell off a cliff) I’d at first not notice. Then I’d probably start making and selling beer without a license.

            But after a couple years, when my neighbor came over to tell me someone stole his horse and asked for my help, I’d probably get my rifle and go out with him. If I lived through it, it’s likely the next time someone stole a horse I’d get a call. Eventually I’d either give it up completely or start charging people. Maybe I’d get elected Sheriff. The point is, at some point the coercive use of force would be re-invented, because it’s *necessary*.

            Then there’d be laws written about when I could and couldn’t shoot someone for stealing livestock (see the movie “Tom Horn” for how this all works out).

            My point is that what we have now is just a corrupted version of what we need and what we will re-invent if it goes away somehow. The problem isn’t coercion, it’s the illegitimate *use* of coercion.

            I hope that clarifies the point.

          • BrentP
            October 29, 2012 at 11:43 pm

            If someone stole your neighbor’s horse now the resulting condition is the same. To get your neighbor’s horse back you and your neighbor are going to have to go out and look for it. The government isn’t going to look for it.

            Government protecting us is an illusion. Once that is realized it becomes clear that a future without government is a future without a parasite on our backs. The ‘bad’ things are no different than they are today with a government.

            If government were to re-establish itself after a disappearance it would simply mean that people haven’t really learned anything and thus will be lorded over by criminals and sociopaths again.

            If a confined mind sees a monopoly of violent coercion as the only way then it will re-establish and the criminals will end up in power again. But if people learn something then a different system will rise in its place that will prevent the monopoly from forming and not create institutions that favor criminals and sociopaths.

            What we have now is what government is. What it starts out as or what it becomes. A criminal gang ruling over a given physical territory. The idea that it will limit itself to legitimate uses of force is fantasy IMO.

            The only way to achieve having an institution that only uses violence legitimately is for it not to be a monopoly on legal violence, and if it doesn’t have a monopoly it’s not a government any more, it’s something else.

          • Scott
            October 30, 2012 at 12:04 am

            @Brent

            “The idea that it will limit itself to legitimate uses of force is fantasy IMO.”

            And in mine. It’s unfortunate that we essentially agree on this point even though we come to it by different paths.

          • methylamine
            October 30, 2012 at 4:30 am

            @Brent:

            Society is the voluntary interaction of people for mutual benefit. Government is coercive for the benefit of those with power and influence.

            Precisely! That’s what I was getting at in my long-winded heroin post above; that is:

            Don’t confuse society with government, the first is voluntary and works, the second is coercive…and doesn’t.

            Scott I think we’re all tied up with semantics. “Government” as defined by the criminal gang now presiding, vs. “government” the concept of mutual enforcement of agreed-upon rules. Very different animals.

          • Scott
            October 30, 2012 at 7:37 pm

            Methyl, you’re right we’re tied up in a semantic debate. My original purpose was to explore the difference between “society” and “government”. I took an intentionally contrarian position by claiming that the use of force by “society” inevitably evolves into “government”.

            My point is there must be a set of ground rules society uses to limit government’s use of force. We used to have that social contract, we called it the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

            So what can we do differently? How did we come to this? Why is our Bill of Rights no good? Where did we go wrong?

            Proposals to chuck the whole mess and start over sound attractive until you have to figure out exactly what you’d do differently next time. I can’t find it. When I read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution I don’t have major problems with it. The difficulty seems to be that it isn’t respected by our Judiciary, our Legislature or our Executive. It’s as if it didn’t exist for all practical purposes. How do you fix that?

            • October 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm

              First, people have to be fixed. When enough Americans recover their senses – specifically, when enough Americans once again accept the idea that men ought to be free to do as they please so long as what they do causes no harm to others – all else will follow.

              The problem we’ve got now is that too many people believe they have a right to tell others what to do at gunpoint; to take their property; to deprive them of their freedom of action – their ability to pursue happiness.

          • BrentP
            October 31, 2012 at 12:19 am

            The so-called “social contract” does not exist. It’s a fiction, a device of argument where someone who wants to implement their own ‘good idea’ at another person’s expense or desires to tell another person how to live. It has nothing to do with individual’s rights and everything about the individual surrendering his rights.

    • Ray
      October 29, 2012 at 1:15 pm

      Indeed. I am facing up to 7 months for a minuscule amount as well as the loss of my driver’s license for up to 10 years. This despite having a medical reason for its use. Not medicine in this state, although synthetic THC can be prescribed (@ $1400/mo). Tried to feel well enough to eat so that I can provide for my wife and little girl. Not in the ‘land of the free.’ The sad irony is that the guy in front of the judge before me at the initial appearance was in jail for not supporting his children (as if he could from a cage even if he were so inclined).

