Their Proper Name

Print Friendly

Ask any lawyer about the importance of being precise – or evasive – with language. Alexander Hamilton and his federal supremacists understood. So did railroad lawyer and slave-not-freer Abe Lincoln. (For those who didn’t know, Abe only “freed” slaves he had no power to liberate – in the Confederate States. Slaves under his control – including slaves held by his chief warlord U.S. Grant, remained most un-free for the duration of the war.) Bill Clinton was a masterful practitioner of the Art of Word (I did not have sex with that woman…). Which, by certain Talmudic parsings, he didn’t. Not exactly. Wiggle room, you see. Of a piece with Hamilton’s brilliant flim-flam about the “general welfare.”

That is how it is done.

To undo it, there must be a rebirth of what they called in cowboy flicks, straight-talking. Calls things by their proper name – and challenge those who don’t or won’t. Make them say what they mean – openly. If you fail to do so, you’ve accepted their terms.

Which means, they’ve already won. Ask any progressive.

Or just wait. He’ll soon be “asking” you to “help.”

Most people are innocent victims of verbal (and written) rights-rape. For example, public schools. Well, no – they’re not. Yes, they are “open” to the public – in the sense that the public is forced at gunpoint to send its children to them. Which gives us a clue as to the proper name that ought to be used in every instance of discussion: Government schools. It is what they are, in plain, direct – and thus, honest – language. Nothing less. Which of course is why honest language is not generally used to describe them. Because that might get people thinking along certain  lines. “Public” sounds so much… friendlier. Free, almost – a vicious irony if ever there was. You’re not free to decline to pay for them (even if you don’t use them). And most kids are certainly not free to not attend them. Very much what you’d expect of a government school. Because the essential attribute of government is coercion – force. The thing that must never be openly stated – but always euphemized.

Like, for instance, “consent of the governed.”

Abe – The Great Effronterer – spoke eloquently of it while prosecuting a war of extermination to achieve its opposite. The southern states had withdrawn their consent to be governed by Abe – who was elected by a minority of the voters, the majority of whom voted for someone else. The Southern states sought to govern themselves instead. And for this, they were hounded by armies of invasion and conquest as merciless as the legions of the Waffen SS, their cities laid waste, their women and children killed, the civilian populace deliberately starved out.

Of the people, by the people, for the people…

Well, some people.

The rest had better shut up – and do as they are told.

Has anything done to you by the state been done with your consent? As opposed to linguistic-legalistic skullduggery such as “implied” consent? (The perfidious doctrine that you’ve “consented” to random stops and searches by dint of operating a motor vehicle, or because you’re entering a government building… which you’re only entering because you have no choice.)

If things are done to you without so much as a by-your-leave, then say so. Loudly. It probably won’t prevent the thing from being done, but by removing the veneer of moral sanction – by calling it what it is – you may help assure that in the future, things are not done to people without their literal, specific consent.

Speaking of which:

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

No,  taxation is tyranny – period. It is not a question of “essential services” (that must be funded – according to some – and necessarily at gunpoint). Rather, it is a question of: Can it ever be morally permissible to steal? For that is what they who speak of “essential services” (as defined by them) intend but never dare state openly. “Taxation” somehow sounds more legitimate – perhaps by dint of repetition (and the general failure to investigate further). It implies process – which in turn seems somehow more proper than just shoving a gun in someone’s belly and croaking, your money – or your life. But are they not the same things? Am I less the victim of a theft if my property is taken from me against my will by an assembly as opposed to an individual? Does it matter, to the victim, whether the funds extracted from him go to fund the next drinking bout of the lout who stuck the gun in his belly – or for the “essential services” he’d otherwise not have elected to purchase?

Can taxation – theft – become not-theft because a proxy (a “representative”) has voted yay – or neigh? Perhaps in a world wherein a word means exactly exactly what Humpty Dumpty says – and neither more nor less. Alice provides the appropriate rejoinder:  “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”  “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master   –   that’s all.”

Exactly so.

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. 

  142 comments for “Their Proper Name

  1. Runaway slave
    December 3, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    awesome article eric thanks again. wish we could wake up the world. Teee-veee and fuuuutball are what ppl want and along those lines are the deceptions of holydays like xmas and the rest. ppl want to be proles its easier for them than being free.

    • December 3, 2012 at 12:47 pm

      I am more confident – and hopeful – with each passing day. No flip exaggeration. I can almost feel the resurgence of liberty-mindedness. Is it a majority? Anything remotely approaching one? No. But it is no longer a fringe movement. It is rapidly becoming mainstream to openly discuss (and discuss critically) topics that, as recently as 10 years ago, would have resulted in social censure (and worse).

      The ossification of TPTB is becoming more obvious all the time, too. These people are not mighty. They are merely in place.

      For now.

      • December 4, 2012 at 4:05 pm

        I too am hopeful. I read recently that the American Revolution (whether or not you are a fan of it) was only strongly supported by 20%, was strongly opposed by 20%, and the remaining 60% didn’t really care one way or the other. The good news is we don’t need a majority to see major change. An educated, motivated, and liberty-lovin’ minority can still effect great things, and we are growing quickly.

        • Don Cooper
          December 4, 2012 at 4:28 pm

          But things are MUCH different now than in 1776.

          The people who will be fighting have never seen warfare before. Have never been part of a militia in battle before. We are suburban rats, raised with fast food, the mall and tv. Unlike the Americans of the 18th century who were battle hardened, independent minded farmers and factory workers.

          Also the people we’ll be fighting will not only be the gov’t agents but also all the gov’t dependents who will fight to preserve their free-loading way of life. These people didn’t exist in 1776. Just the opposite.

          Finally, we’ll be fighting the most modern, best equipped and largest military in the history of mankind.

          I’m not sure the “liberty-lovin minority” principle will work this time. This time it will take an economic collapse and hope that in the confusion we can make a difference.

          • methylamine
            December 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm

            I hear you Don–and I agree it will be more difficult that it was then, given our fat asses to drag around…and the man-boobs induced by eating estrogenic BPA in our packaged foods.

            But I keep pointing out in other posts–look at Afghanistan. And remember the predator-prey problem; the cheetah’s just running for dinner…the antelope’s running for its life, and you will be too!

            Not to mention that said military will have insurmountable morale problems fighting on its home soil against its own countrymen; desertion rates will soar, undoubtedly accompanied by active resistance.

            They’ll eventually bring in UN troops–whom they’ve been training with eventually. But the Hessians are mercenaries, whereas we’re fighting for our homes–historically a huge disadvantage to the visiting “team”.

            The Free Shit Army is a problem.

            If they can keep this thing at a simmer, not a boil, like they have in Argentina then it turns into FerFal’s Modern Survival Manual; a slow devolution to third-world status punctuated by occasional shoot-outs with FSA members, whilst treading delicately around increasingly goonish police forces.

            But if it goes really hot, our chances are quite good.

            I actually fear the slow-decline scenario MORE: because it gives the PTB the chance to bring to bear their social manipulation techniques while never providing that “one moment” that triggers outright rebellion. THAT’S the trick–keep us liberty-lovers from ever saying “That’s it, we’re DONE, no more!“. Keep the ratchet clicking, slowly, inexorably, until the last breath of liberty leaves the corpus.

          • December 5, 2012 at 5:22 am

            Not the largest military, not by a long chalk – not even today, and not by the standards of some other times and places either.

          • liberranter
            December 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm

            Finally, we’ll be fighting the most modern, best equipped and largest military in the history of mankind.

            Don, “the largest and best equipped military in the history of mankind” cannot even bring down loosely-organized militias of ragtag Third World tribesmen. THAT, IMO, is the most telling point in terms of determining the future effectiveness of the Imperial War Machine. Simply stated, the U.S. military is institutionally incapable of understanding or fighting 4GW (that’s Fourth Generation Warfare). And 4GW is exactly the kind of war that will erupt on domestic soil once TSHTF.

            Methylamine brings up some good points too.

            Not to mention that said military will have insurmountable morale problems fighting on its home soil against its own countrymen; desertion rates will soar, undoubtedly accompanied by active resistance.

            Exactly. TSHTF implies a total economic collapse. Under such circumstances, what exactly will the feds use to induce “the troops,” those secular saints worshiped by far too many Amoricons, to remain at their posts? “The troops,” despite the brainless public’s perception of them as self-sacrificing superheroes, have families and obligations just like the rest of us. They are NOT, when push comes to shove, going to serve as automatons under the command of and for the ends of a disintegrating and desperate kleptoligarchy at the expense of their own loved ones.

            {The Reigning Kleptoligarchy]’ll eventually bring in UN troops–whom they’ve been training with eventually. But the Hessians are mercenaries, whereas we’re fighting for our homes–historically a huge disadvantage to the visiting “team”.

            Our Overlords might try to call in the U.N., but I guarantee you that “the troops” will mutiny if any such thing is tried. Brainwashed as they might be, they still are not so fargone as to accept an invasion of armed foreigners on U.S. soil. Ain’t gonna happen! In fact, that just might be the one reckless act by the Overlords that will bring about an end to the system as it now is constituted, the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

            The Free Shit Army is a problem.

            The FSA is the ultimate problem. It is the FSA that will enable what little will remain of the Reigning Kleptoligarchy after all else has collapsed.

          • Scott
            December 5, 2012 at 6:03 pm

            “all the gov’t dependents who will fight to preserve their free-loading way of life”

            Pretty good summation of the problem Don. The mistake was made when the US decided to ignore the prohibition on a standing army by automatically renewing funding for one every two years.

            It got worse when the Federal Government started funding civilian police, fire and emergency medical services.

            What essentially happened was the creation of a very large welfare class (military, police, fire, EMS) that was armed.

            Then they made it illegal for private citizens to defend themselves. It’s not hard to see where this goes. “Give us your money or will shoot you” became a way of life and everyone goes along to get along. Kind of sad really.