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 29, 2012 at 4:26 pm

        They don’t want you incarcerated unless there is a shortage of prisoners generated by unconstitutional, therefore criminal*, drug prohibition. Let us know how much money your juris doctor and the State extort from you by enforcing unconstitutional law.

        The real criminals are those who benefit financially from your persecution.

        REMEMBER NUREMBERG!

        Tinsley Grey Sammons

        *It is a crime to be aware of a crime and fail to report it. Ron Paul’s assertion that the Drug War is unconstitutional became part of the Congressional Record. Again, REMEMBER NUREMBERG!

        If you have a mailing address that you are comfortable with, I’ll be happy to mail you a free copy of my AMERICA’S FORSAKEN PROMISE on DVD.

        bastlaw@yahoo.com

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 4:35 pm

      I make it more personal now. In the course of a discussion over taxation or anything dealing with Statist “coercion” I firstly forewarn the one listening that I’m going to demonstrate it to them and not to be surprised. This gets their interest piqued and I calmly go through the motions of asking them whether they’d willingly pay for this or that but eventually I quickly whip up my hand and closely point it to their temple and say something like “Give me your money motherfucker or else I’ll kill you!” This gets them jumping with eyes wide open. You should see the shock. I then calmly tell them it’s all for the greater good and they should be grateful to participate in this our grand American experiment in “democracy”. Asking them at this point do they feel that the way things are is so wonderful will then get the heads whipping back and forth saying NO. It all boils down to the gun in the room argument that Molyneaux will pontificate about.

      • methylamine
        October 29, 2012 at 4:53 pm

        Good trick MoT!

        Keeping the conversation calm, but eventually asking “well if it’s OK for the police–your surrogates–to hold a gun to my head to pay for things I’m morally opposed to…would YOU PERSONALLY hold that gun?”

        I’ve had a few successes with it; and by “success” I mean “I’d never really thought of it that way…”

        I suspect the drama in your technique will get a very visceral response–and that’s fantastic, because it uses the very same emotional manipulations against the globalists that they’ve been using against us!

        • MoT
          October 29, 2012 at 5:27 pm

          Exactly. You first of all have to “know” your audience well enough to play this. I was discussing this very matter with my seventeen year old daughter, and while I didn’t use those EXACT words, I thought she was going to pee in her pants!

          You really have to wake people up using dramatic foils of this sort in order to shake off the hypnotic conditioning our “culture” pumps down their throat each and every day.

          I’ve moved towards this sort of “guerrilla” technique since it’s so outside the box of what they’re used to: Whipped cream discussions served on Teflon-coated minds.

    • BrentP
      October 29, 2012 at 5:47 pm

      “gun to the head” on another autos forum where someone was once again putting forth that the government saves us from unsafe cars I started to use that. I then re-edited because I’ve found that such language while true and understood by us causes ‘normals’ to shut down intellectually entirely. What little window they have open shuts to protect their belief system. So I rewrote my reply to ‘do it the way your neighbors say or else’. He was saying we ‘vote’ for politicians but not corporate executives. He was on the run after I linked him to FMVSS 108 on the government’s own site where they discuss that the standard was constructed by taking largely from SAE, a private organization.

      • MoT
        October 29, 2012 at 6:24 pm

        Correct. You have to couch it to the audience, time, and place. But you have to be firm and no slow-pitches.

  27. Tor Munkov
    October 29, 2012 at 7:24 am

    Doen hierdie 3 dinge:
    -Lyk dinge in die gesig en hulle ken vir wat hulle is.
    -Hou ‘n onbezwaard gees.
    -Jy kies ‘n dokter en betaal hom 20 menthol Kools ‘n chirurgiese skyn werk te doen op jou eyeballs sodat jy kan sien wie bekruip jon en die donker.
    –cape dutch–Gospel according to Riddick–3 things todo. Look things in face see for what they are. Have untroubled spirit. Pick up a doctor pay him 20 menthol Kools todo a surgical shinejob on your eyeballs so you can see who’s sneaking up on you in the dark.

    • methylamine
      October 31, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Hoe ken jy Afrikaans, Tor? (How do you know Afrikaans, Tor?)

      Are you the third South African on the board or am I forgetting we’ve had this conversation before?

      My ma is ‘n Afrikaans-sprekende, maar pa is Engels.
      (My mom’s Afrikaans-speaking, but dad’s English-speaking).

  28. Anonymous
    October 29, 2012 at 6:30 am

    Obviously, we can identify any number of reasonings behind Clovers’ lack of empathy, but there is one group that’s been striking me lately as especially disturbing, that of the selfish moralist. Different from the leftist/liberal/progressive narrative on poverty, oppression, and the nature of the state, the moralist position expresses a reckless disregard for or denial of any ill or even counterproductive effects of policy on their fellow man because of the innate and extreme immorality of some scenarios. At least with the liberal you can identify a certain naivety or selfishness expressed through some semblance of good intentions, but more and more I see the moralist position as absolutely asinine and malicious. I come across people far more often than what’s healthy for my sanity who express thoughts such as destroying yourself through drugs is so utterly immoral that “not condoning” (in which legality equates condoning) such action should be the only conceivable end in society in relation to drugs, even honestly acknowledging to a large extent the results of the drug war. Or that traditional marriage is an institution with such immeasurable moral value that it requires absolute endorsement by the state, again, even acknowledging to a large extent the results (including an inherent contradiction to the teachings of some churches) of state-managed marriage. In the end, the word to best describe it is pure recklessness. There is no regard for the well-being of others, and no regard for ends other than “not condoning” (such as, say, less drug use or stronger marriages); it’s all perverse back-patting over the finality of having the perceived Earthly authority give the correct endorsement. Mind-numbing.

    • Tor Munkov
      October 29, 2012 at 7:12 am

      Well put. Even for extended stay guests at San Quentin, we must forbid playing cards and soft plastic poker chips. 20 menthol kools kontraban kosten jou $80

      Not even Dachau was so controlled. So brightly ligt. So bleak. Like ants beneaf a magnifying glass. You kan’t kill the ants outright liek 1940s. But wine women song yardtime joy alle ist verbotten.

      Gamblin izz baad umkay? Sieg heil die Klovereich.

    • October 29, 2012 at 8:55 am

      You’ve described the modern “conservative”!

      And yes, I agree there’s a squamous-like meanness about them. In my little town, for instance, people are often utterly unreasonable about arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” A guy caught with pot or cooking meth is not infrequently dealt out the harshest possible punishment. And it is often meted out with stern moralizing lectures of the sort you describe. By people who make homemade wine. And have a case of beer in the fridge… .

      • Mithrandir
        October 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm

        But beer and wine are ok. (at least today) At times I do not know what to do with the “drug” problem. Eventually I arrive at legalization and taxation similar to how alcohol and tobacco are treated. Then use the revenue for treatment and education.

        If people do not want/need these products, then there will not be a supply. Hopefully through education people will realize the negatives about drugs and act accordingly.

        • Henry Bowman
          October 29, 2012 at 2:58 pm

          The only “drug problem” is the one created by prohibition. We don’t see Busch and Coors distributors killing eachother in the streets over territory disputes. It is contrary to liberty for anyone to dictate what another person puts into his body or how he uses his property. It’s also contrary to liberty to demand some form of tribute (taxes) based on voluntary transactions between individuals.

        • Runaway slave
          October 29, 2012 at 3:12 pm

          If a guy wants to huff gasoline until hes dead, one less gas huffer ?

          • October 29, 2012 at 3:29 pm

            Yes. Because – though tragic – the huffer’s life is his life to spend as he sees fit. So long as his actions impose no actual harm on actual other people, then a huffer ought to be free to huff as much gas as he wishes. That’s liberty. Take it away, and you’ve made your victim less than a man. And yourself something inhuman.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          October 29, 2012 at 3:44 pm

          Use what you want and stoically accept the responsibility for the Consequences of having done so.

          tgsam

        • Scott
          October 29, 2012 at 6:26 pm

          Mith, I understand the legalization & tax approach to Clover as a “compromise” which is really a bribe. In other words, we’ll give Clover money if he lets us smoke dope. I’m not real fond of this solution but I do see the pragmatic side of it. There is the old saw concerning Dane geld though and we need to remember that once we pay the Dane, we must keep paying him.

          Drugs won’t be legalized until the gate keepers of the current system are satisfied. You suggest that educating drug users will lead to reduced use; I disagree. Self medication is how these drugs were discovered. People who use drugs “recreationaly” are a small cohort; most chronic drug users are self-medicating. This is true for all the recreational drugs, including alcohol. Alcoholics use the drug to sleep and to reduce anxiety. It isn’t recreational, it’s therapeutic. This is a point lost on many.

          The same can be said for chronic use of any substance. Acute alcohol, marijuana, oxycodone or cocaine use can be a problem both socially and from a personal health perspective, but chronic use mostly effects personal health exclusively; there is little or risk to the larger society unless you consider the effects of society punishing the dependent individual for under-performance (can’t hold a job etc.) which in my humble opinion is a self-made problem.