      • Glen Litsinger
        December 4, 2012 at 7:21 pm

        Those who think that the resurgence of liberty requires bloodshed should rethink that position. In that case, we would be slaughtered like hogs. But ideas are the basis of modern revolutions, not armed guerrillas. The “progressives” were once in a tiny minority in the USA, but gradually infiltrated the educational establishment and the economics profession, eventually exerting influence far beyond their numbers. The same think is happening again, except this time it’s the libertarians’ turn. We don’t need to win elections or wars, we need to win the respect and admiration of the intellectual community, the ones who propose policy changes. And we are winning that fight, slowly but surely. The economic collapse will only hasten the victory, because the intellectuals know that we’re the only ones who are predicting it.

        • December 4, 2012 at 7:47 pm

          Hi Glen,

          This is exactly it. Ideas – not armies. The most powerful thing in the world is an idea (for good or ill). It’s our turn to make sure the good ideas win.

          Welcome to the site, by the way – good to have you with us!

          • Glen Litsinger
            December 4, 2012 at 7:57 pm

            Thanks,Eric. I’ve actually left comments on this site once or twice before. I came across your writing via LRC and have greatly admired your intellect and style. And you sure know your cars – how cool to be a libertarian and a car junkie!

          • December 4, 2012 at 8:31 pm

            You bet, Glen!

            I think being a car/bike nut naturally inclines one to liberty-mindedness. I’ve found that such people (car/bike people) are doers – and doers are usually the farthest thing from our natural enemy – Clovers!

          • December 5, 2012 at 8:30 am

            Eric, I would propose that the true pursuit of anything would lead one to embrace Liberty, or Natural Rights.

            I came through the door through art (my drawings and paintings are on my site), and it was through a line of reasoning that led me down the rabbit hole of philosophy. I can’t think of a genuine pursuit of anything that would require, or even encourage, the collectivization of people and the destruction of the individual–

            – except running a giant tax farm.

          • December 5, 2012 at 10:50 am

            I’d like to think that’s true – but them we have the example of creative tyrants (including but not limited to Hitler). I think it might be better to say the pursuit of anything as individualized expression -though that can also foster and feed narcissism, which leads to results we don’t want… in others as well as ourselves.

            We all like to think we’re fabulous – god’s gift. The important thing is to not believe it!

        • Don Cooper
          December 4, 2012 at 8:11 pm

          In communist Romania, people were incredibly intellectual. They had so little money that they speng quality time with family and books and art and music. They met in secret to talk about their ideas like we do now.

          Regardelss, Communism prevailed for 50 years and did not end in Romania until the economic situation got so bad that the Romanians felt they had nothing left to lose so they took the streets. The army was sent to suppress them; they killed thousands, injured thousands more until eventually the army refused to continue killing their own people and turned on Ceaucescu and his wife.

          Same scenario on Hungary and the other eastern European countries. This was in 1989 in countries a fraction of the size of the U.S.

          Blood will be shed, guaranteed. And it must be shed, and that’s ok because the issue is bigger than any of us. In fact it has nothing to do with us but with a principle of inalienable human rights and the future of our friends and family.

          Your strategy of taking another 50 years to “influence” those who propose policy doesn’t sound very good to anyone with less than 50 years to live Glen. On what authority must my children continue to be abused even another day.

          I personally am tired of all the “just wait a little longer”, “we’re winning the battle”. Really? That sounds just like the establishment propaganda. Just saying it doesn’t make it so. If we winning the battle then how come in just the last ten years alone we’ve lost so many liberties and the train aint showing any signs of slowing down.

          I appreciate your idealism but I believe you’re in the wrong era. This magamachine of a gov’t and its military will not go quietly into the night just because we “think” they should. And even if it did, it would just be another 50 years until it cycled back again to progressivism.

          No, the only sustainable solution is the get rid of the gov’t once and for all and as soon as possible.

          • methylamine
            December 4, 2012 at 8:30 pm

            @Glenn & Don:

            Truth is–it’s both.

            We need to win the war of ideas, or any victory will be lost as the sheeple masses sweep us away.

            But the tyrants won’t let go unless we show some teeth.

            So–win the war of ideas, which will reduce the number of physical battles.

            But there will be physical battles.

            I think Vin Suprinowycz is on the right tack with the opening of “The Ballad of Carl Drega”; there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Carl Dregas.

            Most recently I read of an 80-year-old family oyster farm shut down by Agenda 21 busybodies. Their rage and frustration must be epic; as Eric says, I know I’d be on the mattress.

            So let’s say they go Carl Drega on the miserable minions who just destroyed their farm. The statist minions will get the message loud and clear–mess with more farmers, get the lead.

            Meanwhile the idea war is working on the farmers’ neighbors, who, seeing the bloodshed after the ruined farm–must be persuaded to sympathize with the farmer, not the bureaucrat.

            Both must happen. The Romanian situation demonstrates this; I just hope Americans have less patience, I don’t want to wait 50 years.

          • Sam Dean
            December 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm

            Ideas not arms. You do not want to tangle with the modern police state or the military which would be used if general hostilities broke out in the US. I recently retired from the US Army and understand what is available to identify you and visit you with violence. Gandhi had it right.

          • methylamine
            December 4, 2012 at 9:10 pm

            @Sam–

            How’s all that working for them in Afghanistan?

            And is Iraq “pacified”?

            Before you answer, I realize their hands are somewhat tied. But how much more so would their hands be tied domestically?

            And how many would follow through domestically?

            I agree–lead with ideas. But there will be plenty of Wacos, Ruby Ridges, and Carl Dregas before it’s done even if we win the idea war.

            If the State is a dinosaur, its tail will still kill you in its death throes.

          • Sam Dean
            December 4, 2012 at 9:13 pm

            How many bodies do you want as collateral? Winning in Iraq or Afghanistan was never possible, but the body count has been very impressive.

          • methylamine
            December 4, 2012 at 9:21 pm

            I know Sam–and I hate it because it’s all so unnecessary.

            The Clovers are just stumbling into it like ditzy teenagers parked on a railroad crossing.

            Ideas first. Minds first. But you won’t convince the psychopathic tyrants to give up with ideas–and they protect themselves with well-fed enforcers.

            How committed the enforcers are–THAT’S the question! And probably the answer to “how many bodies”, too.

          • Glen Litsinger
            December 5, 2012 at 5:45 am

            Don, you read some things into my post that I didn’t say or believe. To start, I don’t think it will take 50 years for the current regime to unravel. We’re already at least 40 years in to the unraveling, and I think we’re within 10 years of the final day of reckoning. The same thing that you accurately point out that occurred in Romania, i.e. economic collapse, is going to happen here. When that happens, we must be prepared to take our country back, and I think we will be.

            Yes, there could be a lot of bloodshed as the regime tries to hold on. I hope not. There is little point in being a martyr. If we just hold on, and do our best to starve Leviathan in the meantime through tax resistance and other strategies, we might avoid a total bloodbath. Anyway, I used to think like you do, and believed we were losing ground every day, but now I see that’s simply a too negative outlook. When I post here and read the posts of other commenters, I understand that the flame of liberty is still burning bright in America. Have faith, we will prevail, and sooner than you think.

          • December 5, 2012 at 11:09 am

            The one thing that keeps me up at night is the thought that America is now not unlike Russia was at the end of the Romanov era: An ossified, inbred, utterly degenerate ruling class; a population of mostly ignorant peasants who would have been baffled by talk of liberty and the rights of man – or rather, who viewed “rights” as a “right” to food, work, and so on. Ready, in other words, for Lenin. The hapless Kerensky democratic socialist found this out quickly. The Russian Whites (the analog to us, today) were quickly overwhelmed, too.

            What I think it may come to is a mass die off of certain elements that exist today. While I do hold out great hope that liberty-mindedness is awakening, I also believe that there are millions of people out there who are not reachable. They would have us killed – or kill us themselves – without a moment’s thought, in order to take what we have. Because they want it. They need it. The Free Shit Army. Gibs muh dat, muufukker.

            If the FSA finds its Lenin – if a demagogue comes forward who can lead them – then we are fucked.

          • Ed
            December 6, 2012 at 1:05 pm

            “I personally am tired of all the “just wait a little longer”, “we’re winning the battle”.”

            So am I, Don. That’s exactly what gripes me so about the idea of “working within the system”. Look at the so called “Ron Paul revolution”. That consisted of several bogus and insincere campaigns for president. Paul obviously never wanted to be president and simply had us waste our irreplaceable money and time screwing around inside his GOP so he could have his “teaching moments”.

            Bullshit. What we all got for our money and time was capitulation by his campaign managers. Oh, wait, we also got his duplicitous teaparty/neocon son inflicted upon us as a headless nail in the Senate.

            To me there’s nothing worse than a politician who points fingers at other politicians, while insisting that there’s a political solution to all these politically created problems.

            You can’t kill a snake by living in his belly. The way to kill a viper is to take a hoe to his ass. It’s foolish to let him swallow you so you can try to give him a fatal bellyache while you’re being digested.

        • December 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm

          There are certainly examples to the contrary. But yes, I would say any “individualized expression”, because in the act of doing, you realize the power of your individual agency to create and affect your life in a positive way. Your Natural Rights have more value every time you exercise them.

          Have you listened to Stefan Molyneux’s recent podcasts about “The Fascists that surround you”? #2, on sociopaths, was really good, makes me think that anything could be perverted by a person who cannot feel the same empathy…

      • December 4, 2012 at 8:51 pm

        I’d like to learn to share your optimism. But as of yet, I don’t. I’ve decided people don’t want to be free. For a long time, I thought that each man “yearned for freedom in his soul,” or whatever. I’m not sure my mind can be changed. I see that bright light in the posters, here. But I think the vast majority of people either reject the responsibility that inevitably accompanies freedom or they’re on board for freedom up to a point but somewhere, in some way, they want to force people or forcibly prevent people from doing thus and so. And that’s why we have all of these laws.