          Alcoholics maintain. Opium addicts manage. Clovers simply choose not to recognize the adaptation and complain about drunk drivers without ever understanding that most alcoholics never get drunk. People who are chronically dependent have a physical need for these substances. It may not be attractive but it’s physiological. You may as well punish gay people, it’ll do you just as much good.

          Your comment that Clover lacks empathy plays a large role in determining his position on “substance abuse”.

      • Boothe
        October 29, 2012 at 2:32 pm

        Don’t forget all the good moralizing churchians that see nothing wrong with going down to the local doc in a box for their “scrips” of Cymbalta, Ambien or Hydrocodone. As long as a leech prescribes their favorite mind altering substances it’s okay. But heaven forbid that an otherwise responsible adult dares to self medicate; “Lock ‘em up!” they’ll shout.

        But yet these same people happily feed the coffers of mega-criminals like Jon Corzine, Louis Freeh and Lloyd Blankfein for a “piece of the action” in their 401K. And they’ll cheer as the “terrorist” dictator of a small African country, guilty of wanting gold for oil and gold coins for all, is sodomized with a rifle barrel by the minions of the international bankster cartel. Or clap loudly while drones gun down a teenage American citizen without even the pretense of due process of law. Hypocrisy; it’s the American way.

        • liberranter
          October 29, 2012 at 10:26 pm

          Hypocrisy; it’s the American way.

          Yep, exactly. The hypocrisy of the “churchians” as you so aptly describe them, is in particular so deeply entrenched that they cannot and will not see it for what it is.

      • Anonymous
        October 29, 2012 at 11:25 pm

        “You’ve described the modern “conservative”!”
        Actually, I was trying to be careful not to. Not doubt the selfish moralist position is only to be found within modern movement conservatism, but it is distinct within that. I come across Republicans (in possession of whatever horrid views you would expect in applying that label) who are uninformed, or un-utilitarian, but who are not motivated by those authoritative declarations of propriety that make me so damn heated.

        This observation is hardly of any enlightening value given its nature, an anecdote about observations of that miniscule percent of America that I interact with, but the selfish moralist position usually seems to be held by women in the 40+ range. I can’t say why I don’t seem to observe it nearly as much in men, but it certainly puts a downer on the type of maternal attitude I’d like very much to attribute to these women who are perfectly pleasant and loving in their day to day lives.

    • Anonymous
      October 31, 2012 at 6:10 am

      Interestingly, I’ve just now realized another inexplicable opinion is attributable to the selfish moralism I’ve described. I’ve been racking by brain recently trying to understand the logic behind some pro-life single-issue voters I’ve come across who essentially acknowledge the validity of arguments that a Romney presidency would not be different than Obama’s in regards to abortion. Begrudgingly, they wishy-washily accept that there is no precedent within Romney’s camp of the Republican party for the type of federalism that would legislatively return abortion to the states, no precedent for nominating conservative judges who might overturn RvW, and no precedent for economic policies that might create conditions in which poor mothers are less likely to seek an abortion. But they find an extreme value in Romney willingness to morally condemn abortion in speeches (to speak nothing of his lack of any consistency or solidity in opinions toward the legality of such). Meanwhile, they find no value in the pragmatically pro-life Gary Johnson (as seen in his inevitably federalist nominating and signing tendencies as well as sound economic policies, not to mention LP policy on abortion) because he does not condemn abortion with enough fervor or make enough shallow statements on the legality of such. It didn’t strike me before, but this is the perfect expression of the selfish moralist position. Back-patting, grand-standing, and mirrors-and-smoke…

      • October 31, 2012 at 9:42 am

        It could be they’re just dumb.

        Wood-headed, Bible-beating (but never reading) fag-bashing, flag-humping types.

  29. Boothe
    October 29, 2012 at 4:37 am

    Eric; how very odd that you wrote this today. Just last night I put The Matrix in the DVD player to refresh my memory. Yesterday my wife and I were having a discussion about those of us that are aware of what’s going on. I asked her what you call the small piece of material at the end of a bolt of cloth. Of course she responded; the remnant. I believe that’s what we, the “red pill” people are; The Remnant. We have agnostics, atheists, deists, heretics (that would be me according to the church) and professing Christians posting here; some hot, some cold, but other than Clover and his ilk, no one here seems lukewarm. Not only do we see that “something’s wrong” we all seem to feel a connection with each other even though most of us have never met. Merely a coincidence? I seriously doubt it.

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 6:20 am

      Bingo! How refreshing it is when you find people who are intelligently passionate about something rather than the Yahoo or YouTubian “Fuck You” kind of commentary.

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 6:33 am

      Last night my son and I went to see Cloud Atlas from the Wachowskis. I was a fan of the first ‘Matrix’, and ‘V for Vendetta’, so I felt that the films they made were skewed my way. It was something of a challenge to concentrate on and in no way something easy to sit through. Not something I would go through again. Condensing it down the basic message was that there is our present illusion of the world “order” and that while we may not live to see it… we have a choice whether to accept it or rise above what our customs and bigotry demand of us. And also that there are a lot of very nasty people out there ready to exploit or even kill you if they get the chance.

    • October 29, 2012 at 9:04 am

      Morning, Boothe!

      And guess what I had in my DVD player yesterday? Weird!

      On the Remnant: Albert Nock wrote about this back in the 1930s in an essay titled “Isaiah’s Job.” You may have read it before, but for others who have not, see here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html

      I first read this essay (and much of Nock’s work) during my college years – but only by accident. Such old fashioned ideas were not fashionable in the classroom. I don’t recall exactly how I became aware of Nock or Spooner or other old school Libertarian writers, but once I did become aware of them, I could never forget them!

      • methylamine
        October 29, 2012 at 4:49 pm

        Gary North uses the term “Remnant”, too.

        Incidentally he seems to be more and more libertarian of late. I have huge respect for the man; he’s been fighting this fight since the 70’s and he’s never given up.

        His original newsletter was in fact titled “The Remnant Review”.

        • MoT
          October 29, 2012 at 6:19 pm

          Isn’t he more of a “Dominionist”?

          • methylamine
            October 29, 2012 at 6:47 pm

            Formally yes–but I note more and more libertarian ideas popping out.

            He’s not Molyneaux, but I’d have him as a neighbor any day.

          • Boothe
            October 29, 2012 at 7:37 pm

            I’m with you Methyl; I wouldn’t mind having Gary North next door. Even though we don’t agree on everything (e.g. the actual causes of the War of Federal Aggression) he’d still be a great mind to converse and debate with (although I doubt he’d have much time for it). As they say about chess, if you want to get good at it, always play against someone that’s better than you are. I can’t imagine how crossing intellectual swords with Gary North could do anything but hone one’s wit and expand one’s mind.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      October 29, 2012 at 11:10 am

      In the end the only thing that really matters is the WHOLE Truth and the Individual’s reaction to it. I find the WHOLE Truth to be remarkably simple.

      The Legal System that has supplanted the Law of the Land is an evil construction*. Cui bono?

      tgsam

      *It is important that a Concerned Citizen research “construction” as it pertains to law in Amerika.

    • Al Sledge
      October 29, 2012 at 12:59 pm

      Most interesting take Boothe, and I agree completely. It is likely I will never meet any of you face to face, but we indeed share common thought. I think even Clover will come around at some point. In a meeting hall that I frequent, a poster on the wall says it all; “People change mostly not by seeing the light, but from feeling the heat.”

      The Matrix was a great movie and mimics reality. I took the red pill years ago but never realized that I was not alone until the internet exploded with sites like LRC and this one. I gives me renewed faith in the planet populated largely by nitwits and sociopaths. You folks are indeed the exception.
      Yours In Liberty,
      Al

  30. October 28, 2012 at 11:48 pm

    My Sympathies – Larken Rose

    Here I address some of the important concerns expressed by Democrat and Republican voters, and then give my heart-felt sympathies for your anxiety (sort of).

  31. John Illinois
    October 28, 2012 at 11:38 pm

    As for check points getting “dangerous drunks” off the road, the PSA’s they run on the radio claim that “nearly half of accidents involve alcohol”. I checked with the State Police. Their definition of an accident that “involves alcohol” is any person in any involved vehicle, whether driving or not “involves alcohol”. So an accident where one driver is a “designated driver”, meaning totally sober, but has a couple drunks in the car, still “involves alcohol”. Says a whole bunch about sobriety, doesn’t it?

    • MoT
      October 29, 2012 at 12:04 am

      What it says is that the powers that be will lie like the bastards they are to justify and enlarge their dictatorial behavior.

      • Mithrandir
        October 29, 2012 at 2:18 am

        Lying by the gov’t.

        I am shocked!

        I am sure it would still be an accident that “involves alcohol” if a drunken pedestrian was hit by a sober driver.

    • BrentP
      October 29, 2012 at 3:45 am

      Yep that’s how it works. Years ago I learned that if someone with a 0.02 BAC gets hit by driver with a 0.00 BAC who runs a red light it’s “alcohol related”. The definitions are always skewed for these agendas.

    • October 29, 2012 at 9:19 am

      Of course. They have to deliberately inflate the problem to create the “need” for their “services.” The warnterr is just the apotheosis of this ages-old con.