        Also, I think covetousness, that is, the desire for the unearned, figures hugely in people’s desire to control others through laws and govt.

        Fear and laziness keep the average joe from approaching an individual and telling him what he thinks, trying to persuasively change the individual’s behavior. But he thinks it’s great that he can call a cop to do it or vote en masse to do it.

        I think most people just unthinkingly accept the status quo. It would never occur to them to consider how ridiculous it is that I have to have permission, and have to pay for that permission, to marry, to practice a profession, to add to or alter my home, to drive my car, to own a gun, etc. If some random dude walked up to them on the street and tried to do what the govt does, they’d freak out. But, you see, the govt has “law” on its side. “Law” is another word whose meaning has been lost by misuse. If the word, law, only had application to natural law, (basically, the non-aggression principle,) think of the weight that word would carry. But the govt, as a matter of course, applies the word, law, to such arbitrary things as if I were to try and enforce the idea that I’m the only “Scott;” the only one allowed to use that name. The rest of you “Scotts” will be locked up unless you change your names.

        So, anyway, Eric, I hope I’m wrong. But I think the clovers have it.

        • methylamine
          December 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm

          Scott, you mustn’t forget…they’ve been made that way.

          Poisoned, drugged…and indoctrinated in government de-education camps called “public school”.

          Followed up by billions of dollars (that’s the part the government contributes directly, BTW) of TV propaganda.

          It’s amazing they can still tie their shoes; though I suppose the rise of velcro fasteners on athletic shoes belies that, too.

          But they are. Look back just one hundred years; not inspired enough?

          Look back 150 years in this country’s history–and you had the best-educated, most freedom-minded bunch history had seen yet.

          Of course today’s sheeple don’t want to be free; being a fat, retarded teenager living at home at mommy’s expense is so much easier!

          But throw the bums out on the street and they’ll wise up.

          Clovers are children; but they’re about to grow up.

          • December 5, 2012 at 5:30 am

            I’m pretty sure that in the 1860s Scotland, England, France and most of Germany had better and more widespread education than the U.S.A. After all, the U.S.A. was drawing heavily on all those (in different respects for each).

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          December 5, 2012 at 1:52 am

          I won’t live to see the GOOD prevail. If they do somehow, I hope THEY will make good use of the Paper Trail and the Nuremberg Precedent.

          Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

  2. Don Cooper
    December 3, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    “Taxation” somehow sounds more legitimate”

    I have a bit in my stand-up that talks exactly about this. It goes something like:

    ‘The gov’t has their own special language that makes everything seem alright. If somebody steals my money it’s called a mugging; if the gov’t steals my money it’s called taxation. Kind of feels the same though don’t it? Either way you get that twinge in your ass like you’re gettting f*****.

    • liberranter
      December 5, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      Either way you get that twinge in your ass like you’re gettting f*****.

      I really begin to wonder if everybody –or even a majority– gets that feeling. A reasonable person, one with a sense of fundamental self-respect and a healthy love of liberty, would not only object to such a feeling, but would do something to put a stop to it immediately. Yet most don’t. I think that this, more than anything else, serves as a gauge of just how many of us are really committed to the advancement of liberty. The Clover Majority either learns to live with being sodomized or, just as likely, has learned to actually enjoy it.

  3. Libertymike
    December 3, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    One who is a strait talker is one who is precise and comprhensive in his speech. This principle should be applied against statists and their clover supporters and it should be applied against each and every coercive act of the state, including the imposition of the death penalty.

    Last time I checked, the constitution did not give the federal government the power to kill any person. Sure, conservatives and “strait talkers” will argue that because the constitution refers to “capitol” crimes, the death penalty can not be a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eigth amendment. Do you see how faulty the reasoning is? It is the reasoning of an emotionally challenged adolescent-in other words-the typical clover.

    Of course, the constitution is not the work of god or perfection and I would never argue that the rights of an individual are defined by what is set forth in it. However, even if one were to examine the question through the plain language of the constitution, one would realize that there is no affirmative, unequivocal grant of power given to the feds to impose the death penalty. Given that the federal government is a goverment of limited powers, if the power is not set forth, it does not exist and can not said to exist upon the basis that it is implied.

    The impulse to send out the posse with the sheriff, the impulse to string up the sob, the impulse to incarcerate and the impulse to use violent language and imagery in furtherance of such impulses, is CLOVERISM PERSONIFIED.

    • December 5, 2012 at 5:37 am

      The U.S. constitution does give the federal government the power to kill any person, though as far as I know it has not used that particular power so far. It contains the machinery for the very same method Henry VIII used for political assassinations in 16th century England: you can send out illegal assassins, then pardon them quite legally (he also used a variation on that to make laws illegally, by indemnifying Orders in Council that had been made improperly).

  4. December 3, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    If taxation is not theft, because it’s done by a government, then I suppose we should stop calling what Japanese soldiers did to Korean women “rape”. After all, last time I checked the Japanese government was, well, a GOVERNMENT. So we should stop calling it “rape”, and start calling it, I dunno, a “sex tax”.

    • MoT
      December 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm

      Government loves to use words to describe their offenses as something other than what it truly is. To bury plain language in vebose scat. “Sex tax”? No. Better to use something like “Coital end-user service fee”.

    • Ed
      December 4, 2012 at 11:28 am

      The Japanese empire had its act down pat with euphemisms. Their official name for those kidnap and rape victims (Korean and Chinese women enslaved for the use of soldiers) was “Comfort Women”.

      • Tinsley Grey Sammons
        December 5, 2012 at 2:00 am

        Well, I suppose voiding testicles of excess contents could be described as “comforting”.

        tgsam

  5. DD
    December 4, 2012 at 12:27 am

    “Government schools”

    If we are calling things by their proper name, then:

    “Terrorist’s Schools”

    It is natural for me to refer to the political terrorists as “Terrorists” and their terror organizations – Government – as a terrorist group composed of the Dumobrat and Repuslican tribes. I get odd looks from people when I do this…One retarded tax cow actually said to me the other day “What does Al Qweeda have to do with it?”

  6. Tor Munkov
    December 4, 2012 at 12:34 am

    They say we’re young. And we don’t know. To till and plant and cause a thing to grow. Just put your bloody hand in mine. There ain’t no hill of victims we can’t climb.

    Abe.
    I got you Abe.
    I got you Abe.

    His magic hat is full of gold. And oil. And unborn children to be sold. Chorus.

    I don’t have to pay my rent. Or my doctor. Money just gets sent. Chorus.

    A place to learn. A place to die. No incentive for me to even try. Chorus.

    I got drones. On the wing. And enemies to kill in spring. Chorus.

    2 minutes hate. & Elmo’s song. 2 Keep me safe. & Be my clown. Chorus.

    Free some women. Free some slaves. Free railcar rides into our graves. Chorus.

    I…Got…You…Abe…

  7. TrappedInBlueState
    December 4, 2012 at 2:35 am

    Please do not compare these deceivers to the Talmud. The Talmud’s discussions are to promote morality and the law (which no one is above), and to protect ownership of property.

    • Runaway slave
      December 4, 2012 at 12:40 pm

      MISHNAH. WHEN A GROWN-UP MAN (7) HAS HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH (8) A LITTLE GIRL, (9) OR WHEN A SMALL BOY (10) HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A GROWN-UP WOMAN, OR [WHEN A GIRL WAS ACCIDENTALLY] INJURED BY A PIECE OF WOOD (11) — [IN ALL THESE CASES] THEIR KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ] … so the talmud promotes child rape and you’re saying what exactly?

      • trappedinbluestate
        December 4, 2012 at 6:10 pm

        Unfortunately you are quoting a passage whose context and terms you dont understand. Nothing in the passage promotes pedophilia.
        The ketubah is a document signed before marriage that entitles a woman to money from her husbands estate upon his death or in the event of divorce. A vrgins contract is for 200, others it is 100. In the cases you quote, there is a difference of opinion if her ketubah contract is for 100 or 200.

        • Tor Munkov
          December 5, 2012 at 3:54 pm

          Reformed and interfaith ketubahs are quite customizable and usually ornate in form to be a keepsake and memento. Usually are a statement of vows and mutual performance pledges.

          I’d like to become a Justice of Voluntary Association, where libertarian voluntarists could go to publically record their alliances and property distribution protocls in the event of dissolution.

          I now pronounce you Party of the First Part & Party of the Second Part. You may now perform one of the customary gestures of affection. Go Forth In Celebration Together.

    • Spare me
      December 4, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      The Talmud has Jesus(God) punished in hell for eternity by boiling in a cauldron of excrement. It also makes sure to change Jesus’s trial and execution by the Romans to that of the Jewish high court, the Sanherdrin. It is anti Christian garbage. Not the moral word of God(which no one is above)and the Life , death, and resurrection of Jesus.

      • methylamine
        December 4, 2012 at 5:27 pm

        Let’s not start this–MY holy writ is more true than YOUR holy writ–when every reasonable study of history shows that these “holy books” were compiled long after the acts they describe. Centuries, in fact.

        And by people who had glaringly obvious political agendas in crafting them just so–leaving out here, including there, editing a little–to suit the burgeoning power structures of the time.

        I’m not arrogant enough to call myself “atheist” and mean it any more; the truth is, I just don’t know–because I don’t have comprehensive knowledge of the universe and I admit it’s a damn mysterious place. We’re just scratching the surface of the machinery under the covers.

        I will seriously vomit on the next person who quotes me some out-of-context passage from the Koran, Bible, or Talmud to justify bellicosity…if I have to stick my fingers in my throat. Just to demonstrate how utterly VILE these little religious pissing contests are.

        Because the descendants of the Pharisees who compiled the holy writs then, use them today to the same psychopathic ends.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          December 5, 2012 at 2:09 am

          Wouldn’t it be nice if truth and logic could eventually cause religion to die the natural death it deserves? Except for a rare nugget of historical fact or good advice it’s all a load of shit.

          tgsam

          • DD
            December 5, 2012 at 5:54 am

            Yep…the psychosis of obedience to imaginary sky-daddies is waning fast on earth…giving way to obedience to physical reality political terrorist authority…Real Hell on earth, so to speak. Heaven is ones own individual life and Hell is other people.

          • December 5, 2012 at 11:16 am

            Spiritual inquiry is fine by me – after all, who among us can honestly say they know anything definitive about the ultimate nature of reality, the nature of awareness, whether it can exist independent of our physical bodies… etc? It’s fascinating to contemplate – and to wonder. What I look upon as a load of shit is any claim made by anyone that they “know” God (as defined by them/their religion) exists and all the rest of that dogmatic horse-hockey.

        • Don Cooper
          December 5, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          Couldn’t have said it better! ;)

          The one I really like is when people say they see the face of Jesus or Mary in an eggshell or a stained glass window. How could they possibly see their faces? We have no idea what they looked like.

          The pop-culture images are just that. Created centuries after these people supposedly lived, as part of the Christian marketing campaign. And which have evolved over the years to the point now where Jesus was a white man, who looked like Barry Gibb and had six-pack abs.

          I think religion demonstrates the ability of people to be conditioned to believe in ANYTHING! Even something for which there is no reasonable evidence. They can, at will, shut off their frontal lobes and just accept things on faith that they would never accept in any other aspect of their lives.

          I see why the gov’t wants to keep religion in the mix: it’s useful tool for them.

          • liberranter
            December 5, 2012 at 6:19 pm

            I see why the gov’t wants to keep religion in the mix: it’s useful tool for them.

            And, as history proves, why religion wants to keep government in the mix too (to use as a weapon for its own agenda). It’s a truly symbiotic relationship. (Refer to the late Jerry Falwell for a textbook example.)

          • Tinsley Grey Sammons
            December 6, 2012 at 12:49 pm

            Amen to that. As long as folks blind THEMSELVES with bullshit YOU don’t have to do it to rob them.

            Time to view Elmer Gantry again. *sigh* Jean Simmons shore wuz purty back then.

            tgsam

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          December 6, 2012 at 12:54 pm

          The Book of Job confounds the believers in a just and merciful Gawd every time.

          A mere Man morally superior to Gawd Himself?

          Yep.

          tgsam

          • Tre Deuce
            January 7, 2013 at 9:03 pm

            Thanks for that TGSAM

            Regards Tre

  8. Brad Smith
    December 4, 2012 at 4:02 am

    Earlier today I was “debating” some clovers on another site about the fiscal cliff and the inheritance tax. I ask it it was moral to take over half of everything a person had saved simply because they died. They replied that taxes have nothing to do with morality. I refused to agree, taxes are theft and have everything to do with morality. NO they said, it’s for the greater good. So I said fine, When I find out some rich dude dies, I will go loot his property and give it to the charity of my choice minus my commission of course. Would that be moral I asked. NO they said. Well why not, I asked?

    Of course you know their next answers and the answers after that.

    Clovers actually believe that theft is OK as long as it’s done in name of government.

    • MoT
      December 4, 2012 at 8:04 am

      All taxation is theft. Plain and simple. And what really irks me is that government tax leeches have the unmitigated gall to then want to “retax” what had already been taxed. That’s sick! Then you have the lunatics who actually, like you’ve pointed out, agree with this until you make it painfully personal and then they sputter and yammer.

      • December 4, 2012 at 10:52 am

        Indeed.

        The taxes on accumulated property are the most egregious, because they make it increasingly impossible to ever achieve financial stability for oneself or one’s posterity.

        How despicable is this estate tax, for instance? A family owns a small farm, say 100 acres or so. They’re not “rich” (as if that were a justification to steal) but the land/equipment is worth over $1 million. The farmer has worked all his life on this farm. He dies – and now his son “owes” Uncle Shithead 55 percent tax. It is literally confiscatory and would send me to the mattresses, if you know what I mean.

        • liberranter
          December 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm

          Y’know, much as I agree with everything you’ve said on taxation, part of me would actually love to see the Estate Tax expanded to ridiculous dimensions, to the point that ANYONE who dies, no matter how impoverished, would have ALL of what little estate they leave behind confiscated by Uncle Thief and the states. That, IMNSHO, is the only way that the Clover Majority will ever see how evil and destructive the Estate Tax is. It would probably also be the only thing that would force their abolition, at the threat of a full-scale revolution.

      • Boothe
        December 4, 2012 at 6:34 pm

        MoT, I firmly believe all forms of involuntary taxation are theft, plain and simple. But tax, re-tax and tax again that which has already been taxed and taxed before that, is beyond anything that La Cosa Nostra has conceived of. I use an analogy to explain what our gun-vernment really does to us when addressing the uninformed that I heard years ago; the box of table salt.

        When the salt is first mined the mining company pays real estate tax, personal property tax on the mining equipment, corporate income tax, permitting and licensing fees, FICA, unemployment insurance, etc. The mine’s employees pay most of those same taxes along with wage withholding, FICA matching and Medicare / Medicaid to the same entities. The over-the-road trucking company that moves the salt to the processing plant and its employees pay all those same taxes. The processing plant and its employees pay in kind as well as the companies that supply the cardboard for the boxes, the machinery to clean and package the salt, the paper and ink suppliers that allow labeling to be done; all of the process feeds are taxed similarly.

        Then the OTR trucking company that moves the processed and packaged salt to the wholesale grocers’ warehouses ponies up the tax money once again. The wholesale grocer gets hit with the same extortion. And finally, they nail the retailer that puts that salt out on the shelves for the consumer the same way. The consumer (if he’s a productive member of the private sector) purchases that box of salt with money that has had virtually all those same taxes extracted from it before he even so much as smells his paycheck. What then is the impact on the price of salt and other common consumer commodities due to this compounded tax stack-up? Seventy percent? Eighty percent? More?

        This doesn’t even include the damage that has been done to the buying power of our fiat currency through monetary inflation; which is a hidden tax in and of itself. By the Fed’s own inflation calculator (http://www.minneapolisfed.org/index.cfm?) “our” fiat money has had 95.75% of its value “skimmed off” in under 100 years. What’s even more exasperating is that when you request specific cites under the tax law and regulations to show you which tax, chapter and verse, that the IRS claims you’re actually liable for, they respond with non sequiturs, veiled threats and unrelated case law. Lawlessness; it’s a beautiful thing . . .for sociopaths.

        These are some of the key reasons I am a strong proponent of voluntary taxes only. But since that will never happen, then imposts, excises, duties and tariffs are the next best thing since they can largely be avoided. If I don’t want to pay the tax, I don’t buy the item so taxed. Plus the tax only occurs that one time. Based on what I’ve read that’s the way (at least some of) the framers intended it. But we can’t have that in the land of the fee and the home of the slave, now can we?

        • MoT
          December 5, 2012 at 5:54 am

          Taxes, damnable as they are, were pretty much limited to duties and fees in the beginning. Which must explain why the Feds hated being constrained by it and pushed ever onwards for more and more. Would they ever “voluntarily” go back to such a system? Hell no! There literally has to be a revolution once more to free ourselves from it. Your description of all the onion-like layers of taxation and extortion levied upon a good before it even gets into your tax-weary hands is one that I’ve used myself. Imagine what an item would truly cost were none of those taxes buried into the price of an item! I dare say it would be depressing as hell.

    • December 4, 2012 at 11:01 am

      Morning, Brad!

      Yup – what you’ve described is what Ayn Rand (all her faults notwithstanding) excellently characterized as the “anti-conceptual mentality.” They cannot – or will not – grasp and apply principles. What is theft? It is taking what’s not yours. That is the principle of the thing. It follows – if you’re not a Clover – that calling taking what’s not yours “taxation” (or any other name) does not change the essential nature of what you’re doing. If it’s not yours, you have no right to it. If you take it, it’s theft. Period.

    • Don Cooper
      December 4, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      “NO they said, it’s for the greater good”

      But it’s not. If the gov’t takes $1 from Peter and gives it to Paul, then the “whole” is no better off. All the gov’t has accomplished is to redistribute wealth. To punish a productive Peter and reward an unproductive Paul but no new wealth has been produced.

      “the greater good” also has to consdier the opportunity cost of Paul not producing; that lost wealth. So the “whole” is actually worse off.

      Taxation has nothing to do with morality? Now that’s rich.

      • December 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm

        It’s imperative to never fall into the trap of accepting the utilitarian argument as the basis of a discussion. Always – and relentlessly – focus on the moral argument. Make them face the truth of what they advocate. Confront them with the logic that if it’s ok for them to shove a gun under someone else’s chin and take their stuff, then they have accepted the right of others to do the same to them.

        • Don Cooper
          December 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm

          I try to use logic to show them that there IS NO utilitarian argument. It’s a fallacy to begin with. Redistribution of wealth is a negative sum game so the utility of the “whole” is decreased.

          “Make them face the truth of what they advocate” – a friend of mine stopped to talk to some young girls outside the store handing out pamplets on an environmental group and he asked them if they believed in using force to further their agenda. Of course they both said no. Then he asked if their organization had lobbyists in DC lobbying congress for environmental regulations, and they said yes. He asked them what would happen to someone who violated those regulations that their organization help create? They shrugged. He told them that they could be forced to pay heavy fines and/or forced into a jail cell. The girls stood silent.