      • October 29, 2012 at 12:33 pm

        And the sheep continue to fall for it over and over and over…

        “Statism is a disease. The more you reveal the chains that enslave the statist, the more they explain how they need those chains to survive. – Author unknown”

  32. Downrange
    October 28, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    Tor is a poet of the “end days.”

    Well done, sir

  33. That One Guy
    October 28, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    On empathy…I don’t think it’s that people lack it so much as it’s too easy to not extend it to “the other.”

    Americans are constantly weighed, measured, and divided into groups, then set at odds with one another. The Clover might feel a natural human impulse to empathize with someone who has their rectum roughly inspected by TSA…

    or a young person who makes a stupid decision like shoplifiting a candy bar and gets beaten within an inch of his life for running from Officer 82nd Airborne…

    or a young Army private who was placed under some military brig and forgotten after airing UThe Pentagon’s dirty laundry…

    But then the Clover Mind will always kick into gear and find some way to write off these people as part of “the other,” and it allows them to withdraw their empathy, which does not extend to people who flip shit to TSA agents, who steal, who do not render the requisite reverence for the imperial legions.

    Plain old fashioned Good German-ism. “The other” must somehow be a bad person, or those things wouldn’t be happening to them. The Good German Clover takes pride in his efforts to remain inside a ever-tightening net of acceptable behavior and has no empathy for those who don’t. Because “the other” is only getting what he deserves.

    We will have the last laugh at Clover though because he doesn’t realize the net he’s in is a purse seiner that’s being drawn shut by Uncle. Seeing him in the next cattle pen in the Homeland Security gulag one day will bring some smug satisfaction.

    • MoT
      October 28, 2012 at 7:11 pm

      You’ve reminded me of that ‘Far Side’ cartoon, and I’m paraphrasing because I don’t remember everything, where you have these cattle at the meat packing plant and these cows in line and the one says, balloon over its head, “Hey, no cutting in line!”.

    • Runaway slave
      October 29, 2012 at 2:57 pm

      Any chance youd take out “German” and replace it with “nazi”? I like beer and sourkraut :)

  34. MoT
    October 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    It took a while, before it finally hit me, that whenever someone says something along the lines of “That’s the way it is” that I say, “Says who?”.

    Seriously?

    Who in the hell “says” this is the way it is and shall always be? Where is the genesis, the root, of this pernicious lie?

    I find the sheepish acceptance of this slavish mentality to be disgusting. It’s weak minded and infantile. It’s the language of impotent defeatist prisoners. Listen hard enough and you can hear the leg irons rattling.

    The only power this “matrix” has over anyone is the illusion that you’re bound to it’s rules: That you, slave, live to serve your overlords just so long as you stay plugged into your slot in life until the day they toss your drained ass away.

    • Chris
      October 29, 2012 at 12:55 pm

      Didn’t Walter use that line at the end of his news for decades?

      • stinky
        October 29, 2012 at 3:27 pm

        Cronkite was CIA asset. Operation Mockingbird.

  35. Tinsley Grey Sammons
    October 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    AMERICA’S FORSAKEN PROMISE *snip*
    BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
    (Mistakenly establishing a dreadfully unlawful level of State Authority)

    Ignorance is bliss. But only until you are made to pay for it.

    Once a level of authority has been established by legal precedent, then anything that equals or does not exceed that level can easily be made legally punishable by law. If X is outlawed, then Y can also be outlawed if it falls within the level of authority previously established by having successfully outlawed X.

    Since emotions are subjective, individuals who approve of Y generally fail to objectively consider the level of authority whenever they think, say, or write that, “There oughta be a law against X!”

    So then my Fellow Citizens, if the non-amendable American Ideal, recorded by Congress assembled July 1776 is to resume its progress toward becoming a respected

    41
    reality, Americans must take first things first. Although financial folly, legal plundering, and insane Utopian meddling are profoundly detestable, it is no less crucial that Americans focus on the growing number of unlawful injuries that the State can now legally inflict upon the Individual.

    Folks tend to think that when a power is legal, then surely it must be good or at least tolerable . . . but that simply isn’t true. Many of those legal powers are actually unlawful because they violate the very principles upon which America is founded. The idea of an unlawful law sounds oxymoronic but contrary to the Founding Principles, many unlawful laws do in fact exist.

    The expression “Plunder by Law” used by Frederic’ Bastiat is as relevant today as it was in 1850 when Bastiat authored his incomparable classic titled: THE LAW. Were I a civics teacher or a law professor, my students would not be permitted to avoid a deep immersion in Bastiat’s THE LAW. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

    • Tor Munkov
      October 29, 2012 at 7:51 am

      The femine XX is permitted, but you drones can never be the XY. Only the state is the masculine case. You mundanes can be :AA OO XO AB+ BO-; you are free to be 1000 things: but never can you express the Y.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 29, 2012 at 11:30 am

        Your point?