        • Mike from Boston
          December 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm

          Good points, I like to use the example of buying a car. I buy a new car for say $20,000 and pay a 6% sales tax before I’m allowed to drive my own car; the govt. gets $1200 because they can. If I sell that car down the road for $15,000 the next owner has to cough up $900 for his permission to drive. Do I get a rebate for the unused portion of my value? Stop laughing. Following this sequence through many owners until the car is junk and the parasites have probably collected over 30% of the value of this vehicle without producing anything of value in return. What a racket. I’m 66 years old but I hope this tyranny comes to an end in my lifetime, I’ll do what I can to move it along.

        • liberranter
          December 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm

          Confront them with the logic that if it’s ok for them to shove a gun under someone else’s chin and take their stuff, then they have accepted the right of others to do the same to them.

          THAT is the point that must be driven home relentlessly. It is also the point that Clover will refuse, often violently, to accept.

    • methylamine
      December 4, 2012 at 5:32 pm

      Brad,

      Can you post the URL of this forum?

      I’d like to go a-huntin’ and a-fishin’

      I promise to be civil…but I feel like sharpening my blades a bit on the intellectually unwashed, and maybe, just maybe, changing some minds.

      Or at least having a good chuckle with you!

    • December 4, 2012 at 7:18 pm

      I think that one of the greatest perils to society today is the gross inability of the average person to even think. Most people are a jumble of compromises and contradictory beliefs, simply abiding by and regurgitating whatever they’ve been programmed to do, believe and say their whole lives. They’ve been deprived of their greatest tool and power, their very ability to think deeply and reason through real issues so at so arrive at morally-consistent solutions.

    • Tinsley Grey Sammons
      December 5, 2012 at 2:14 am

      “Render unto Caesar…” What a load of shit from a mythical guy who never held a job.

      tgsam

      • Boothe
        December 5, 2012 at 4:33 am

        Actually Tinsley the “guy” had a job. He was a carpenter by trade. And the famous “Render therefore unto Caesar” quote has been taken out of context by the gun-vernment’s churchian sycophants to justify institutionalized theft through taxation. In fact Yeshua was despised by the organized church of his day and they’d sent their minions to try to entrap him either on the taxation issue, which would have amounted to sedition against Rome or discredit him as a teacher in front of his followers. Here’s a very good article by Jeffrey Barr that explains the true nature of the account in proper context and also blows the whole Romans 13 “bow down and worship the state” nonsense most modern 501c3 IRS approved churchs expouse right out of the water: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/barr-j1.1.1.html

        • Mike in Spotsy
          December 5, 2012 at 5:41 am

          Yes, Boothe. You have, as always, hit the nail right square on its proverbial head. That was a great LRC article that I well remember. And yes, Jesus did have a productive job.

          I have long been troubled by the 501(c)(3) thing: seems to me that the central state uses the tax code to limit the free exercise of religion. If any organized church would stand up to the feds, I would be tempted to join them. I mean really stand up…tell them that their priests/ministers/reverends/rabbis would say whatever they want to say during church services and that it is none of the state’s business in any way and that the feds can jail every member of the clergy if it dares. If the state wants to make an issue of it, that church would simply refuse to render unto Caesar what is God’s, and would instruct any of its believers to stop supporting the Godless state. Zero tax collections from that church or any of its members…how many millions of people is the state willing to jail for their religious beliefs?

          If only a couple of religions would do that, it would be huge. If only they had the courage that Christ taught and displayed. But they all cower to the tax code instead.

          Overall, it seems to me that the SCOTUS has focused entirely on the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and has ignored the free exercise clause. Those idiots seem to think that the state is establishing a religion if it dares to allow anyone to exercise their own religion where anyone else can see them. Next step, it seems to me, is the catacombs for anyone who wants to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

          • MoT
            December 5, 2012 at 5:58 am

            501c3 is a muzzle on the truth through an indirect “threat” of being taxed. Ergo you don’t have ministers today taking the government to task because they’re literally in bed with them. Only when they stop operating by the rules set forth by Ceasar will you see any change. Otherwise they’re just white-washed tombs.

          • liberranter
            December 5, 2012 at 6:38 pm

            The good news is that no church is required to maintain a 501(c)(3) exemption. Most, especially the smaller ones, actually don’t.

            The real reason that most church congregations are such state-worshipers is that it is the State (specifically the Amerikan State), in the minds of most, from whom all blessings ultimately flow, NOT the God of the Bible that most of them don’t ever read (there is a reason why most churches spend so little time in “bible study” actually reading and studying the Bible itself, but that’s fodder for another rant on another blog).

            Bottom line: the average middle class Amerikan “Christian” is about as ready and eager to live the life of a First Century believer (i.e., an adherent to the actual message of the Gospels who forsook all other worldly things, including loyalty to secular rulers and the societies over which they reigned)as the average chicken would be to be purchased by Colonel Sanders.

        • methylamine
          December 5, 2012 at 4:27 pm

          @Boothe, Mike,

          I’m sure you have but just in case; check out Chuck Baldwin’s Liberty Fellowship up in Kalispell, Montana.

          He was the Constitution Party presidential candidate, ardent Ron Paulian–who, by the way, endorsed him over whoever the Rethuglican candidate was.

          And he’s onto the 501c3 scam; his Liberty Fellowship isn’t playing their game, and he hits it HARD from the pulpit.

          He’s even written a book decrying the “render unto Caesar” and “the government is of god” Romans 13 idiots.

          My wife and I strongly considered joining “the Remnant” up in Montana. I emailed several of the original folks up there and asked if it’s truly “live and let live”–specifically, if an atheist/agnostic who happens to be a good neighbor would be welcome. My overwhelming sense is that those people are genuine.

          Why didn’t we move? Cold. And Waco.

          I think we should remain somewhat dispersed, with tightly-knit local support networks–but not living on “compounds” they can isolate, villify, and incinerate.

          • Boothe
            December 5, 2012 at 9:13 pm

            Methyl, I’m very familiar with Chuck Baldwin and concur with his political positions sufficiently to vote Constitution Party whenever I can. I know…I know…participating in the process is arguably giving consent to the system. But if no one votes third party there’s no other message being sent, which really lends credence to the Republicrat / Demoplican thugocracy. It’s likened unto cleaning up puke; I just hold my nose and do it. My dream is that one day the Libertarian and Constitution parties would put aside their relatively minor differences and merge long enough to but a boot in the arse of the PTB. But when you’ve got people so idealistic that they smoke because Ayn did, you won’t ever get them together with (ughh!) those nasty “Xians.” Besides which, the Libertarian leadership is in the beltway soup line now, so they aren’t going to do anything truly meaningful, because to change “bidness as usual” might to put their meal ticket in jeopardy.

            I’ve done some field service work out in the Kalispeel area, it’s beautiful country and the natives are friendly. It’s near the Glacier National Park and there’s good skiing close by too. But I share the same fear that you do about “The American Redoubt”, if worse should come to worst it may mean the immediate annihilation of every “terrorist cell” in the region with drones and missiles. You can bet the NSAFBIATFCIADODDOJ already have targeting coordinates for all the “terrorist leaders” in the vicinity. Otherwise I wouldn’t mind living in Flathead County at all.

            I can’t imagine that they’d have a big problem with you if you were an agnostic or atheist of nonaggressive and cooperative character. And if they’re true Christians, they might talk to you about your / their faith long enough to find out you weren’t interested, then dust off their sandals and go the next village. Real followers of Yeshua don’t proselytize with a boot on your throat; they plant seeds and move on. Since they’ve told the IRS they don’t need “official permission” to worship and teach, they’re probably a lot closer to real Christians than any of the main-stream churchians are. So they may not suffer drone attacks if the excrement impinges on the rotary air mover. The PTB will probably want to round them up and burn them at the stake if there are no lions to feed them to…

          • methylamine
            December 5, 2012 at 9:41 pm

            @Boothe:

            We have to fix the divides between liberty groups!

            This infighting between agorist, anarcho-cap, minarchist, big-L/little-l Libertarian…Constitutionalist…hell, even anti-war “liberal” and retarded but anti-tax “conservative” has to end.

            I loved seeing the cooperation between Kucinich and Paul. I even sent Kucinich some money; because he’s a man of principle–wrong in some, but I know where he’s coming from and he’s a moral man.

            At the risk of sounding “kum-bay-ya”, we all need to get along.

            Or: hang together, or hang separately.

        • Tinsley Grey Sammons
          December 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm

          If the carpenter wishes to give his own property to the State I’ll do nothing to stop him.

          It’s a quaint myth at best but I prefer “strait talkin’”.

          tgsam

          • Boothe
            December 6, 2012 at 3:39 pm

            I prefer staight talk myself Tinsley. The problem is “they” (the PTB of the time) will always send lawyers, cops and other low life scum armed with weasel words to trip you up if they can. This was exactly what the Pharisees dealt in; weasel words. Quaint myth? Hardly. Josephus wrote about “the guy” in his secular history…

    • SSteveL
      December 5, 2012 at 9:26 pm

      Brad, when the clovers contend that taxes are “for the greater good”, they thereby admit the central moral aspect of the question.

  9. DD
    December 4, 2012 at 4:21 am

    Clovers are retarded brat children and government is their mommy and daddy. Their mommy and daddy can murder and steal – but nobody else.

    • Brad Smith
      December 4, 2012 at 4:27 am

      Yep.

    • December 4, 2012 at 10:55 am

      The retarded brat children description really fits, DD. It immediately conjures to mind the “breeders” (as distinct from parents) who bring pweeeshus to a nice (clearly, not for kids – or at least, not ill-mannered kids) restaurant and fucking ruin the experience for everyone else there.

      • methylamine
        December 4, 2012 at 5:36 pm

        God Eric that was one thing that made me reluctant to have children, and I vowed I’d never let it happen.

        And guess what? It doesn’t.

        You don’t have to be “Mommy Dearest” or even a “helicopter parent”; just clear lines of discipline, and a sit-down dinner every night at home.

        Amazingly, children actually learn if someone takes the time to teach.

        I can take my six-year-old daughter to Brennan’s of Houston and have a delightful dinner among the hoi polloi.

        I’m more worried that *I* might have a meltdown; it’s common to see members of the Anointed Ones dining there and it’s impossible to resist confronting them. “Excuse me, you’re Bob from city council, aren’t you?”

        Imagine the rest of that conversation :)

  10. Robert
    December 4, 2012 at 9:30 am

    Taxation is theft, but not tyranny. Tyranny is saying the taxation is voluntary, then when you don’t let them steal enough, they take it all to auction and put you in a cage, or kill you if you resist enough. That is tyranny, and that is the system we live under.

    It is a tyranny that charges the relatives of the imprisoned, and the victims of actual crimes committed by individuals not in government costumes to pay for the punishment of those who have victimized them or their survivors, while telling you it’s JUSTICE.

    No, as Mr. Celente says, it’s JUST US.

  11. MaynardGKrebs
    December 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    What’s worse than taxation without representation? Taxation WITH representation because it means that our representatives are thieves and do not have our best interests at heart. They are more interested in perpetuating the bureuacracy and their jobs.

    Every time I hear talk of tax reform, I want to scream. There can be no serious talk of tax reform without putting the 16th Amendment on the table. Most of the Founders believed that income tax was evil because it enslaves the people. If we return the federal government to its pre-1913 sources of income, it will of necessity have to be smaller. Starve the monkey, so to speak. Get rid of the Fed and the income tax and government will shrink. Of course, there are other ways of getting money out of our pockets, but at least not through a direct income tax or through the invisible tax of inflation.

    • methylamine
      December 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm

      @Maynard,

      You’re 100% correct:
      The Fed is the ROOT of the problem–take away fiat debt-money, and tyranny dies quickly and painfully.

    • rEVOLutionary
      December 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm

      There is no representation, because the average Congressional district contains close to 3/4 of a Million people. No way any one person can represent all of them.
      And remember, democracy is just 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

  12. Randy
    December 4, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    Great post. I too am interested in the precise meaning of words and propaganda. For example, I don’t even use the word “Government”, preferring “Political Organization” instead. “Government”, to me, is the idea that the those who rule should serve the interest of those who are ruled. I have found no example of this in the modern world or in history. We are ruled by political organizations who serve their own interests. Their use of the word “government” is propaganda.

  13. D. Saul Weiner
    December 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Taxation without representation is what we have today. Many people have been fooled into believing that voting means representation, when it is obvious that is not the case.

  14. Bill in NC
    December 4, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    I love people who justify taxes in maintaining public goods, e.g. roads/schools/police/fire.

    But ignore the fact that states/federal govt. spends very little of the taxes they collect from you on the above.

    Instead we get to subsidize other people’s lifestyles via “transfer payments” or pay for multi-trillion dollar wars that have little to do with protecting our borders.

  15. Don Cooper
    December 4, 2012 at 9:43 pm

    @Meth & Sam – the war of the minds is important of course. Any fight also has to be a moral one to get the masses to empathize with the struggle, but there will be blood. Lot’s of blood. It became inevitable when the gov’t started emptying out the SS Trust Fund for its own nefarious purposes and the debt hit hit a point of no return. It became inevitable when one president and congressman and judge and governor and mayor were able to commit crime after crime and walk away scott-free. It became inevitable when presidents started unilaterally going to war. Oh there’s going to be blood and I think the sooner we accept this – and more importantly accept that it’s not about us and how much blood we shed. The issue is so much bigger than that. It’s an issue that cuts to the very core of our humanity: the right for a man to live free of other men – the sooner we’ll be free.

    Once one accepts that then the fear of blood shed fades. Be the change you want and defend your rights when abridged. That’s the best you can do. But to just continue talking about it while hiding behind our computers is not the best we can do.

  16. Don Cooper
    December 4, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    @Sam – WE don’t WANT any bodies. WE are the slaves, not the masters. WE don’t WANT any of this. It was never OUR choice. But to ignore the situation would be irresponsible and even more dangerous in the future don’t you think?

    Every day, literally, more and more laws are passed, liberties lost, people abused, incarcerated, beaten, taxed, fined, harrassed, killed and yet we do nothing of real consequence. Admit it: we’re just as bad as the clovers because we’re mad as hell and yet we do not act.

    We bitch and moan about how the gov’t acts as if it owns you and your land and your money and yet we do not act because we say we have “too much to lose”. LMAO!

    If we’re so intelligent; if we’re so smart then why can’t we find a way to act intelligently as opposed to just writing intelligently? Are we not smarter than the Pelosi’s and Boehner’s and Obama’s of the world? Are we not smarter than the local tax-feeder cop? If we are then what the hell are we waiting for? If we aren’t then what the hell are even talking about?

    • Me2
      December 4, 2012 at 10:22 pm

      It is simple for me. I have tried to educate others about how they are enslaved. Repeatedly. They don’t want to hear it and become defensive and angry to the point of violence. Especially if I interrupt their football, Survivor or other mindless entertainment.

      Therefore, I won’t fight for those who would fight against me. I might fight for Eric or others who have awakened but I’ll be damned if I will raise a finger (other than the middle one) for those who would fight to keep their chains.

      Depressing and I am not proud of this but it is the reality for me.

      • liberranter
        December 5, 2012 at 6:51 pm

        I hear you! I’m coming to feel the same way.

      • SSteveL
        December 5, 2012 at 10:19 pm

        Me2, I sympathize. I am in my 40s, live in southern Ontario (Canada), have a lot of friends and acquaintances, and have yet to meet a single libertarian. Few want to discuss it–yet many make their own (statist) points; I am prevented from speaking and ignored (this is done with more subtlety than telling me to shut up). Statism seems to be a deeply-ingrained unspoken consensus; questioning the frame of discussion seems to place one outside respectability. Once marginalized, I don’t have to be taken seriously and can be regarded as an annoyance. Whenever I get into an online debate, my interlocutors keep shifting the goalposts (a tactic I came up with to deal with this is to ask whether the person disagrees with any of my points; when I tied this, he said no and I ended the discussion).

        In my experience, people who defend the state invent arguments on the fly–for it is quite apparent that they have never been confronted with the questions I pose to them. They’d rather make up weak points than concede even an inch. In fact, I find that people defending the state actually dig in and become anything but intellectually honest.

        I picked up a book about rhetoric and am working on techniques for bringing out people’s good faith without triggering a defensive response.

        I’d like to know how other libertarians have managed socially; do you have libertarian friends? Have you converted anybody?

        P.S. Regarding a point made in an earlier comment: I belonged to a Toronto-area musclecar club (about 80 members) with a chatty online presence, and as far as I know, I was the only libertarian. Certainly there was no lack of pro-gov’t types who believed in gov’t speed enforcement, etc.

        P.P.S. I have a reputation for being very smart; I’m not sure I deserve it, though it’s true that I live for ideas and reason. Yet I have a poor record of changing minds about anything; I’ve found that what most people believe, regardless of topic, is very often factually wrong, so my beliefs are usually at odds with those around me. I suspect that people might subconsciously regard me as someone to challenge as a way of notching their belts: perhaps they feel better about themselves if they feel they can hold their own with me. I don’t think I’m unreasonably stubborn: my views do change as I think things through (e.g., I used to be a classical liberal with neocon overtones), and I question everything.

        • methylamine
          December 5, 2012 at 10:49 pm

          @SSteveL:

          Yes, yes…yes, and yes to all points.

          I’m very confident I’m right when I’m arguing a point; but if someone brings up a fact or logic I didn’t know or hadn’t considered, I can (and have) changed my mind…sometimes on the spot if it’s a small thing.

          I suspect most people posting here are the same way–because we believe in principle, and in arguing from logic, not emotion.

          Like you, I have very few actual “converts”; a handful, or perhaps seven, over the last five years since my real awakening. I was quasi-libertarian before that but with neocon overtones…Amurrika, f*** yeah! I repent to this day.

          But always, always keep talking about it. You never know who’s listening; ideas are sperm, and it takes up to three days to reach an ovary.

          I’d like to improve my argument technique, too; which books on rhetoric are you reading?

          • SSteveL
            December 7, 2012 at 1:27 am

            I’ve read Jay Heinrichs, Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion (2007). It’s a useful introduction.

  17. Paul Bonneau
    December 5, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Yeah, the “no taxation without representation” phrase never made a lot of sense to me either, until I read Rothbard’s American history (“Conceived in Liberty”). He explains that early on, assemblies and legislatures were actually pretty effective resisters of taxation, before the ruling class captured and co-opted them. The King could do everything he wanted, EXCEPT to tax people – which of course put a crimp in his plans. Taxation was controlled by the legislatures, which explains why they fought over taxes we would consider almost absurdly low. So what “no taxation without representation” really meant back then, was “we don’t want taxes”, or at worst, “we want lower taxes”.

    • December 5, 2012 at 5:52 am

      That’s not quite the reason they drew the line at such low levels. Rather, they wanted to prevent the state reaching a take off point. With enough soldiers, it was practical to tax by force – but first there had to be funds to pay them. Without enforcers there already, the state needed money to hire enough enforcers to get that money – so, keeping the government on a drip feed for necessary expenses, monitoring it over a very short term, kept the government from ever getting far enough ahead of the game to change the rules of the game with hired enforcers, a deliberate Catch-22. That’s what determined the critical level of funds. And that was the pattern that grew up in 17th and 18th century Britain.

      • MoT
        December 5, 2012 at 6:34 am

        And “enforcers” are what our modern day shock troops, aka “cops”, are all about today: wealth extraction. When push comes to shove they’re hired goons, on your dime, who then take great pleasure in enforcing diktats on the ones forced to pay for the privilege of being raped. How twisted can you get!