    • October 30, 2012 at 2:09 am

      Oh please. Do you expect anything to come out of an ancient declaration of war (which is what the Declaration of Independence was)? The Declaration of Independence was simple an excuse for one group of elite to displace the then current ruling elite. As a call to liberty, or an outline of true libertarian principles, it is sadly lacking.
      http://strike-the-root.com/divine-right-of-kings-in-sheeples-clothing

      • Scott
        October 30, 2012 at 2:56 am

        +2 Paul.

      • October 30, 2012 at 10:40 am

        The Declaration has some good points – and it’s much, much better than the Constitution that came later. But, your point is well-taken. What’s needed now is a new Jefferson to frame the language more precisely – and specifically, to reject “human equality” (the lethal defect in all those hoary old documents) in favor of the NAP as the basis of a truly free society.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        October 31, 2012 at 4:31 pm

        ANCIENT Declaration? Since Human Nature may not have changed in more than 30,000 years the Principles expressed in the incomparable Unanimous Declaration are as applicable today as they were in 1776.

        Tinsley Grey Sammons
        bastlaw@yahoo.com

  36. Tor Munkov
    October 28, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    We are like water. Highly polarized and yet cohesive. There are countless substances but only 5 or 6 like water. Hard to freeze into a solid matrix of ice. We are the one they cannot freeze. We assure a living earth and not another concrete desolate world like all other worlds.

    Other liquids freeze from the bottom up and all through. We cohere at the surface and freeze only at the top, at the skin.

    Us rivers look frozen like them to their eyes, but we resist the frozen matrix and stay liquid within. Life cannot abide being a solid dusty uniformly charged conglomerate. We choose life over order and conformity.

    We keep a stoic face. We grimace and face the praetorians, but we never submit and obey to the extent that we abandon our principles and individuality. When they turn away, we burst out laughing. Their world is a monty python skit to us, beyond comical.

    We never worship their underverse. We use the latin alphabet but we know the a to z order to be arbitrary. Rome only plagarized Athens. We can erase their scribbles of mercury mars and jupiter, and restore to the actual hermes ares and zeus. Given enough time we will finish the erasure of their errors and forgeries.

    The latin matrix is a cheap coat of white wash over priceless ancient woodorking. We work to rejuvinate our language. The limit of your language is the limit of your world. This website is a plain language philosophical dojo of revolt.
    Agent Smith has no instructions on how to quell us. He is only a paper tiger, we are not even on his same page.
    The pictures of agent smith and the unix green screen mainframe ascii text are integral to our liberating message. What cannot yet be said can only be shown. The clovers only sputter and exasperate in prephonical mewling, they can’t even conjugate or process what we are on about. Maybe Koch is paying us under the table, they are ex cerebra here.

    Clovers are like all other known bodies of our galaxy. Possessing no, or too little water. Being fiery, gaseous, or solid. But never being liquid, never being life.

    Like Johnny 5, somehow we are alive. They are dull robots 1-4, soullessly acquiring and destroying whatever targets the maytricks and maytreaters tell them to.

    We’re not Mr. Anderson anymore, Elvis has left the Matrix building.

  37. Mithrandir
    October 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Us and Them

    I agree with your closing thought. If society is changed for the better, it is definitely worth it.

    Freedom is not always easy. It requires individuals to take responsibility for their own actions and bear the consequences of these action.

    In my simple mind, the alternatives to freedom are varying degrees of slavery. Each person has a certain level that is acceptable to him/her. However, if people are willing to accept varying degrees of slavery, this implies that there is someone else in control.

    Who do we decide is best to control our lives? I guess that will be the $64,000 question.

    • Tor Munkov
      October 29, 2012 at 8:15 am

      The freest state is plasma. If you look at the fiery world 8 1/3 light minutes away. It keeps them in charge that knows how to be this way. Its golden colour comes from Fe+14 on its surface. Fire, our blood, neuron firings, lightning, these all generate plasma. 99% of the milky way is this. Someday may we be that free.
      Next comes air. Then Liquid. Then solid. We are mostly liquid. Every few seconds we need more air. Solid, it would seem, is overrated.
      Keep fluid and stay young, don’t dry out and get old, matrixculated, and regimented. Juggernaut the world like a toddler on his backyard sandbox junglegym.

    • Mairir
      October 30, 2012 at 12:36 am

      “In my simple mind, the alternatives to freedom are varying degrees of slavery.”