        • SSteveL
          December 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm

          Yes, the police, military, and other armed gov’t employees are self-selecting thugs. They are part of the “free shit” army mentioned in earlier comments. They have a selfish incentive to maintain their parasitical livelihoods through violence. There are exceptions, but looking at history, most would follow orders–no matter what those orders might be. It’s easy for people to rationalize their behaviour, even when they commit atrocity.

  18. Paul Bonneau
    December 5, 2012 at 1:24 am

    Oh, I should also add that (of course) the modern court historian interpretation of “no taxation without representation” is “taxes are OK as long as representatives do it”. But that’s not what it really meant.

  19. December 5, 2012 at 1:59 am

    Cant re-visit this website because of the fuckin idiotic ad at the right that insists on following me down the page from start to finish. Talk about big brother

    • DD
      December 5, 2012 at 4:31 am

      Ghostery dot com

  20. libertarian jerry
    December 5, 2012 at 4:26 am

    I’m an old man. I’ve been in the Patriot/Libertarian Movement for over 40 years. In that long time I,like others,believe that we may as well”have been plowing the sea.” The longer I observe human nature I find that most people really don’t want Liberty. A majority of the people would rather have security and to take it further detest the idea of people being free. This is because liberty is self responsibility and self reliance and being able to reason things out for oneself. Its what it is to be an adult. For many people this is difficult. They would rather not think and have someone else do the thinking for them. Its all about the worst in man; coveting,envy and power seeking being forced on the minority who wish to run their own lives. When I was only 15 years old,somewhere back in the distant 1950s,I read Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead.” The main character or hero in that novel was a man by the name of Howard Roark. Howard Roark,despite tremendous odds,never gave in to the pressures of the majority,kept the faith and after a long struggle won out. I modeled my world outlook on Howard Roark’s views of what his inner self was telling him. Despite the struggles,and the slippery slope America is falling into I probably won’t see true liberty in my lifetime. But on a positive note. When I look back at the demagogues and collectivists who are ruining this great nation and the fools that follow them,at the same time,I see the eager mostly younger faces of the tens of thousands of people cheering on Ron Paul and his Revolution. That despite the odious poison of socialism and its acid like corrosion of the American Spirit that there is a real hope for America’s future. When I was young most idealistic people sought to change the world by government means,that is to Tax and Spend and Control. Anyone who believed in Liberty was looked upon as a dreamer or worse a fool. Now,in large numbers,young people who will be the future not only see the fraud of government but will act to dismantle that odious institution. Let us be positive and hope that these liberty seekers get into decisive positions in the future,keep the faith and restore liberty to America. Its really America’s only hope.

    • Don Cooper
      December 6, 2012 at 1:40 pm

      “Now,in large numbers,young people who will be the future not only see the fraud of government but will act to dismantle that odious institution”

      Rand Paul, Ron Paul’s son, is a young man (relatively speaking) who was raised under Ron’s roof; heard his message every day his whole life and yet after being elected into the “institution” has voted in favor of the NDAA, supports protecting Israel and who knows what else.

      I see that when these so called “liberty minded” young people get into the institution, they aren’t so liberty minded anymore.

      • liberranter
        December 6, 2012 at 4:42 pm

        It will be very interesting to see how Judas Paul behaves once his daddy has passed on. I, for one, dare this pathetic political hack to try to claim his daddy’s mantel of leadership in the liberty movement. Any attempt on his part to do so will trigger a reaction so swift that he will be forced to openly acknowledge his neocon core beliefs in public.

        My sincerest hope is that this PoS finds himself out of office at the end of his term in the Senate.

        • December 6, 2012 at 5:59 pm

          I don’t trust Rand at all. He has defended SS – and then endorsed Mittens. Inexcusable. He will have to do a great deal to undo what he has done.

          • DD
            December 7, 2012 at 1:36 am

            There is no doubt in my mind that the political terrorists threatened Rand….

          • December 7, 2012 at 11:15 am

            Yeah –

            It’s hard to know… and to be frank, who can say how any of us would react if we were made “an offer we couldn’t refuse”?

            It’s one thing to risk your own neck. But what if they threaten your family? Your kids?

          • Mike in Spotsy
            December 7, 2012 at 2:46 am

            I’ve had the same thought, DD. He changed his tune way too quickly. No way I will ever support him, no matter how much he tries to undo it.

          • methylamine
            December 7, 2012 at 3:00 am

            And to think; if he’d taken on his father’s mantle, how far he’d go.

            There’s one thing, one defining factor that made Ron Paul draw tens of thousands of college students to his rallies–he’s genuine.

            The youth today have seen so much artifice, they can smell phony a mile away.

            Rand reeks of it now.

            The question I have, is Why??

            He’ll get nothing for his compromises.

            On another note:
            Re: changing it from the inside by sabotage–does anyone else think that Alan Greenspan got inside and pushed the monetary pedal to the metal to intentionally crash the Federal Reserve?

            His early papers on gold could have been written by Rothbard or von Mises. He was personal friends with Ayn Rand…and became the handmaiden to the Rothschild/Rockefeller cabal.

            Did he do it purposely, to accelerate the crash?

          • DD
            December 7, 2012 at 3:46 am

            Is this scenario plausible?

            PTO: Congratulations on winning the Senate seat.
            Paul: Thanks.
            PTO: If you do as we say, we will make you and your friends rich and give you and your entire family everything they want for many generations. If you refuse, we will destroy all of you one-by-one in a very gruesome, drawn-out, and terrifying way…You cannot even imagine the suffering we will cause all your friends and family.
            Paul: WTF! Who do you think you are!
            PTO: Quiting is not an option. Revealing this deal to anyone is not an option either. Your choice, Rand. Bye.

          • Mike in Spotsy
            December 7, 2012 at 4:39 am

            DD, that’s a very plausible scenario. And I think they had a similar conversation with Judge Roberts to make him vote to affirm the obviously unconstitutional health care fiasco. That was the most bizarre SCOTUS decision ever.

          • December 7, 2012 at 10:45 am

            The Roberts thing reeks.

            I am averse to betting, generally. But I’d lay a wad on the table that he was gotten to. He has something in his closet – or maybe they just “made him an offer he couldn’t refuse” – as was reportedly done to Ross Perot…

          • methylamine
            December 7, 2012 at 6:15 am

            re: “The Conversation” i.e. “Congratulations on your shiny new senate seat! Sit down, shut up, get rich–or else

            Wholly plausible.

            Given the rampant, over-the-top fraud in this election–you should hear Bev Harris over at BlackBoxVoting–and the equally over-the-top bizarrely out-of-character actions from people like Roberts…it would be naive NOT to believe there’s coercion.

            It used to be subtle. They’d find their weakness; brunettes, drugs, gambling…kids…and hook’em in. If they were useful they’d get a little more on them, indulge them a bit further, until the hook was set.

            Piss them off? You get Weiner’ed–or worse.

            Look at Bohemian Grove; you think any of the figures who attend could survive politically if their activities were broadly known?

            As Nixon said, “Faggiest goddamned thing I’ve ever seen.”

            Now though, it’s as though they don’t have time to develop their assets subtly like the good old days of booze, blow, and bitches.

            It’s do as we say, or else time.

            It all smells of desperation to me. I think the PTB know that if they don’t lock this thing down TIGHT, they’re fucked–because we will hunt them down remorselessly.

  21. December 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

    No, taxation is tyranny – period.

    No, it’s actually subtler than that. It’s practically always tyranny, in precisely the ways and for the reasons given in this article, but there are exceptional cases in which it is not, cases which don’t come up these days.

    Those cases were those in which the government really did own whatever was being taxed, and the people really did come to it freely and knowingly and not under duress – all vanishingly unlikely, but not actually impossible – so the tax was actually a membership fee or a rent, in moral and economic terms. (On the other hand, even something that is called a rent is wrong when those conditions don’t apply, e.g. the rents Irish tenants had to pay to landlords who had stolen the land, or who had ultimately got it from someone who had.)

    One historical case of a tax that could be justified like this was the sole tax that Rome levied directly on its citizens between the high point of the republic and the high point of the empire: a small tax in support of the temples. In that period, Rome threw all its tyrannical burden onto subject peoples, cities and states, exempting its own people but at least being honest about the tyranny of making others pay. The tax that remained was kept to maintain a direct link to the religion, the “binding together”, of the people and of the idea of Rome: essentially, a membership fee (of course, anyone who wanted could opt out – but only by becoming one of the outsiders, and then having to pay the taxes on subjects or flee Roman rule entirely, just as Benjamin Disraeli’s father converted from Judaism to get out of his synagogue’s levy in nineteenth century England). I have sometimes wondered how St. Paul reconciled this part of his Roman citizenship with his Christian faith, what with its religious significance.

    Ironically, the British North American colonies were among the few times and places where there could be some argument on these grounds that tax would not be tyrannical. It was indeed the Crown that had made them what they were: originally, proprietors, companies, and what not had set up the colonists as settlers in exchange for privileges, rents, monopolies and what not – the analogue of freely accepted rent obligations – then one generation of colonists had welched on those deals, getting new deals with the support of the Crown and Parliament, and then a later generation of colonists rebelled against funding measures taken by those. Unlike people in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, the colonists had consented to the arrangements and did have realistic alternatives if they did not wish to live under them, i.e. move west or to other countries’ colonies. Their rebellion was right as regards themselves and their own property, but quite wrong in the part that amounted to a theft of someone else’s property (they also stole Loyalists’ property as well as that of the Crown). In the colonies then, that category wasn’t a nonsense from not existing, an “empty set” in mathematical terms – but it mostly is an empty set, as it was in Britain and Ireland then, and throughout the world today, so the exception doesn’t come up now.

    By the way, for another perspective and some more background readers might want to google “Taxation no Tyranny”, by Samuel Johnson (yes, Boswell’s Johnson).

  22. Don Cooper
    December 5, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    @Eric – “Gibs muh dat, muufukker”

    You crack me up man. :)

    • December 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      I do try!

      Speaking of gibs mu dat – see today’s lead story….

  23. Don Cooper
    December 6, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    @Ed – “You can’t kill a snake by living in his belly. The way to kill a viper is to take a hoe to his ass. It’s foolish to let him swallow you so you can try to give him a fatal bellyache while you’re being digested.”

    LOVE IT! I have friends to whom this very thing happened. They got involved in their state and local GOP (swallowed), put their hearts and souls and money into it and in the end got digested by it.

    Now they don’t do anything with the GOP anymore and have had panic attacks realizing that this grand hope they had to change a corrupt, broken system by using the corrupt, broken system was all an illusion.

    So in a way, they’re worse off now then they were before. At least before the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION they had hope, now they don’t even have that and they are back to apathy and dispair.

    Anyone who believes that the American Empire and its temples will be toppled from the inside out is a fool. At least not by playing by the establishment’s rules.

    • BrentP
      December 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm

      Many a person would tell me that I have to work within the system to change it. It’s a form of political argument. I have long argued that this response is nothing more than telling someone to go pound sand. That the idea that the system could be changed from within was an illusion, a perception, created to protect the system, so people could retain their greater illusions of what we live under.

      Where I disagree is regarding the Ron Paul campaigns. I am not negative on them. Illusion busting has to be done. Team R has exposed itself to a lot of people now. Even people who didn’t support Ron Paul now see team R for what it really is. This is a good thing. The whole system is rigged. It has to be busted, but it is designed to resist outside attack. Busting it from the inside is IMO a valid approach. Not fixing it, not changing it, not taking it over, busting it. The republicans were forced to expose themselves. To drop the illusions. That’s the first step to busting this system from within. The republican party is now dead man walking. It’s done. No new blood. It’s remaining time is unknown but it is finite. As an institution it will die without new people and it has shunned them.

      Many an organism kills another from within. Even snakes can die from eating the wrong things.

    • methylamine
      December 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm

      @Brent & Don:

      There’s a salamander that lives in the Pacific Northwest. It cultivates the same bacteria as the fugu puffer fish; they synthesize the deadly tetrodotoxin.

      Along comes a fat, hungry Pacific toad and swallows the unsuspecting little pink salamander; pause five minutes; the toad keels over dead and the salamander climbs out.

      Thus did Ron Paul. He not only re-invigorated the liberty movement, but his maltreatment under the GOP opened many eyes to their essential corruption.

      That said, his strategy was NOT to change the GOP for the better. It’s a losing strategy–they’ll never change, they’re perfectly happy maintaining their gravy train.

      I’m with Solzhenitsyn–Don’t fear them, don’t believe them, don’t ask anything of them.

      Agorism–withdraw from their system and support voluntaryism as much as possible.

      We’re the gerbils running between rocks in the late Mesozoic; just staying out of the way of thrashing dinosaur’s tails in their death-throes.

      • Don Cooper
        December 6, 2012 at 8:49 pm

        Your analogy ignores the fact that the little salamander had no choice but to be in the belly of the beast and was simply lucky that this particular beast was small enough to be susceptible to his poison.

        But I wonder if the little salamander would have chosen to go into the belly of a beast 100x larger that was immune to such poisons.

        I believe the only “inside” job that could possible have any affect would have to be covert because as soon as you make your intentions known, the establishment is too power and too well organized and they will just shut you down or buy you off.

        • methylamine
          December 6, 2012 at 10:23 pm

          Oh don’t get me wrong Don–I think working within the system is a total waste of time, and probably dangerous as well. You could be killed–or worse, bought off.

          I think it was a one-time thing. Ron Paul’s disgraceful treatment revealed them.

          Now–ignore them and watch the damn thing collapse of its own weight.

      • Don Cooper
        December 6, 2012 at 8:58 pm

        I think anyone – after watching the GOP primaries this year and how those trying to use the rules of order were just ignored and/or told to shut up or hauled off by cops – who still beieves that using the broken system to fix the broken system is a viable strategy is nuts. You might as well try pushing a rope.

        That’s exactly what people just did a few months ago and they didn’t even come CLOSE. The establishment did us a HUGE favor by showing their colors and it should have been an awakening for many. How many times must one fail, and fail miserbly, before they accept that the strategy is a failure?

        Moreover, keeping people believing that “the system” works keeps them engaged and distracted in a losing struggle which is beneficial for the establishment because it keeps the masses believing they have some say. They do not.

        • IndividualAudienceMember
          December 12, 2012 at 7:51 am

          Man, Don, you’re on a roll:

          “…people believing that “the system” works keeps them engaged and distracted in a losing struggle which is beneficial for the establishment because it keeps the masses believing they have some say.” …

          Exzactly!

          Also, does anyone else feel like busting this guy out of jail?:

          “he switched out advertisements from display cases at bus stops and other public locations and replaced them with his own bit of brilliant social critique”

          http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/128171.html

          It kinda blows the whole notion of “public property” out of the water, doesn’t it?

          Hey, Mr. Public! I’m talking to you.

  24. Don Cooper
    December 6, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    I keep reading things in the news about who can “legally” do what. What does legal have to do with anything?

    Whenever I ask someone why I have to pay taxes they respond: because it’s the law. Then I tell them that, that is not the reason I have to pay taxes, that is the reason I’ll be punished if I don’t.

    No matter how you slice it the only justification a statist could come up with for why I have to pay taxes is because the govt says I have to. The only reason I have to stop at a red light when there’s not a car insight is because the govt says I have to. The only reason Texas can’t secede from the union is because the govt says so.

    So let’s call it what it is. It’s not against the law, it’s against the will of the govt. The law just qualifies that will and the penalty for not obeying.

    • liberranter
      December 6, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      Exactly, and you can literally see the expression of excruciating pain cloud the Clovers’ faces when you bring this up. Such exercises in critical thinking are just too much for their atrophied little brainlets to process.

    • IndividualAudienceMember
      December 12, 2012 at 7:39 am

      “it’s against the will of the govt.”

      Yeah, no shit. Perfect phrase.

      I noticed a guy on here awhile back saying he was basically treating stop lights as if they were stop signs.

      I like that.

      I did it today.
      Sitting in a row of cars 50 deep, no one coming for miles in the other directions,… I just treated that stop light as if it were a stop sign and it was liberating as all get out.

      I did it twice until traffic made it impossible.

      It’s so freaking sad that ^That is practically a revolutionary act.

      • DD
        December 12, 2012 at 8:08 am

        Welcome to Italy ;/

        Where all a red light means “it is your fault in an accident”…And sex for sale, of course.

        • December 12, 2012 at 8:17 am

          “a red light means “it is your fault in an accident”

          I read somewhere, can’t remember where, that traffic signs and signals in the US were originally merely advisory in nature.

          Count on creeping Cloverism to tighten the noose.

      • December 12, 2012 at 11:34 am

        Hi IAM,

        My thoughts exactly:

        http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/12/12/bad-boy/

  25. Christian Light
    December 6, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    I recently wrote a paper in my speech class on the topic of prayer in schools. I referred to “public schools” in the paper as government schools. I’m curious to see the comments by my professor.

    • IndividualAudienceMember
      December 12, 2012 at 7:41 am

      Very cool.

  26. Blake
    December 6, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    Excellent article. And one I finally got to read. Has there been a problem with the website lately? Want to know if it’s just me.

    • December 6, 2012 at 11:53 pm

      We had some weird issue (since fixed) after we changed servers… should be high and tight now!

      • liberranter
        December 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

        Eric:

        Yes, the issue does appear to be fixed. I sent you an email pointing out the problem, but, incredibly, no sooner did I hit the “send” button then was my next visit to the site problem-free.

        (*SIGH OF RELIEF*)

        Going without access to your site for more than a day gives me the same withdrawal symptoms that I get after going a day without visiting LRC!

        • December 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm

          Good to know – and sorry (to all) for the hassles… you should been on our end of things that week!

          • IndividualAudienceMember
            December 12, 2012 at 7:44 am

            So it Was an extension cord that someone tripped over.

            No issues since.

            I saw it as a practice run for the future.

            I did badly.

            I’ll have to practice my smoke signals or somethin’.

          • December 12, 2012 at 10:14 am

            Well, sort of.

            We had to do an emergency transfer from one server (whose service sucked) to another. In the process, we lost some stuff and also it took a while for things to “point” in the right direction. Dom can explain it far better than I.

  27. dom
    December 12, 2012 at 12:34 am

    Dang it!

    SHTFplan.com

    “The definition of terrorism in your country has been redefined to people who are critical of the government and people who are interested in your Declaration of Independence, your Bill of Rights, anybody who talks about the Constitution… That isn’t the America I grew up in and respect.”

    -Rob Kirby

    • Tor Munkov
      December 25, 2012 at 9:56 pm

      Poor absurd human galoots. No fur, no paws, no tail. You run away from mice. Never get enough sleep. Lucky for you, us cats control the controllers and can protect you.

      Just use this feline neuro-linguistic programming technique. It vibrates at a higher level of consciousness and existence than any merely human thought or idea and gets you out of any problems.

      When the feds knock on your door and want to discuss your blogging, simply say “those aren’t my thoughts, that must have been my cat walking on the keyboard.” They’ll immediately relax, apologize, and peacefully leave your entryway to go hassle some other citizen on their list. Don’t you worry your big lolling pumpkin heads about a thing.

      http://static4.fjcdn.com/comments/come+at+me+bro+i+will+corrupt+your+_b65f662ec843fc5b37ff09761b912eca.jpg

Leave a Reply

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