      What about a newborn child? I think most people would agree that it wouldn’t be right for a newborn child to have complete and total freedom. They could, and almost certainly would, harm and probably kill themselves. We accept that parents have the authority to make decisions for them because it is in their interest. It is impossible to define identity without relationship to other people. It is an inherent part of our existence.

      Of course, we’re not all children, and at some point we should gain complete authority over our own lives, right? Well, the problem is that your decisions do not only affect you. Because we are inherently a web of relationships, even our seemingly harmless actions have effects on others. And especially our harmful actions. This is why we have collectively decided as a society to establish institutions which govern our lives. Because through them our lives are actually BETTER than they would be without them. We collectively choose to participate in these institutions because we gain from them, even though we sacrifice a bit of personal liberty. You can imagine a world where there was absolutely no social order… Plato, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Augustine, Machiavelli, etc, etc. they all basically agree to this principle. Read their books. I promise you won’t find them either ‘ignorant or evil.’

      • methylamine
        October 30, 2012 at 4:18 am

        @Mairir:

        We collectively choose to participate in these institutions…

        Who chose, Mairir? I didn’t. You didn’t, either; at least, you may choose daily but where’s the binding contract? Was there a moment in your life you were presented with the choice, and said (perhaps with your right hand raised) “I, Mairir, freely choose to subjugate part of my will to the collective this day.”

        Because I didn’t. And if I did, right now I’m ready to revisit that “agreement”–because it’s not “making my life BETTER”.

        Not at all.

        As for the intricate web of interrelationships–of course we live in such a web, delicately balancing what we do with how it affects our family, friends, work-mates, and neighbors.

        But those are all voluntary associations, Mairir!

        See the difference? Government is an abusive alcoholic spouse. It beats the shit out of you one day, and promises the next morning it’ll “change”, it’ll do better; it will steal less from your purse. It’ll shrink, it’ll stop micromanaging your life. But if you try to leave you bitch I’ll kill you!

        Contrast THAT relationship with the freely-engaged one you enjoy with, say, your neighbors. Speaking for myself I have some great ones, and some I’m cordial with but basically ignore. I actively seek to deepen my friendships with the ones I like. I’m free to engage, or disengage; I CHOOSE to engage.

        If I decided to start shooting heroin, I’d destroy my relationship with my children; so I don’t. My abusive alcoholic Uncle Sam, though, both provides the heroin–and beats the shit out of me if he finds me with it.

        Which is the better restraint–mutual love, respect, and personal responsibility constraining my actions to my betterment, or Uncle and his Fists of Fury(tm)?

        Because Uncle’s Fists of Fury don’t stop the irresponsible; heroin use is WAY up. Purity is up. Prices are down…all signs of a thriving market.

        Back before it was illegal–pre the 1914 Harrison Act–one could buy pure heroin at the corner drug store, or if you were remote, from the Sears catalog…with a handy fix-kit, for $2.50.

        And per capita, we had 1/7 as many “addicts”*. It was a social problem; if old Aunt Edna had taken too much of a liking to her bottle of laudanum, the family would take care of it.

        Now that’s just one small example of how the beautiful interlocking and voluntary chains of social relationships can function to improve us.

        But don’t confuse that with the State; the State, in Carlin’s immortal words, doesn’t give a fuck about you.

        * a loaded term. There’s no such thing; there’s physical dependence but “addiction” as such is an industry designed to fleece the sheep.

        • MoT
          October 30, 2012 at 8:44 am

          Government is the abusive spouse in this sad sick co-dependent farce called democracy. The public falls for it’s never ending lies and has been duped into believing that “Big Daddy” is the only game in town.

      • Glen Litsinger
        October 30, 2012 at 4:21 am

        Mairir, there are several flaws in your reasoning. First, we don’t collectively decide anything as a society. That’s just the irrationality of “democracy”. We each decide on our own what is right and what is wrong, and I have decided that you are wrong. Does that give me a right to dictate to you how to behave? Of course not, but you have arrogated to yourself (your collective) the right to dictate how I behave. And that is tyranny.

        No, we don’t collectively choose to accept a loss of freedom. There are those of us who individually reject all loss of freedom, but you would be dictator over us. Well, sorry, chum, that’s not my idea of justice, or even equality, which is where you’re coming from. I choose freedom, without bounds, so long as I harm no one by my actions. It’s up to you to prove I harm you, not “society”, which is an indefinable concept when it comes to human rights.

        I doubt that Locke and Hobbes agreed on much of anything, so your attempt at appeal to authority is laughable. I’ll take my cues from Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises, Hoppe, Block, and the newer generation including Eric Peters. You belong to the set that will be relegated, very soon, to the ashcan of history, along with your philosophy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *