The speech Morpheus gave to Neo in the original Matrix was elegant – and eloquent. But we’re not in a movie – and most of us are not masters of verbal ju-jitsu any more than we are masters of actual ju-jitsu. So, how do we – we being those of us who believe in non-aggression, voluntarism and thus, human liberty – make our case to people who don’t think in such terms? 
The other day I had a chat with a neighbor friend. He posed a rhetorical question, “You do believe some taxes are necessary, right?” Rather than debate the merits of this or that tax, this or that function funded by taxes – I merely replied that as a non-violent person I am opposed to the use of violence, for any reason except in self-defense. I therefore oppose, I told him, the violent taking of other people’s property for any purpose whatsoever. That while I might prefer this or that outcome, I would rather people dealt with one another on the basis of persuasion and mutual free consent – and not at gunpoint.
This approach usually at least results in a momentary pause. It may even get your opponent thinking.
Most people – including most of us – grew up with authoritarianism. It envelopes us, from womb to tomb. And so, we grow up accepting, implicitly, the moral schism that says violence is ok when it is done officially.
Or by a group, having so voted.
No. It goes much deeper than that. Because the violence is never – or rarely – spoken of openly. No politician running for office ever says, “I will threaten your neighbors with violence to provide money that I will use to provide schools for your children at their expense – and if they refuse, I’ll have them caged – even killed.”
Instead, the politician talks blandly about his “support for public education.” The lethal violence he is advocating remains in the background. He is thus able – of all things! – to posture as a “concerned” and “public-spirited” citizen, who “cares about the childrens’ future.”
Never mind the present of his victims.
People talk about the “need” for this or that – never mentioning or even considering that what they propose entails threatening people who have done them no harm and who owe them nothing with murderous violence if they disagree – and decline.
And so on.
The violence of our society is so pervasive, we swim in it as naturally – as obliviously – as fish in water. We – most of us – literally cannot even see it. We merely accept it as the natural order of things – and go about our lives accordingly. We vote – casually – to put our neighbors into cages – unless they Submit and Obey. To send armed men to their doorstep. To control and micromanage them, with the ever-present threat of the fist, the baton, the Tazer, even the gun always in the background. To deprive them of property – even life. 
And they, in turn, to us.
It is called by other things, of course. But this does not change the essential nature of the thing. The violence is there, just sublimated – and legitimated. Organized. Officialized. Euphemized. And so, accepted. Unquestioned. Acquiesced to.
But it is violence just the same.
Only, worse – because euphemized violence renders inert the moral sense. Those in its thrall lose the ability to separate right from wrong in principle. They are reduced to relativism – and utilitarianism. To “need” and ” want” rather than right – vs. wrong.
You will never win an argument over taxes on real estate to fund the local government socialization/indoctrination center by complaining about “waste” in the budget, or that homeowners can’t afford another rate hike this year. But you can make a devastating moral objection to the notion that anyone has the right to threaten others with violence in order to compel them to provide funds for such an endeavor. It is not about being “against public education.” It is about being against the use of threats and violence as the basis of human interaction. It is about getting people to see that the ultimate kindness – the highest form of compassion one human being can extend to another – is to agree not to engage him with violence, but rather, persuasion. If people cannot agree, then let them disagree peaceably – and go their separate ways. 
Violence – except in defense against violence – must come to be regarded as the essential sinful act. The single worst thing one human being can do to another. Those who believe – and act – otherwise must come to be viewed as pariahs. Sick. Evil.
Social suasion will do the rest.
People can live together in peace, without chewing each other to pieces, without reciprocal parasitism, enforced at bayonet-point. The world – our existence – does not have to be this way. It only requires getting enough of them to see – and to feel – the water all around them, the sea of violence in which they swim.
It is time we crawled out onto the shore and took a deep breath of fresh air.
Throw it in the Woods?
Iceland bans the FBI, told them to GTFO when they showed up unannounced to “investigate” wikileaks.
http://rixstep.com/1/20130131,00.shtml
http://joyb.blogspot.com/2013/01/statement-dreamworking-wikileaks.html
http://rt.com/news/iceland-fbi-wikileaks-investigation-292/
Delicious!
My wife and I looked into Iceland after they told the banks to go pound sand after the engineered financial crisis in ’08.
Now I like them even more!
There’s a three-minute video of their president at the latest Davos Elite-minion circle-jerk, and it’s the only worthwhile thing there…he explains in very polite language how they denied the debt, and arrested and prosecuted the banksters!
Man…those Viking genes come right back out when they’re needed.
To all ]who support Eric in his writing here I would suggest a simple and relatively inexpensive way to implement what he is saying here. Simply run for office and get in debates and media forums to present this unvarnished truth. Filing for many offices is about $100. Imagine several hundred “candidates” laying down this kind of rhetoric. do you think it may get noticed? run as a repub or dem, it matters not. You may just open some eyes. And, be sure to keep smiling while you lay it all out and watch the hair stand up on the back of their necks.
Oh boy. That old cliche` again: “if you don’t like the sytem then run for office and change it!” lmmfao. You can tell that someone is still under the spell when they say shit like that.
Yea, let’s participate in that illusionary process that convinces people they are actually in control. That they actually have some say. They don’t. It’s just a way to keep people like Mark from actually doing something that does matter and could make a change.
1. Everything the gov’t does, it does at the end of the barrel of a gun.
2. Everything they do is wasteful and inefficient which benefits no one.
3. Everything they do is of lower quality and more expensive than its counterpart in the private sector.
Gov’t simply has to go. It benefits no one except the bureaucrats and their cronies.
Fully Informed Grand Juries could lawfully and legally kick ass until the US gets back on the track laid down by the non-amendable Unnimous Declaration. The Declaration is the Organic Law for the United States of America. No Power that contravenes the Principles supporting that Documant has Lawful Authority.
What Don says rings true. The problem with trying to change the system from within is that the system is inherently unfixable. Furthermore, the act of voting indicates that the voter supports the system as it is from an ethical PoV. Thus the non-choice say between Obama and Romney/Bush or even Ron Paul amounts to a flawed assumption. If the individual had the power to opt out all together or to vote on a binding resolution to abolish then his or her vote may have some real sway. Excepting that, one simply has to look at how the MSM and RNC dealt, against their own rules, with Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. We have puppet masters ruling a nation of slaves. It cannot be stated more clearly or honestly.
I did not say “change the system from within”. I tried that and you are correct it DOESN’T work. What I am saying is, this will put you in the public eye, you will be quoted because you are a candidate. People will hear your message on a much larger platform.
This thread has all of 245 replies. That includes a bunch of the same folks going back and forth. We might as well be whispering in a phone booth(I assume you’re old enough to remember those ;^) ) The real nature of GovCo needs to be brought front and center to the masses. It is the message that needs to get out and one sure way to be heard is to take the political platform. I can assure you the “media” will treat you as a kook but, the spark that you will make will light the fire in the minds of many. If 250 people do this get through to 1000 people then you’ve got a quarter million with their eyes open, they will start to talk, the message will spread.
Hi Mark,
This is an excellent suggestion! I’ve thought about getting more involved – that is, speaking up at the county government hearings and so on. Just got to get up the gumption to do it. Being a fairly shy person by nature, public speaking is not something I enjoy. But as you say, it’s a way to spread the word – to get people thinking. New people. Not just the already awake.
Mark,
I participate in this forum because it’s nice to be in the majority for once.
In the ‘outside world’ all one can do is try to make an imprint on people so that some might connect the dots that what happens tomorrow is something that libertarian kook talked about last year. Trouble is, the average american can’t seem to remember such things for more than a week.
BrentP,
they may not remember because they only get one dose. As any decent ad man will tell you it’s the repetition that gets people aware. They hear the message over and over. It may not stick at first or even consciously but, there will come a time, license check, tax bill, DMV renewal that a light will come on and they’ll connect the dots.
We didn’t get here over night, the fix won’t be instant.
I’ve been at it for many years. I don’t think any realization will be made until it is too late.
Regretably for many, BrentP, you are right.
Yours in Liberty & the Prince of Peace,
Mark
Don, I left the Libertarian Party because it’s too statist. This isn’t about “changing the system”, it’s about using the system to expose its real nature.
If you get elected speaking as Eric wrote in this column your chances of getting elected are about as good as a ’74 Fiat NOT having a rust problem.
I wonder how most Libertarians would do with my Philosophical Litmus Test?
A PHILOSOPHICAL LITMUS TEST
Where do you stand on Drug Prohibition?
This simple, straightforward question quickly eliminates the half-hearted, the hopelessly ill-informed, and the Stealth Statists. Simple is best, so keep it simple by insisting upon an across the board repeal of de facto Drug Prohibition.
Interfering with an adult’s efforts to relieve his personal suffering is morally equivalent to inflicting the suffering. Deliberately inflicting suffering is intrinsically criminal. The insane and intrinsically criminal Drug War has brought dreadful suffering to millions. The Drug War is a Power Precedent that has been instrumental in the legislative and judicial nullifying of the Bill of Rights.
Without Bill of Rights protection for the Individual, the United States is a totalitarian nation that systematically inflicts Draconian punishment for legislated offenses that are not real crimes. Nothing endangers the American Ideal* more than whimsical lawmaking and judicial ukase that bypasses Bill of Rights restraint. No foreign enemy could have damaged America as deeply as our own lawmakers and judges have succeeded in doing.
*The American Ideal is expressed with incomparable eloquence in the non-amendable Unanimous Declaration ratified by Congress in July 1776.
The Nuremberg Precedent, which brought crimes against humanity to Mankind’s administration of Justice, is morally applicable to the War on Drugs and/or any other government sponsored crime.
What I find so amazing is that the same folks that scream bloody murder about “Obamacare” will support the War on (some) Drugs till their dying breath. They never realize that both have the same tap root in the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 which said that GovCo would decide who could dispense opiates and to whom and how. This is the nose of the camel for both Drug War and healthcare controls.
When Congress passed “Obamacare” it was Democrat Steny Hoyer that pointed out this was the culmination of over 100 years of efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to take over healthcare.
If the government can control your body you are a slave in everything but name.
Hi Mark,
It’s of a piece with the moralistic braying one so often finds on the political right. I guess “family values” don’t include keeping one’s paws off other people’s stuff – as well as one’s nose out of other people’s business.
The ones I like the best are those that have a Gadsden flag on their car on one side and an “I Support The Troops(or police or highway patrol) on the other. Do they actually think Barack Obama is going to come to their door and actually haul them to the interrment camp? That’s what the cops & troops are for you idiots.
I prefer PREVAIL, instead of WIN. I don’t want a non-violent adversary to feel that s/he has been DEFEATED as a result of coming to agree with the knowledge that I’ve willingly shared.
tgsam
Eric,
I’ve been thinking about this article a bit, and I think that “winning arguments” might be the wrong approach. Of course, I agree with the sentiments and the content, but I don’t think the point is to win arguments. Intellect and logic has long been on the side of Freedom and Liberty. As Thoreau displayed in his essay on Civil Disobedience, logic taken to it’s conclusion arrives there.
I would suggest–rather than winning arguments–we should aspire to motivating honest pursuit of the truth. If we believe Freedom, Liberty, and the like to be universal, good, and true, then any person who sets out on an honest path to find out what is real should arrive in similar places.
The moral argument of non-violence wins every time, as the counter argument is always “so since I disagree with you, and you believe in violence, you are okay with being punched in the face now, right?” which they obviously are not, so intelligent discourse is over.
I am only suggesting a better means, not a different end (Inception, instead of the first 20 minutes of the Matrix, as a loose metaphor), in trying to inspire an honest pursuant, rather than convince peeps intellectually. By encouraging other people to honestly explore their own position, they will ultimately see the flaws in it. I find that being receptive to a differing view, and honestly questioning deeper about it gives better results than trying to prove my own. “So if I can’t take your money and give it to charity in your name, why can the government? Why is that part of the so called social contract? What does that mean? If we can’t define it, how can we know what it is? Where does the authority come from?”–questions like that.
If the person is actually concerned with what is true and real–some are–then they’ll hopefully go down the rabbit hole in a much more positive way than getting thumped over the head with moral correctness.
If they aren’t actually concerned with what is true and real, there’s nothing anyone can do for them (now) anyway. (other than try to inspire them to get interested in what is real and true)
Well said…Socrates would be proud!
After more than 60 years on this earth, I finally came to an understanding a couple years back regarding the nature of government — and that is government rules via the threat of death. Even a parking ticket can lead to summarily being executed if you ignore the ticket, failure to appear and subsequent warrant for your arrest. Ignore the cop when he comes to your home to make the arrest and your ten dollar parking ticket just turned into a death warrant. Keine Freiheit ins Amerika..
In re the argument that these (libertarian) idea(l)s can’t get traction with fifty people commenting on a blog, nor ever pass the “will of the majority” test through “voting,” I’d point out that change of the nature we are discussing occurs (like the Postal Service gradually being “ignored” to death) because it is logical, economical, and profitable (to ignore it). What’s standing in the way is that an imposed massive state structure is still profitable and necessary (for the people who truly own it and profit from it.) This process of obseletyzing the state can occur only when the massive state, with all its intrusions, is also no longer sustainable. This could happen through the demise of its host, or some combination of events causing the host to get “sick” enough it no longer provide nourishment to the parasitic state.
I commend you all something called the “Crash Course,” assembled by Chris Martenson some years back:
http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
It’s going to take in investment of time to get through all of it, but I suspect most here will find it so riveting that you’ll stay the course. This series points out how we got where we are, from the side of a closed system with material and energy inputs, how this has all progressed, and what must inevitably happen. My view is the state is like a cancerous tumor that reflects the dark side, if you will, of human nature, and is best treated by starving it of nutrients, like cutting off the blood supply from a tumor. The Crash Course explains what is happening to the nutrients that have enabled the accumulation of “surplus” in all aspects of Western Civilization over the past hundred odd years, and how things MUST change going forward. The bloated and parasitic governmental/statist structures HAVE to keep the pressure on the host, just to keep milking enough nutrients out of the host to keep the massive, unproductive, cancerous growth functioning. Logic says, short of the discovery of some incredible new “free” energy source, this just cannot continue. The enormous deficits being run up by all nations now are indicative of the end game for this economic system. It’s likely some of this will collapse because it is just no longer sustainable, and some new system will take its place, somewhat like the internet and UPS replacing the Postal Service.
Granted, the death throes of this malignancy will be extremely challenging for the organism, simply because it’s so entrenched, and because in this case, the tumors have most of the weapons. But always remember that states are staffed by people, who are technically still part of the host.
Great thread – truly epic. Keep it up folks.
Regarding the first part – then what happens if CORPORATIONS replace the STATE? (or become the State!)
Seems to be a more likely scenario than anything else.
Also goes back to the idea that while the STATE may not require HO Insurance – the bank doing the financing does. (i.e. Coercion with out any possibilty of redress).
I will have to check out the “crash couse” link at some point -thanks for the heads up.
GW that one’s easy.
Corporations depend on the State for their power.
Absent the State, monopoly dies on its own.
Think of it this way: the State grants Corporations the ability to become a psychopath with billions in resources. They attain “corporate personhood”–and their officers are held invulnerable.
Absent such an artificial arrangement, how would they rise to the power they’ve been granted by the State today?
Let’s look at a concrete example: the recent Merck vaccine scandal.
Turns out, their mumps vaccine was not just totally ineffective, it was causing mumps! Worse yet, they were actively faking the test results for certification. If you bother to read the details of this case, it’s absolutely astonishing the level of pure evil at Merck.
The punishment? $3 billion fine. Pocket change.
Did any executive go to prison–or even lose personal money? Not a chance.
Just a cost of doing business–thanks to the State.
In a libertarian system, they’d be personally liable.
*meth* The punishment? $3 billion fine. Pocket change. *meth*
It’s passed on to the consumers.
Remember the tobacco lawsuit? I no longer smoke but I was recently told that a pack of smokes cost $3.00 now. Where does the money go and how much of it actually goes to pay for treating tobacco-related illnesses?
tgsam
Only $3?
I quit 18 odd years ago when a pack was $5. Here in Canada now;
[url]http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/files/pdf/120424_map_and_table.pdf[/url]
$80-100 for 200 cigs. Probably getting close to the price of pot which at least is not taxed.
Corporations are sanctioned by the state (which is itself, a corporation). So no state, no corporations.
“Also goes back to the idea that while the STATE may not require HO Insurance – the bank doing the financing does. (i.e. Coercion with out any possibilty of redress).”
The bank, or anyone with a vested interest in a piece of property, can require HO insurance as part of the agreement. No insurance, no loan. I would be hard pressed to loan someone money without the possibility of retrieving it the event of a catastrophe. So it really is not coercion.
The whole No State/No Corporations thing also becomes a giant circlejerk, which I think we probably all understand and basically agree on.
The State legitimizes the Corporation which then finances supporters (Corporate Insiders)to run for office (or get appt into), which then proceeds to ignore laws etc to the benefit of the Corporation (after all they are “people” to).
So, if the above premise is accepted – how does this get addressed with out participation, without violence, without some sort of organized structure (i.e. little g – government).
It’s going to take what the hippies used to call a consciousness raising to get people – enough people – to agree to live together on the basis of free association and non-violence (except defensively).
What you (if I may) call government – and what other call the state – is always going to be a problem because people are problematic. We have a choice, it seems to me, of dealing with unincorporated individuals (so to speak) who may commit acts of aggression as individuals, or even in groups – but who lack the fearsome monopoly on violence, anointed under cover of “the law” and thus, which we can – as indivuals – defend ourselves against. Or, we can submit to the incorporated entity – the government, or the state – that fearsome beast with a legal monopoly on violence, against which we are defenseless.
Probably, as a practical matter, the best we’ll ever see is a (temporary) minarchist state of some kind. Temporary, because it is inevitable that once that entity called government – the state – is given a legal monopoly to use violence – that violence will be used more and more. And less and less justly.
But, we can strive – and hope – for a human society in which control freaks are rare – and quickly shunned. In which peaceful free people can live their lives freely and peacefully – without any external coercion applied to them.
I just wanted to make a small comment on your post…and it is a very good post. Those in power ultimately depend on the people at the bottom continuing to agree to be enslaved and abused. There is a very good, old science fiction story by Eric Frank Russell called “And Then There Were None”. It’s available online free at http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php/#.UDLrIkQ1GWk
Well worth the read. Downrange, great handle by the way, you are absolutely right. The emperor has no cloths. It’s coming down and soon, I think.
In my 76 years, which included two enlistments in the Military, I have encountered many holders of the Combat Infantryman’s Badge. Not one of them ever indicated to me that he would like to earn another.
I’ve met and served with many combat veterans, including individuals who crewed B-17s over Germany in WWII. Not one of them expressed a desire to do it again. (Picadilly was apparently close enough to the real war. While many of the Yanks were hosing their women, many of the poor Brits were in gawdawful places like Burma.)
I served with many professionals while with the Strategic Air Command and not one of those guys ever expressed a desire to actually go to war.
Apparently a single raid or firefight is sufficient to satisfy a person’s curiosity or desire for the fleeting thing called, glory.
If THE WAR LOVER was based on a real character one can safely bet that he is/was a very rare aberration.
Here are our axioms. The starting point of reason. Premises so evident as to be accepted without controversy. Just like the fact that we are all points on a planetary sphere with a radius of 3958 miles.
Stronger than mere verbality. This shit be Euclidian yo.
Tax is a word only 700 years years old. Obligatory contributions levied by a sovereign or godvernment. That’s free shit ninja jew jitsu that leads us only to UN section 8 prole stacking and basic cable.
Persuasion. Consent. Separate but equal ways of peaceful coexistence. On those axioms we build our theorems of sound money, spontaneous market order, emotion free logical calculation.
From those and other theorems we must defend we arrive at our principles.
Principles that will survive even a dire Mormon theocracy by Ayatollah Mittens.Maybe he will succeed in a cultural holocaust where all movies including the Matrix are erased and forgotten for all time.
These univerally true axioms will remain. They are the real deal dawgs. Older than ancient Egypt and younger than the nudist mining colony complex to be built by the Full Tilt Poker Casino and Mineral Extraction Corporation.
Regarding; ‘State/corporate War’
The first tenet of war is ..Profit.
The second tenet of war is to distract the populace from the strangle hold the corporations and ‘ruling class’ have on the populace. They do this to preserve the status quo, so they can make more …Profit.
The third tenet of war is ‘Perpetual War’. Why? So they can continue to make more… Profit.
How do they do this, by appeals to patriotism through inciting false flag situations by creating bogeyman that threaten ‘Our’ freedom, ‘Our culture ‘, “They hate us for our Freedoms, our Way of Life” . This shuts down debate and brings everybody in line through fear of being labeled ..’Unpatriotic’.
Perpetual war allows no debate. Fear and Profit, controls the media, our elected representatives, and concomitantly… us, the citizenry. “Your either with us, or against us” And so the beat of war permeates our society. War is good for business, it creates jobs, it bolsters the economy, it is the right thing to do.
“They Died for Our Freedoms”.. what crock of crap. Name one war fought for our freedoms. Even the Revolutionary War was about business_Profit_, and was really a war against the Crown and the British East India Company over taxes/Profit, and no representation. Had the colony’s had representation with the crown, and fair(I know, a misnomer) taxes, we would still be royalists bowing to the queen. Remember ‘Taxes’ were Profit for the king so he could perpetuate war for Profit and to maintain his dominion, rule.
There are a lot of ‘Perpetual Wars’ The Drug War being one of them..why? ..Profit through funding. The War on Cancer being another. Why? Profit. There is just to much money involved in the treatment of cancer to find a cure. Or in the agency of finding a cure for cancer through scientific research funded by your donations. Not going to happen, so save your donations.
“As long as there are nations, we will always have war, because there are too many, only too willing to wave the flag in some naive and dangerously ignorant idea of patriotism.”_aikiv
“No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic
country. Not indeed that after every victory it is to be apprehended
that the victorious generals will possess themselves by force of the
supreme power, after the manner of Sulla and Caesar; the danger is of
another kind. War does not always give over democratic communities to
military government, but it must invariably and immeasurably increase
the powers of civil government; it must almost compulsorily concentrate
the direction of all men and the management of all things in the hands
of the administration. If it does not lead to despotism by sudden
violence, it prepares men for it more gently by their habits. All those
who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know
that war is the surest and the shortest means to accomplish it.” …> Alexis de Tocqueville
I agree with everything you said. But I think Murray Rothbard pointed out that these kind of wars are unprofitable (as in historic conquest) because instead of skimming the booty from the losers over there it skims from the productive class here alive. My guess is that perpetual war will be sure to drive the entire economy into bankruptcy which on the surface would make the elite less profitable. Could it be that the whole thing isn’t controlled by a select few but rather by clashing gangs of mafia. Much like streets of brooklyn or NY? In either case I believe you are absolutely on the money that many of these false flag cases are contrived if not all of them. You’d have to be a full to believe the official war propaganda. Great thoughts I really enjoyed reading them.
full=fool…No I’m not quite yet a full.
That is the point Hot Rod,
Treasure taken through war is an antiquated BC concept. The last attempt to gather foreign treasure by that means was the misbegotten, last Iraq war…it failed.
But the concept still has potential in the pyretic minds of the lust for obscene profit, and control of resources, smartest boys in the room, class.
Today, in context, the (war)profit comes from the fleecing of the public and personal treasure through taxes. Taxes sustain (war)PROFIT. War equals profit.
And it is certain, that war is unprofitable for the national economic good. War is inflationary and ultimately … unproductive and destructive.
Destructive of a nation’s resources.
Destructive of a nations values, and moral provenance.
Destructive of its human capital.
Destructive of home and family.
And for far too many, destructive of their respect for humanity, and tragic loss of same.
And this doesn’t even take in to account the horrendous, immoral, damage we do to the peoples we wage war against…Unforgivable. And all done in our name.
And yes, against. Unilateral, unprovoked, illegal, deadly attacks against the citizenry of a sovereign nation.
What gives us the right?
What gives us the right to attack one person without ‘just’ due process, let alone heap mass carnage on the innocent.
All this while taking the moral high ground.
Ultimate power does not convey right.
Oop’s!
I went off on a bit of diatribe there Hot Rod, I owe you a fuller answer regarding your other points. But I’m off for bed, Catch you tomorrow.
Regards Tre
Yes I agree with all you say. And I like your idea of the smartest boy club, would that be like elite University alumni organization in your opinion? I think its obvious like you that the average American has been fleeced. I guess my thought is do you think this is an old caretlized organization a cabal of old time bankers. Or is it a skull and crossbones. A permanent government (non-elected) government mafia. Italian Mafia. Enron-WallStreet mafia. Are these factions competing against each other or unaware of each other. Could it be that its symbiotic parasitic class that doesn’t even have to say hello and how are you doing still get along? I’m personally more thinking its something like stupid in charge, versus an old time Rockefeller/Rothchild brain scheme but that would be invalidated by Jeckyll Island. To say that this parasitic order is solidified into one molten blob of the beast would mean that the parts have all been there for some time and assimilated. Usually the old italian mafia has to worry about the new black bad boys on the turf. But if it is just a dispartic symbiotic infection, then one chronic infection of say staff bacteria helps the fungal infection by lowering the immune system of the host and vice versa. Again I think its not a big block of stupid, but rather independent stupids running the whole thing into the ground. After all if Rothchilds were the true benefactors of such malaise they would be more like Kings trying to protect their turf against say the Russians and Chinese and not lose tax base by exporting factories to them. Again I know this is oversimplified because lots of capital is leaving willing and for good reason, but when McDonnel Douglass or Boeing build factories in China that sure makes wonder? I won’t deny the whole major world news events seem rigged.
Great point Hot Rod.
You must understand, the Elite–most of whom are psychopaths/sociopaths–don’t care about the overall effect. They see profit and power for themselves.
Think of it like this: does cancer consider its host’s well-being? No. It grows and divides, consuming resources until the host, and IT, are dead.
Why? Because it’s aberrant–just as the mind of a psychopath is aberrant.
I agree and I must be forward that Evil is also stupid and degeneration, decay, and destruction. From my own observations the bible is totally correct when it says evil people love one another. It may be hard to explain how ugly and destructive can be in harmony with each other but it is a undeniable fact to me.
Morning, Deuce!
Excellent stuff, as always.
I recommend (if you haven’t read it yet) Vidal’s Perpetual War. I don’t agree with a lot of his ideas, but the man was a superb writer and really lays it down.
Palabras magnifcas Tres Dos. If I read that the national flag is from now on is to be a Corona Beer advertisement and the national anthem to be La Cucharacha I would say only Que Sera Sera..
Christian Soldiers with bullets and depleted uranium bibles to bash our skulls with. There was a Eurofarmer with a rabid Dog, and Gringo was his namo.
Monkeys who weep and flagellate at Betsy Ross’s piss starred and shit striped old lady undergarments hoisted on a flagpole.
I am beyond done with the Noble Experiment of prohibition soon to reach its hundreth year.
I laugh as their great cities fall to spring floods summer wildfires and vagrants flying planes into buildings driving cars into shopping malls and toting small arms into schools and movie theaters.
Its a despairing chuckle but it couldn’t happen to a better bunch of neutered witch burning puritan death eater voldomort corpse wankers. Semper Fi in hell you U S of A Holes.
OMFG I am ROFLMAO–
Tor you’ve outdone yourself, this is your best diatribe yet!
Freakin’ poetry, sir, poetry!
Eric,
It is not the gov you need to worry about, it is the insurance co’s. Any time you pay to a homeowners policy you are helping the drug war. Back in the 90,s and I ( pretend I am a meth cooker) was cooking meth and had a house fire, the insurance co’s, would call it an accidental kitchen fire and pay for the damages. But the insurance co’s sent the lobbist (hookers) to see the gov people. Now when I do a meth cook it is considered arson and the g-men (goons with guns) will come in and beat me down and haul me off to the cage.
The g-men are paid enforers for the insurance co,s. You live in one big company town. The only way to keep from joining the drug war is not buy insurance. That contract you have with the insurance co pays a big part of the war on drugs.
Government’s monopoly on legal violence has always been for hire.
So long as government exists in this form there will be someone seeking to hire it. Thus only removing government’s monopoly on legal violence will work in the long run.
Not judging or anything but I’m concerned for you. Seems like a dangerous and short life. Wouldn’t it be easier to grow some weed to get a couple of jollies? Or snort some cocaine? I had an ex girlfriend who went crazy on Meth (she was before my wife). It really screwed her up. She aged way before her years and was a compulsive liar for the habit. I believe 100% of the war against drugs is BS, but meth is really dangerous including the sores, bug out symptoms, addiction rate and teeth loss. I’m glad I didn’t ever try the stuff even though I’m not an addictive personality. Again I’m not saying that the government should have a monopoly on designer drugs (Pharma) and I think the reason much of this is dangerous is because it might be illegal, but meth like pharma is basically a laboratory drug. These lab drugs are extremely unhealthy because of their interaction with the bodies molecules and are basically very foreign.
The government has no right to cage a man that is physically addicted to such a substance, its like adding salt to the injured wound. That is not humane or a way to improve people’s circumstance. I really beg you though to consider your health and danger of producing and or consuming such an non terra lab alien substance. I’m not hypocritical however and would say the same of anyone consuming big pharma products.
Hot Rod,
You missed the point where I said “(pretend I am a meth cooker)” I used myself in the “(pretend mode)” to make my point about the insurance co’s war on drugs.
But thank you for pointing out the bad stuff of meth.
Rick
Sorry that I was a dufus. Thanks for understanding, even if I projected too far based on my personal experience. Best Regards.
Question for you guys?? So I must say that I hate big cities for all the right reasons. But recently we went to visit Phoenix. One thing my wife and I noticed is the god awful smells. It smells like Meth, and I know what the chemicals smell like because of my past. Now in an anarcho-capitalistic world we all believe in live and let live. I can surely look the other way if I bought a house and my neigbor decides to park 5 junky cars in his yard. But what I wouldn’t like is if he built a Meth lab right next to my house. The reason of course has to do with the toxic chemicals and many vaporous and poisonous organics that end up in the air that the surrounding population has to unwittingly breath. In addition because Meth producers have to hide due to the law they often are ill equiped and design their labs in neighborhoods and good actually blow up an entire neighborhood with explosive volatiles (at least more than the cooking house). My first thoughts on this is that if drugs were legal, than many of these dangerous designer lab drugs would never have been fabricated. Also they would be more clean and less hazardous. But, lets assume that these people live in our future utopia. How would neighbors prevent or zone in a city and enforce the provisions for its occupation? Wouldn’t this constitute as a mini government if implemented with safety guards or hired police?
Another example of this is that a buy a 1/4 acre lot and my neigbor buys the adjacent lot many years after me. He opens up a paint body shop which is his profession. I really don’t like getting stupid with paint fumes. How’d a society without cops protect and prevent harmful behaviors in small quarters as tight cities? Again this is hypothetical as my answer is to avoid cities.
OH and I hate HOA as I find them unpalatable as miniature corrupt local governments along with the usual dumbshits of democracy and voting.
Libertarian theory is pretty straight forward on this. You’re not allowed to invade others persons or property, and if you do so, you owe fair restitution to the person who you have damaged (toxic fumes, fire, whatever).
Morning, HR!
This is probably one of the – if not the – toughest issues for Libertarians. I address it from the same point of view I would the question (also previously brought up, by GW) of “won’t your ‘utopia’ result in bad things happening?”
Well, yes. Or rather – more precisely – no human society is ever going to be free of problems, including murder, theft – and assholes next door.
The question really comes down to: Which is preferable? Accepting that in this imperfect world, with imperfect people in it, not-cool (and downright shitty) stuff is going to happen every once in awhile? Or institutionalizing uncool and shitty things via government?
In your case: Most of the problems – actual and potential – are because of government. Take away government – the “war” on some drugs, especially – and it’s not likely a low-rent meth lab is going to be built adjacent to a “nice” home. It wouldn’t make sense. For the same reason, a body shop isn’t likely to be erected next to a home – absent the government’s zoning laws that distort the allocation of business/retail and residential buildings.
Still, I grant that it’s possible (in our hypothetical free society) a meth lab could be built next door. For the same reason it will always be possible – and probably inevitable – that people will still get killed, stolen from and so on. Because assholes abound.
But I’d rather risk dealing with the individual, occasional asshole – vs. omnipresent, organized assholes.
Its simple. You have to deal with your neighbor as a human being. Beg him bribe him befriend him. Get an air quality tester and indusrial air quality maintenace equipment installed. Move somewhere else.
I’ve had all manner of druggie tenants through the years. They are nothing compared to the domestic violence types who will blow someones head off or burn a unit to the ground.
Meth labs involve science and kill almost no one.
Domestic violence kills so many more.
Why not outlaw all multiperson dwelling. We will all be much safer and I will collect even more rental income.
Private property. You own the land; he owns his. You’re both free to do what you will–unless you infringe on the other’s rights.
Fumes from a lab or a paint shop infringe your property rights; you have a common law cause against him.
Problem solved. Your rating agency approaches his rating agency and says “Hey listen, we’re gonna ding your guy’s rating; here’s why…”
As Eric points out too–in a truly free society, there’d be no reason to have a meth lab in a neighborhood. It’s much more efficient to have it in an industrial area, near a train yard for supply delivery for instance. Same with the paint shop.
The meth lab problem is entirely government’s fault.
Excellent comments all of you. I agree with Eric that assholes will always be present and that the distortion of making things illegal make things worse including government zoning laws. I’m thinking moving is always a possibility as I’m a big proponent on that idea, however this would be at a loss if the neighborhood declined in value say to one asshole. Rating agencies would be a great concept only if mutual consent would could be obtained, and asshole tyrants never consent but I like the idea for more reasonable neighbors. I also agree that without distortions of zoning that meth labs would be nearer transportation hub all excellent points. Finally I like the pragmatic view Eric puts forth (as in winning the argument) that there will be tradeoffs and no utopia in a freer society. It important to set realistic goals and what to expect. Thanks all I really appreciate your inputs.
Hi Rick,
But here’s the difference. For the moment, I can skip homeowner’s insurance. It is not – yet – mandatory.
Coercion is the key – and government is coercion.
Get rid of government – coercion – and the socialistic/fascistic/authoritarian premise underlying your statement disappears. Costs cannot be transferred to innocent parties. Only government coercion can do that.
Hi Eric,
I know you non-clovers like contracts. By contract, my bank requires that I have homeowners policy for my loan.
All banks that I am aware of have the same requirement.
I am sure you have auto insurance.
Then by contract, cost are spread through the other policy holders to fund the war on drugs.
The auto policys, health policys, life, all have the same money spread around to the gov war on drugs.
If you get ride of the gov the insurance companys will have the same contracts only the the beatdowns will be private security.
Think Pinkerton Detective Agency in the 1880’s and the Railroads of 1880’s. Think the Cattlemen Assocation and range war of the 1880’s. That is what you would have
The insurance compays use coercion all the time.
Rick
Right – but if you have paid off your house (as we have) then you can decline to have insurance. For now.
The point is, you do have a choice. No one forces you to purchase a mortgage. And once you’ve paid off your mortgage, you have the option of choosing to not purchase insurance.
Government forces us to have car insurance – and now health insurance.
Take force – coercion – out of the equation and there’s no problem.
Or fewer problems, at any rate.
Insurance as a concept is not a bad idea – provided it is entirely voluntary and so, not feasible for the irresponsible to transfer their costs onto others.
What we have, unfortunately, is socialized insurance. People – all people – are forced in. And so, costs – including the costs of irresponsible people – are transferred to the responsible.
This, in turn, then provides the pretext for the regulation/control of everyone on the basis of “what if” and “he might.” Costs go up.
Example: I pay much more than is reasonable to insure all my vehicles – because of socialized/mandatory insurance.
I’m a good driver (as evidenced by decades of being accident-free) and so pose little risk to others. It would be perfectly reasonable for me to not insure several of my vehicles – restored/vintage stuff that only goes out rarely and when it does, is driven/ridden with great care. The chances of my causing an accident or loss with these vehicles – which each see perhaps 300 or so miles of use annually on lightly traveled local secondary roads – is virtually nil.
But I am compelled to buy year-round insurance for them all, nonetheless. And my rates are based on not the risk I pose – but to a great extent, on the risks imposed by others. Cost-shifting. If I (and others) could say – “No, thanks. Your insurance costs too much. I think it’s a better deal for me to just keep some money set aside in a ‘just in case’ fund,” then bet your bippie, the cost of insurance would go down. It would have to.
But because insurance is socialized, the cost of insurance is very high.
Eric, aside from the wrongness of forced coverage, I have been making the argument for years that inuring the vehicle is the wrong way to go. The DRIVER should carry liability insurance and it should be for any vehicle driven. One man can only drive one vehicle at a time so forcing us to have the parked ones insured is just criminal theft.
“The DRIVER should carry liability insurance and it should be for any vehicle driven.”
Amen!
This is so reasonable – so logical – hence, illegal. Reason? Not “safety.” Money. They – the insurance mafia – can bleed us white by forcing us (via the government) to insure vehicles.
It’s a huge burden especially on people like us – car/bike enthusiasts – who frequently have four or five (or more) cars/bikes, many of them not even running at any given time. But the law says they must all be insured. Or registered – which then requires insurance. Else, they’ll seize the vehicle – in some localities. You can’t win.
One thing I’ve begun doing with several of my almost-never-used (on public roads) vehicles is to not renew the registration. That saves me $50 per vehicle per year – and that adds up when you have numerous vehicles. The fine for lapsed registration is minimal; a small bust. But they’ll crucify you if they catch you with a registered – but not insured – vehicle….
I can understand and accept that an individual carry insurance but the reasons for insurance on THE auto is more likely because those vehicles haven’t been paid off yet. Same as with a house. Once the auto has been paid for then that’s another matter altogether.
@GW on August 18, 2012 at 8:56 pm
That thread was getting too long so I’m restarting it here.
I think you’ve confused me for someone who’s retarded; allow me to disabuse you of the notion.
Or perhaps we have a clash of semantics.
I’m confused. A small-‘g’ government that’s voluntary sounds very much like a protection agency and a rating agency, both consensually contracted with…per one libertarian ideal. “Voluntary” is free of coercion; while the very definition of “government” at least as understood by most on this board is “forceful coercion”.
So, what we have here…is a failure to communicate.
I sometimes misjudge the tone of conversations via text, because the subtextual cues go missing. Have we progressed to the angry taunting stage already? Sorry I didn’t catch it, I’ll have to accelerate then.
Which fantasy? And who’s taking it? I suppose truth can hurt…if it’s specific enough to strike the mark. I confess I’m confused.
Non-participation: also known as “withdrawing consent”, “passive resistance”, etc.
Let’s look at the USPS; one of the few remaining constitutional pursuits of this criminal cabal. It’s broke. It has been broke for decades. It’s antediluvian. It became officially useless mid-90’s, as the internet tolled its death-knell.
Did we have to storm it with AR-15’s blazing? Molotov cocktails arcing through the air?
We just. Began. To. Ignore. It.
My mode of participation in the real world as opposed to political fantasy (“changing the system from the inside”) is:
1) live life WELL–absolutely drives statist control freaks batshit crazy with frustration. Drive fast and safely; make loud engine noises. Take frightening-looking guns to the range. Love your kids and laugh with them loudly in public. Stick your tongue out at government goons.
2) change locally–we got the TSA kicked off Houston Metro. Fuck’em and good riddance. We’re coming for you, pedo-pricks!
3) educate everyone–even you, GW, seeming clinger-on to paradigms past
Participate in this phony political system?
HOW’S THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU? Do you like what you see?
Because “participating” is exactly what the designers of the current system WANT you to do. It distracts you from what they’re doing to you, which is fucking you mercilessly.
So now GW I say, you have a choice; continue being mercilessly fucked, or change paradigms.
Investigate agorism. Study history; it’s repeating so you’ll know what’s coming next.
The good news is most of what we’re kvetching about on here has happened before, and every time it happens people like us pull it out of the fire and enter a NEW era of even MORE human liberty and prosperity.
It just takes awhile to work around roadblocks. Like you.
Seems there is a lot of confusion about terms. The key thing is to define the difference between a STATE and GOVERNMENT. Thomas Paine said that a government is something that provides of “security and freedom.”
A state however:
(1) acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”;
and
(2) asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.
An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.
MN Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
The sheeple think that the only way to have a government is a STATE.
Voluntaryism (true liberty) provides a moral alternative where individuals can only delegate voluntarily the rights they have individually and society can have all the blessings of government with none of its evils. It is simply the logical conclusion of a government truly by “consent of the governed.” Protection, courts, roads, and defense, can all be provided without a state (and with higher quality and moral authority).
One other point on winning the argument. Many say that if you are against the state or government aggression you are against: education, roads, law and order, parks, or any number of silly things.
I simply point out that their argument is akin to accusing me of being opposed to sex simply because I am against rape.
Greg,
This is excellent:
“their argument is akin to accusing me of being opposed to sex simply because I am against rape.”
Thanx for giving this old Wordfreak a real Keeper jpv. Your definition passes the all important Critical Thinking test:
Seems there is a lot of confusion about terms. The key thing is to define the difference between a STATE and GOVERNMENT. Thomas Paine said that a government is something that provides of “security and freedom.”
A state however:
(1) acquires its income by the physical coercion known as “taxation”;
and
(2) asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area.
An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.
This is fun, isn’t it?
I don’t think I’m exaggerating when I state that this board has consistently excellent “back and forth.” It’s a pleasure doing business!
Much more “fun” than LewRockwell.com. In my not the least bit humble opinion Lew publishes a lot of blather, so, I must scan LewRockwell.com daily for the occasional nugget.
Admittedly I find fiscal scare stories quite dull. I’m convinced that the strategic key to fixing America is in the second paragraph of the NON-AMENDABLE Unanimous Declaration. No Power that contravenes the Principles underpinning the Unanimous Declaration* has Lawful Authority. Fiscal Folly could not survive ruthless enforcement of those simple Principles.
Because it a non-amendable hearts-and-minds document, the Unanimous Declaration is not vulnerable to crimes like those supported by unlawful interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Claws.
tgsam
*The Unanimous Declaration is the first entry in the Corpus Juris Secundum.
100% Eric–I spend more time on this board than on PrisonPlanet, LewRockwell, and TheDailyBell combined.
It’s so stimulating to exchange ideas with smart, educated, erudite people…to hear our ideas refined, examined, and polished.
And to know we’re not alone!
Eric Thank You for providing this place of sanity and reason.
“I think you’ve confused me for someone who’s retarded; allow me to disabuse you of the notion.”
Meth, dammit, you made me spill my coffee again… !
@ meth you said…
“It just takes awhile to work around roadblocks. Like you.”
I would like you to address that statement…and perhaps, I am a roadblock, but probably not quite the way you perceive.
Believe it or not I am not that far off in my thinking along many of the lines that are posted in this blog – I am simply on a journey to discover what are viable alternatives to where things are currently.
I just think that many of the arguments I hear are on this site fall short in there overall viability and ability to be implemented and maintained – in other words I have yet to be totally convinced that many of the ideas I hear can be achieved “in the real world” – and that really is the key to my arguments, challenges and questions.
Yes – it would be nice if they could be! But I am a pragmatist – I just don’t see it happening.
IF – someone like me cannot be totally convinced, then, collectively, the entire movement will come up short, because there will be absolutely no chance to move beyond the middle of the road political spectrum with any success.
All idea’s in a free society – political, business, religious, etc – are ultimately, modified by reality and the thinking of other’s – many who have very different thoughts.
I am simply attempting to challenge some of the more radical ideas that I don’t think stand a chance (regardless of merit)in the real world with the hope that with some re-thinking and moderation become more viable options to broader society.
If 50 like minded people on this website want to change the world – they won’t do it by talking only to themselves and maintaining their consensus without modifications. It just is not going to happen!
So convince me with regards to the “real” world – not in some fantasy utopia fairy tale!
It all starts with principle–an idea gone AWOL in all current political discourse.
You allude to it with: “…some re-thinking and moderation become more viable options to broader society.”
And that’s the problem–there is no “moderation” in principle; it must be absolute, or it decays.
Hence, the ZAP–the Zero Aggression Principle, or “the principle formerly known as the NAP–the Non-Aggression Principle”. It changed its name for something more zippy.
The universe seems to favor simple, elegant rules:
In computer science the operating system’s core is called the “kernel”; its job is simple but hard, govern delegation of system resources.
In organic chemistry I struggled for months until I grasped a core rule: follow the electrons. Those who have them, will give them away; those who need them, will take them; voila, reaction.
In physics, Maxwell’s equations governing electromagnetism–four short, simple equations that describe every aspect of electromagnetism. You may have seen the t-shirt that says “And God said:” with those four equations, and the pithy joke underneath–“And there was Light.”
Just so in social relations, or praxeology as Mises coined it–there’s the ZAP.
I love the beauty and symmetry of true libertarian thought, because everything is just an elaboration on this single immutable principle.
Everything we discuss here is a “riff” on that idea; it’s an elaboration on the ZAP when we debate how to deal with a neighbor’s meth lab, or how to build roads, or defend the nation, or collect the trash, or provide water and sewage, or educate our children.
It all comes back to the ZAP–just as with organic chemistry and electrons, electronics and Maxwell.
The ZAP is the fundamental, immutable principle underlying libertarian thought.
There IS NO MIDDLE GROUND; there can be no compromising the ZAP, it’s the kernel.
So all our efforts ultimately come to educating people on the virtues of the ZAP. There will be trillions of questions, decisions, yes, compromises…but the ZAP remains the core truth, unchanged.
A place to start for control of out-of-control government is the jury. “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
see: http://www.fija.org
“The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think,to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from the tyrannical abuses of power by government.
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life,liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.”
GRAND JURY
Sadly, few cases ever go before a petit jury which can exonerate but it cannot attack criminals in office. So called Runaway Grand Juries could do more to fix America than any other Power that is available to the People.
Why has the Despicable Brotherhood of Juris Doctors done everything it can to distance control of Grand Juries from the People? LOATHSOME BASTARDS!!!
I have accumulated considerable knowledge on this subject and share it freely.
Tinsley Grey Sammons (dob 5/1/36)
[email protected]
This is the latter half of an essay I have had published on a few sites..but it addresses your issue..
—————————————–
…continued from “Thrift Store America”…
But as a retired, twenty-year veteran employee of The Federal Government, including over two-decades as a “federally protected whistle-blower” (as humorous as that is), I know of the nature of our government leadership, and in my opinion, Webster’s Dictionary is going to need a new definition of the word “corrupt” by the time our country falls apart.
Or, until we realize that we still have the power and unified strength to wrestle the mechanics of government… back from these “Continuity of Government” traitors.
As a first step, I would recommend the following:
–
A National Constitutional Convention – designed to re-invigorate the original founding concepts, rights and status of American Citizens, while amending The Constitution for a 21st century America and its social realities. Additionally, the NCC will be empowered to impeach every member of the standing US Government, and will remove them from office. And by Impeach and Remove, I mean all of them. Every standing member of Congress, The Senate, The President and Vice President, and especially the Supreme Court which voted to allow and approve kidnapping and torture. All of them, gone.
– National Grand Jury – impaneled for whatever period of time is necessary to investigate and prosecute all members of government known to have violated their oaths of office, as well as committing treason, larceny and murder on an international scale, with no statute of limitations. NGJ-Citizen Investigators should be required to open up all of the American Government Archives across our entire history, and we as a people should be told the truth with regard to historic criminal activities.
– Additionally, the NGJ will be empowered to dismantle (through force if necessary) the CIA, the FBI, all “Continuity of Government” plans, operations and operatives, including the US Department of Justice, the EPA, The DoD and every other liberty-sucking parasite that still exists within our compromised government. (These entities can all be reconstructed at a later date, under more limited and ethical standards, if necessary)
– Freeze & Seize Financial Assets- Freeze and seize all financial assets of any member of government for the last forty years. All of them…seize all of their assets, and create a legal process or method for the “innocent” to get their assets returned to them (perhaps with interest). However, for the vast majority of traitorous souls who have been abusing their positions and the citizens for well over forty years…make them prove that the fortune is legally, ethically theirs; make them prove it didn’t come from decades of corrupt acts. Make them show that their ill-gotten millions in self-worth did not come from abusing their oaths or position.
– If not, just like we ordinary citizens who have tolerated our cars being impounded, our property seized and the other elements of the current two-tiered justice system, let the thieves and killers of the last forty years fight to stay out of prison, the death-chamber, or the poor house… just like the rest of us.
Regards,
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves-The Life of an Insane Family
Hm. I love most of it.
I can just smell the cauterizing knife.
As violent as I think it is gong to get…
…I think we first have a responsibility to put forth questions, comments, beliefs, philosophy and non-violent methods for addressing the war-criminals in our midst. Therefore, when violence becomes necessary, and we must carry out actions designed to force the government to comply with the will of the people and Constitution…we will have the moral high ground, as well as the legal high ground as a basis for our actions…
Regards,
RJ O’Guillory
Author- Webster Groves-The Life of an Insane Family
“But it’s for the children…” !
They only put you in jail if you are very high profile, like Wesley Snipes, or Irwin Schiff; otherwise they just take all your money and possessions.
Sammy Weaver
Vicki Weaver
76 Branch Dividian men, women, children, and elderly all burnt alive
Dick Simkanin
Donald Scott
Gordon Kahl
Carl Drega
John Joe Gray
Leonard Peltier
1 million-plus political prisoners held hostage for handling the wrong plant…right here in America, land of the free, home of the brave…hahaha…more like land of the slave, home of the coward…
http://jim.com/cowards.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro2.html
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1187.html
Hi Eric,
Great article.
I believe in non-violence except in self-defense. However one question I can’t get a satisfactory answer to is:
‘how can pacifists defeat those who are willing to drop napalm on babies?’
Let’s face it, the Ghandi method tried today would just result in 1,000,000 smoking corpses and no change. Hell, the clovers would celebrate the slaughter.
It seems hopeless when you respect the life of your enemy and they don’t respect any life.
The power is winning over the masses. But I fear you are correct, in modern america the masses would cheer the mass murder of the “terrorists”, “rebels”, etc.
Saner asked:
“‘how can pacifists defeat those who are willing to drop napalm on babies?’ ”
Um. You are using a strawman argument. Read over the posts by the libertarians. They advocate violence but only for self defense. They are not the stereotypical pacifist. If someone starts mass murdering people in a libertarian community, that aggressor would be soon be taken out by all those “scary guns” libertarians are known to possess.
@jovas
You miss my point or I made it poorly.
I did say, “I believe in non-violence except in self-defense.”
My question was not an argument but an inquiry as most pacifists I know have no interest in even self-defense but think that ‘happy thoughts’, ‘good intentions’ and singing Kumbaya will overcome those who are willing to use horrific means to suppress dissent.
Your “If someone starts mass murdering people in a libertarian community…” is irrelevant unless you have some plan for stopping a B52 from dropping death on your libertarian community.
Great article, Eric, although I believe I can go you one better.
I first argue as you have here. Then at the end I say, “If you want socialist health care (or whatever else we are talking about), then I hope you get it. I’d just prefer to be left out, if you don’t mind. Violence is not the sort of thing I can support.” See for example my article here:
http://strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists
The point is, that we don’t actually need to convert people through argument to be anarchists; we need only convince them to leave us alone, a much smaller job. When they do, our example will do the talking for us; people will be converted by simple observation that our communities will be nicer to live in.
I am then told that the system won’t work unless people like me are forced into it. It exposes it for what it is, theft. But they still think theft is fine for a good cause.
Great article, Eric. It’s important to remember that the foundation of libertarianism is moral. That being said, I find it helpful to recall during discussions with statist sympathizers that EVERYTHING the government does is either
1) useless (the Department of Redundant Reports Department),
2) better done by the free market (libraries)
3) destructive and harmful (government enforced monopolies) or
4) a feeble attempt to fix a problem the government created in the first place through incompetence or malice (the War on Terror).
Regards,
DMS
Great article!
None of us should doubt for a second that if we were to be deprived of our guns that these subtle acts of “give me this or I’ll throw you into a cage or even kill you” will be much more overt.
Here’s the bottom line: the mob who feeds from the public trough now outnumber those who fund it (plus they have a much greater motivation to keep it going).
Therefore, watch the level of state coercion increase dramatically in the near future as public funding for SS, medicare & pensions evaporates.
Eric (et al)- let’s assume you get your wish.
We abolish the US Gov’t and the local authorities – State / County / City, etc….and we just totally wing it based on man’s inate nobility and sheer capacity to do nothing but good.
“And, we all live happily ever after”
R U Fn kidding me!
What a great fairy tale!
Do you really believe that will last?
There will always be someone who will put themselves first and upset the status quo.
I am not defending the current political situation, as it is greatly corrupted and obese and in severe need of modification.
But abolition of all gov’t?
You might be free to live as you see fit for awhile, but eventually you would have to make a choice, and in doing so you would have to trade some portion of your independence for your very survival.
What you advocate is a Utopia – with some shades of both Marist and Religious Dogma!
A Utopia is not obtainable or sustainable in this world – Man is an imperfect creature.
IF you were only right…
What you advocate is a Utopia – with some shades of both Marist and Religious Dogma!
Sorry left out the X on MARXIST…
Oh Lord, here we go with the “You want Utopia” nonsense. No one is promising anything. There will always be evil people in the world, and your typical statist notion is that we need the protection of violent, abusive thugs to keep us safe from violent abusive thugs. What kind of stupid, twisted logic is that?
There will always be evil? Well then it’s pointless to argue anything then.
No it isn’t, Giiiiiiiiiiiiiil! There will always be bad people, that good people will need to protect themselves from. Your solution is a one size fits all violent monopoly, regardless of it’s reliability, that we are all forced to pay for at the point of a gun, and is staffed, in a majority of cases, by the very psychopaths I want to stay away from.
You have the mind of a child, Gil…How old are you? Do you go to public school? Do you watch a lot of TV?
Ands so what keeps YOU safe? please do tell…
I keep me safe, you spineless twit.
Oh so clever. Typical Ignorant LIBERAL tactic – IGNORE the argument and attack the individual.
Right, sorry about that. Thought your post was from Gil. He is a spineless twit.
Sorry about calling you a spineless twit, GW. Read you post and thought you were Gil.
here is a very realistic presentation, in three parts, on how conflict resolution, and protection services could exists in a stateless society:
Law without Government, Part One: Principles – http://managainstthestate.blogspot.com/2011/06/law-without-government-part-one.html
Law without Government, Part Two: Conflict Resolution in a Free Society – http://managainstthestate.blogspot.com/2011/08/law-without-government-part-two.html
Law without Government, Part Three: The Bargaining Mechanism – http://managainstthestate.blogspot.com/2011/10/law-without-government-part-three.html
First I will admit I like to “stir the pot” sometimes, just to garner reactions – I have learned a good bit from folks on this site, but typically I am looking for the deeper intellectual argumentive response – the wealth of knowledge is vast and the range of informational sources presented are way to vast for anyone individual to know it all – we all are limited in this endeavor and due the best we can within our own little world.
That said, I don’t know Gil and apparently do not want to be him…lol – apology accepted.
I started to watch the links you posted, but couldn’t get 30 seconds into it, before I had to stop. I have to categorically reject the premise put forth as to the def. of GOV’T.
Gov’t does not just encompass the INSTITUTION – it is any set of rules and organization that regulates how 2 or more individual treat each other.
Even along the gist of Eric’s article – agreement among individuals to self regulate is a form of ‘government”.
When several preppers band together for their common defense they have in fact formed a system of government.
So the argument is circular and therefore some form and degree of Government is necessary.
Here is another way to look at it – on this website ERIC is the Gov’t.
Eric has the power to decide if anyone of us lives or dies (figuratively)by simple deleting us from existence on this website.
Actually – Eic – have you ever “deleted” anyone? (active poster not a defunct one.)
So even here we have a “gov’t” so to speak – that world be Eric – Ruler of this website….
@GW:
Except for one thing GW: the arrangement is voluntary.
THAT factor is the crucial difference between a system based on government–an institution with a monopoly on violent coercion within a geographical region–and a society, which is comprised of individuals interacting in peaceable mutualism by consent.
There’s no Utopia. A common counter-argument to the totally stateless system of interlocking security and ratings agencies is that one will become larger and more powerful than the rest by offering its adherents thug powers. That it will lure people by supporting their most egregious behaviors and plundering on their behalf…
…which is precisely what government does today.
My counter-counter argument? Quite simple: no agency will have consent to a monopoly on force. The other competing agencies, seeing this movement, will rally their people to counter it.
Absent a religious belief in a single monopoly thug-agency (today’s government), it will fall.
And there’s the key: counter-proselytizing the religion of Statism.
Devolve it, decentralize it, and Voila!
As an interim step, you could consider the 50 states themselves as “security agencies” allied against the would-be usurping national power–which was their purpose in the first place!
@GW:
I hate to say it–because if I remember correctly you’re the same GW who seemed so sympatico in posts months ago.
But the argument that Eric’s government on this site is a straw man.
Are you intentionally omitting the distinguishing factor–coercion?
Just as with the example of the prepper community with rules…
Are you trying to lead us to some conclusion? If so, please share.
Gov’t does not just encompass the INSTITUTION – it is any set of rules and organization that regulates how 2 or more individual treat each other.
Government does no such thing. The government is an institution of violence. Whichever of the two people has the greater influence on that institution may do as he pleases to the limit of his influence to the other and the other has to take it without recourse or self defense. Or else.
Influence over the state goes as far as enslaving one’s neighbors’ children into the military to fight wars to enrich one’s business. There’s no real limit to what one can do to another person with sufficient government influence.
“Even along the gist of Eric’s article – agreement among individuals to self regulate is a form of ‘government”.”
An agreement among individuals is an agreement among individuals. If I’m not a part of that agreement, I’m not obligated to obey their “rules” whatever they may be. If my neighbors agree that they will contribute to a charity, they have no right, or authority, to demand, through threats of violence (being caged, or shot for resisting) that I contribute to that charity as well.
An individual, or group of individuals, cannot delegate rights they don’t have (like stealing or murder). Claiming they have those rights because they call themselves government, and put some words on a piece of paper that says so, does not alter the morality of the act.
A simple breakdown of why authority cannot exist:
1) People can’t delegate rights they don’t have
2) People can’t alter morality
3) People can’t be obligated to be bad
Try to watch more than 30 seconds of the video.
” does not alter the morality of the act.”
Oops! Does not alter the immorality of the act.
I will try to clarify the point I was attempting to make…
– there is a difference between the INSTITION OF GOVERNMENT (BIG G)with government (little g).
GOVERNMENT (Big G) is out of control, however “government” (little g) is necessary and yes (meth) it can even be voluntary – but that does not make it less of a “government’.
To have NO “government’ (little g)is just simply not practicable or sustainable.
Better the devil you know (little g) than that which you don’t (Big G).
In fact, I would venture to say that the current situation we face regarding Government in general (US, EU, UN, etc) is a prime example of people not participating and essentially practicing the “libertarian’ ideal of “leave me alone”.
Those that see things differently than you do have already taken your innocent delusional fantasy away from you like taking candy from a baby – and now you are pissed. (Truth Hurts doesn’t it?)
So HOW IS THIS ALL WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
Does anyone like what they currently see?
Is eveyone going to continue their non-partication and say that it is not their fault that we are here today?
Do you really believe you will be left alone?
Are you going to remain non-violent as the circle of Big Gov’t wraps the figurative noose around your neck?
I don’t see that happening.
So deny that gov’t is necessary if that makes you happy.
Lambast me if that makes you feel empowered.
But – I predict that most all of you will do that which will be necessary, and in direct contradiction to your stated principles when it becomes necessary to do so.
I used to think like you, GW. I’m glad I don’t anymore.
Condo and Home Owners associations are voluntary forms of association. What you are calling ‘little g’. I for one have participated in one of those. I done other forms of little ‘g’ as well.
Let me know when these voluntary principles expand. I seem to be the kind of person people voluntarily turn to for advice and such on the stuff I am good at.
I just can’t do politics in clover world. I don’t have the temperament for it.
It’s not government. That much is clear.
It may shock you, but ask any cop, government has no duty what so ever to protect you or your property. None. Zero. Zilch. And they don’t.
If they did there would be no such thing as bad neighborhoods. Safety comes from the good people being able to protect themselves and nothing else.
If you think otherwise, lets see victims of crime sue the government for the failure to protect them or stop paying the government for protection under breach of contract. See what happens.
“A Utopia is not obtainable or sustainable in this world – Man is an imperfect creature.”
It is *because* man is imperfect that we MUST adopt a free society before it’s too late. The very worst and most evil among us are attracted to power like moths to a flame. You place your faith in the hands of sociopaths (the politicians)… Just what are you thinking?!? By doing so, you put us all at grave risk. Take the Fed alone… It is in the process of destroying our economy. Utopian is to believe that representative government is somehow good.
To paraphrase the great Herbert Spencer, to have a better society we must base it on the “law of equal freedom.” This is the basis of Spencer’s theory of social evolution (not to be confused with “social Darwinism”). There still has to be a state but it must be a state without rulers, or in other words, a state of self-rulers. Not only can this be done, it must be done if we want peace and prosperity for our grandchildren.
Libertarianism isn’t “based on man’s inate nobility and sheer capacity to do nothing but good.” It’s based on man’s capacity for nobility and inherent nature to do mostly good. It believes the best in man; not the worst.
FYI – I intended that line as sarcasm…
But, using your premise – doesn’t one still have to protect against those who wouldn’t do “mostly good” (i.e. – those who would do harm).
If so – then would that not be establishing some sort of rule of law? (ie “gov’t”)????
YES, a rule of law, but on an individual level; augmented by voluntary aggregations into like-minded communities with, if you will, community values.
Much like the ancient Indian village-elder system, the final word in coercion would be shunning and expulsion–not caging and killing.
Self-defense, a fundamental natural right, as always to the fore.
A lawyer friend (not the libertarian criminal-defense one, the other lawyer friend) claims it will devolve to a Mad Max scenario.
Quite the contrary. It will evolve to what America was at its best in the early-mid 1800’s…only imagine that, overlaid on today’s technology.
Without the parasitic sociopath sub-species–which gravitates to government and sickens its host, us–we’d have colonized space years ago; and that would have been the least of our achievements.
The parasites set up an extremely clever system of bondage and slavery here. The Federal Reserve aims for an inflation rate of 2% by their own admission. Curiously, that is the average historical rate of increase in human productivity.
Hence, through inflation, they have stolen all increased productivity for the last 100 years. As testimony to human ingenuity, we’ve still made progress in excess of the average 2%.
However sociopaths have no internal governors; they’ve escalated their lust for power and they’re stealing much more than 2%–they want it ALL now.
Going back to the weak “anarchy will go Mad Max” argument–well, if it does, at least I can shoot the bastards with the full support of my neighbors who can see the morality clearly. In a Statist system, the fucking neighbors will cheer my plundering!
Governments through democide have killed (conservatively) 260 million in the last century; I challenge a Mad Max scenario to produce that level of carnage.
Medieval Iceland.
Early-mid 19th century America.
Homogenous societies.
Only way it works. Diversity of race, creed, religion means only conflict and openings for cynical charlatans to position themselves to profit from the discord.
Charlatans… that’s just it, it takes manipulation to get the groups to fight. The default is live and let live, because that is what is mutually beneficial. Nobody but the power hungry sociopaths wins in war.
That’s what the US empire is doing in the middle east presently. The christian communities are being wiped out where ever the empire interferes. People lived side by side in peace for a very long time then the empire starts poking sticks in.
Americans must be so incredibly ignorant and manipulable to have so many self proclaimed Christians being for these wars that wipe out their fellow christians.
@TOG:
Thanks yes–I forgot those two, especially Medieval Iceland…a shining example of anarcho-capitalism at work.
And it lasted longer than the US–300 years vs. 137 years (US ended in 1913).
And OK I’ll bite–culturally homogeneous…which usually means racially homogeneous.
Until the internet and education.
Now, give me all the like-minded folk on this board–I don’t know your colors. Give me Thomas Sowell. Andrew Napolitano. Walter Block. Wilton Alston. Will Grigg.
Put us together, and we’ll do just fine.
Still I take your point–those societies would not have worked otherwise…just as today’s society, with a huge influx of Hispanic who aren’t even trying to integrate, isn’t working.
utopia? No. I would settle for near universal recognition that the state is just a criminal gang before it is too late. Just that alone can turn things around in the USA.
“and we just totally wing it based on man’s inate nobility and sheer capacity to do nothing but good.”
You have a very dishonest character. You know very well that you’re created a strawman. You also know that the real argument is about whether or not man’s evil, violent tendencies should be organized and monopolized, not on whether or not they exist. If you were to argue honestly and ethically against these points, you would have a greater impact. But “playing dumb” and using unethical and dishonest forms of argument is simply ineffective.
“Gov’t does not just encompass the INSTITUTION – it is any set of rules and organization that regulates how 2 or more individual treat each other.”
Again, you default to “playing-dumb” dishonesty. You know very well that those here make a clear distinction between government and law and that when they refer to the abolition of government (anarchy) they are referring to the abolition of state. By pinning to your opponents’ position of anarchy a conflation the government and law, you’re using pure doublethink. This is a dishonest and unethical form of discourse.
Thank you, anonymous–his trick actually slipped past me.
Very well analyzed.
The quickest way to determine a fellow planetary inhabitant’s current convertability potential is to ask them if they would agree to peacefully engage in an ALL CASH community. Please note that by CASH we mean to say ANY exchange medium that uses an anonymous instrument whereby the mere possession of said instrument is routinely considered proof of ownership.
You can be confident that if they object to same said all cash/barter/exchange/voluntaryist/agoristic/etc community…that they are the ninety-nine percent, aka CLOVERS/LOOTERS/SHEEPLE/LEMMINGS/ETC.
Hand them a copy of Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged and if they object to the 1100 pages then extend to them Tom Baugh’s book Starving The Monkeys which weighs in at less than half that length…if they can’t be bothered to read either of those then you should NOT squander your precious, irreplaceable TIME/BREATH/LIFE/ETC on those who are not sufficiently READY/HUNGRY/DESTITUTE/ETC.
And just so we understand what we are up against, here we present Angel Adams, her three baby-daddys, and her fifteen children. Nineteen DEMOCRATIC LOOTERS that your tax-dollars spawned into existence that WILL vote against you and yours…that WILL readily acknowledge that they are quite comfortable to loot others literally to DEATH, so that they might enjoy bread and circuses for another 24 hours.
Anywho, here she is in all her looterfest splendor:
Somebody’s Got To Pay…indeed…gag/cough/puke…argh!
Also check out Tim Wallace’s website democracyisnotfreedom.
Starving The Monkeys and Ending The Looterfest,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)
.
I’d love to find an agorist community. It might even be enough to keep me from expatriating my family.
We’ve considered Kalispell, MT–seems a large group of liberty-minded folk are moving there.
Of course, they’ll be prime candidates for the next Wacoing…as would any self-sufficient community. Doesn’t fit with UN Agenda 21, you know?
I wonder how many kids understand how prophetic The Hunger Games is. It’s today’s 1984.
Angel Adams is literally a carbon copy of my (soon to be ex-) sister-in-law.
Idiocracy.
Mr. Peters, that is a winner. As a retired US Army officer who carried that bayonet, I now believe you are right. As a now non-voting member of our society I see a long road ahead to change the minds of people who will boo the idea of a foreign policy that follows the Golden Rule. That said, it’s worth it. Thank you for providing another clear and simple discussion point to use in my daily efforts to change some of the things I helped to perpetuate while in the Army. Cheers.
Wow it’s nice to see an officer come over to this side. I honestly thought that only enlisted men would ever get it, and very few of them.
You Sir give me hope. (It’s been a long time since I said Sir to an officer without hatred in my mind)
Brad, you took the words right off of my fingers.
Mr. Dean, it is a PLEASURE to make your acquaintance!
Hi Sam,
Thanks to you, too!
One of the things I really enjoy about this site is the coming-together of people from so many varied backgrounds who’ve all (me included) had their “come to Jesus” moment – and consciously decided to reject the idea that force is the way to deal with one’s fellow men.
Welcome!
Important points, Eric, Thanks.
I might add;
So long as society is based on violence, “we” are not civilized humans, but clever animals.
The short story is: Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting on what to serve for lunch.
The long story: You and your wife are stranded on an island with eight other men. A council is formed. They study the issues. It is then decided that it will create undue jealousy and tensions for only one man to be getting sex. They take a vote. Eight for, two against. Majority rules that your wife must have sex with all the men on the island. If you object, they will first imprison you, then kill you. All done legally and officially, for the greater good. They are magnanimous. She doesn’t have to have sex with all the men at once, they will take turns.
Career office holders and juris doctors are the very bane of the American Republic.
tgsam
That’s only if you picture the couple unarmed and unwilling to defend themselves. The 9mm carried at all times on my belt holds 15 +1 JHP rounds. The first round is in the pipe and ready to go… Most of the people I’ve met seem to think it is a very good idea to treat me with respect, for some reason.
An armed, and self governing society is the only option for those who wish to live in peace and prosperity.
If you look (and act) like food, you will be eaten.
Excellent article on this whole idea.
http://lneilsmith.org/atlanta.html
The Atlanta Declaration
by L. Neil Smith
Ayn Rand was pointing out a much-neglected but encouraging truth when she insisted that civilization isn’t a natural feature of the universe, something that “just grew”. In spite of the multitude of forces arrayed against them, those fuzzy-edged little pools of light and warmth and love and hope exist. They’re what civilization — and life itself — are all about.
Of course they come in all shapes and sizes, and they’re dynamic in nature, not static.
On “Clover,” I’ve only been reading here a few months (Thanks Lew Rockwell!), but I also tho’t the poster had chosen the name because he agreed with the Clover tenets. I actually thought it might be an acronym for “Collectivism Lover.” At any rate, it’s gotten its own legs, and that’s great!
A quick observation on this great blog entry – it seems to be an ideal litmus test. People who read it, even those who claim to be “libertarian,” inevitably show their actual colors. They either understand the violence and say “Amen!” or dissemble and try to call it something else, like “coercion” or “product of the social contract.” Anything to avoid calling it by its rightful name.
The beauty and purity of this idea of non-violence against others (unless in self-defense, of course) is that, from this fundamental premise, EVERYTHING can be restructured to work in a moral, and truly market-based manner. No more welfare state, no more foreign adventurism in the name of establishing “demoncracies,” no need for big .gov, no more TSA, … you get it.
Beautiful, pure idea that not only CAN work, but MUST work, once it’s taken as the fundamental premise of our relationships with one another. Again, thanks for writing this.
I still wonder if the name came from “animal farm”
1) I completely agree. However, I’ve also been thinking for a while about how morally correct arguments fail to reach people where they are at (ie:have fallen behind in terms of strategy). Your blog is actually a great way, since the modern American reads blogs and such, but movies like the Matrix are few and far between. Most movies, as an example, only reinforce the statist mindset, such as the new Batman. The corrupt govt is replaced by another corrupt group of statists called “the people”. “Giving the city back to the people” is oft repeated, meaning “to replace one dictator(govt) with another(Bain)”. And people get blasted with this stuff all day long, so the reactions they have to intellectual issues become emotional, rather than intellectual. Liberty will have a much bigger progress forward when people who believe in liberty are able to express it in a way that reaches people emotionally, where they are at (television, movies, music, internet, etc).
2) I’ve also come to think that it’s not just about the system (as in, we need a voluntary system) but it’s about the minds inside that system. It’s not just about free markets, it’s about free-market-minds also. As John Adams said (as much as I hate quoting politicians) “What do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 – 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.”
3) Unfortunately, the argument of non-violence is impossible to win in a short manner, legally. The argument is simple. Once somebody believes in violence for whatever reason, it’s a simple relativistic slope to get to the point where you can punch them in the face and take their wallet/purse. Getting mugged once would probably be convincing enough for MOST people…
4) but again, most people don’t have an intellectual view of the world, but an emotional one. Freedom already makes the strongest intellectual plea, it’s long past time for Freedom to make an emotional one.
Nice post, Eric.
Reg; ” most people don’t have an intellectual view of the world, but an emotional one. Freedom already makes the strongest intellectual plea, it’s long past time for Freedom to make an emotional one.”
That is it in a nutshell Michael, and it is why we have such a hard time reaching people. Their cerebral cortex shuts down when confronted with thought provoking ideas or reality, their eyes glaze over and they go away and/or they respond emotionally or brand you a hysteric nut job.
Its a tough, thankless job pushing freedom down the road in an attempt to preserve it (Our duty/responsibility), a very nuanced argument is required, confrontation doesn’t work. I have already, painfully, lost a son to this argument.
Regards…Tre
_We ‘were’ subjected_
Well, Eric,
A rewarding diversion away from your great car stuff. A well constructed and carefully considered article.
Speaking of ‘Euphemisms’ and ‘legal State killing’… recently we subjected to the euphemistic term…’Targeted killing’ rather then ‘Legal assassination’… a down right lie.
And so it goes…………
Thanks, Deuce!
Much as I love cars and bikes – I love liberty more. Without liberty, no cars or bikes – not for us, anyhow.
I loathe – and dread – what I see forming before my very eyes. It is unimaginable. Unbelievable. People of my generation (Generation X) and before grew up with the example of the Soviet Union – of a totalitarian state with internal checkpoints, brutality, limitless government. Now look at us – the US. Random stops and searches – including physical groping of our genital area. “Free speech zones.” A president with “kill list.” Torture as open, official state policy. Routine, warrantless (and probable cause-free) monitoring of our private communications. A policy of aggressive, endless war; the routinization of mass murder. Cops who will beat and Taser you for declining to “buckle up for safety.” A Supreme Court that has decreed it acceptable that every American who has any resources of his own be forced at gunpoint to purchase the product of a private, for-profit cartel.
And yet, people – millions of them – still harbor the illusion they’re free.
Like nothing else, the Supreme Court’s split decisions expose it for what it REALLY is.
tgsam
On that note, I heard an radio ad for the Illinois National Guard where they used the term, “citizen soldier.” OMG!
Yeah, well I just saw an advert on the “idiot box” for the Navy where they call themselves a Force For Good! Can you believe that propagandist bullshit?
Eric:
I’ve been reading your site regularly for over a year now. This is your best political article (at least since I’ve been reading IMHO).
I must admit that I don’t read all (or even most) of your car reviews. Nothing against your car reviews – I’m just never planning to buy a new car again, so I just don’t care.
I do read all your politcal stuff and again – best article in the one year plus I’ve been reading.
It really separates logic from emotion.
Top notch. Awesome. I would say cloverproof, but clovers seemingly need no valid argument. While LVM teaches the vlaue of scarcity, straw supply seems infinte for clovers to build men from.
Exactly when did you coin the phrase “clover?” It’s been around since I’ve been reading, but when was the term actually born?
Also – how did you decide on “clover.” Is it the seeming conformity aspect of the clover plant that made you associate totalitarians and statists with it? It there some Shamrock aspect to it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks again.
Clover is in “honor” of the site’s local gadfly.
In general he supports the typical authoritarian statist position. You can find his posts here and on clovercam (see link below). His drivel has been limited on this site due to his banishment. (I think he has been reinstated, but I have not notice him post much here of late.)
Logic does not seem to be one of his strong suits, but he will not let the facts get in the way of what he wants. He will repeat the same mantra of the state is always right, speed always kills, you must do things my way or else.
Words do not do clover enough justice. You might just have to see his drivel to believe it.
Mithrandir:
I have seen Clover’s posts, but I always thought Eric coined the term first, and somebody proud of those traits decided to use this handle afterwards.
Thanks for the history lesson. I had chicken and egg mixed up.
I’ve always been tempted to reply to Clover (and Gil), but I refrain. Some people’s minds are made up. They refuse to believe they could have been wrong for so long despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I’m a bit embarrassed to say I was once a proud (and totally ignorant) republican who voted for Bush – twice. I knew nothing about candidates voting records, but voted for the guy with the “R” by his name – like a robot – since “they hate us for our freedom.”.
One day, I happened to stumble onto an article from Ron Paul about the petro-dollar in 2008. Then I stumbled onto LRC and the links to here and all his other fantastic contributors.
Talk abut taking the red pill. It is simultaneously enlightening and infuriating. The most evil people in the world are celebrated as compassionate modern day Kings and Queens.
It is humiliating, being so naive for so long (I’m 43 now). But I’d rather admit I’d been suckered by the idiot box and move on than close my eyes and hope the monster goes away.
Blake,
We have walked and are walking the same path. I, too, voted for Bush twice and believed the lie that “they hate us for our freedom”. I, too, stumbled upon articles by Ron Paul. I ultimately read all of his books. Then I began reading Lew Rockwell’s site on a daily basis. Tom The Neocon doesn’t live here anymore. My eyes are wide open now.
Blake,
I suspect we’ve all gone through this transformation – me included. It is all-but-impossible to grow up in this country without a highly skewed perspective. It takes time and effort to awake. It’s miraculous that any of us manage to escape the Matrix.
“I’m just never planning to buy a new car again, so I just don’t care.”
Amen to that!
“Cloverproof”
Awesome term and a first I think.
The term clover was born when that fucking idiot first came to the site, so maybe like two years ago.
Eric decided on clover because that was/is the moron’s user name on here.
Cloverproof – excellent!
I also doubt I’ll ever buy a vehicle newer than my current newest – 2002.
That includes bikes, by the way.
Because Cloverdom has caught up to motorcycles. They all – or almost all – have computer controlled EFI, cats. Many have complicated ECMs and programmable “engine curves” – and so on. Which is neat and all, but what about 15 or 20 years down the road from now? These bikes, like current cars, are built to be throw-aways. I want a bike like my current bikes – bikes that can be kept going pretty much forever. The S1 I just rebuilt is like new again, even though it is 40 years old. And in another 40 years, it can be rebuilt again. Good look doing that even 15 years from now with a new ZX10 or CBR…
Hi Blake,
Thanks!
The political stuff grew out of my affection for machinery – cars and bikes. Because, to me, few things embody liberty more than a car or bike – and the ability to just get in (or hop on) and go wherever you want to.
Of course, we’re rapidly losing the freedom to do that – to do anything – we (as individuals) want. More and more, we’re corralled, coerced and otherwise controlled. We’re told it’s for reasons of “safety,” or “for our own good,” or because “society” has so decided. But the bottom line is there are people out there who are determined to never leave other people alone – and I have declared war on these creatures. The battle will not be fought physically, however. It will be fought upstairs – in the heads of the people out there who are basically good and decent, just misled, misinformed and manipulated. They must be awakened. If I can change even one mind; if anyone else here can change even one mind – progress will have been made.
On Clover: Mith and Dom and others have beaten me to the explanation!
Hi Eric,
Apropos your connection between machinery and liberty, I just read a short book called “The Wild Wheel” by Garet Garrett (!952). A fascinating look at the birth and growth of Ford Motor Co. from the perspective of it’s master creator, Henry Ford.
It read like a great novel. You can download from Mises.org for free in e-pub format. or pdf.
That’s one work of Garrett’s that I haven’t heard of. I’ll definitely have to download it and check it out.
You have been here for some time and yet you still do not seem to get it.
Non-aggression towards others means what it says. Statists have their vision of how society should be and enforce their vision with force. People that follow the NAP will not initiate violence towards others. They may try to peacefully persuade their neighbors to their point of view, but if not successful they will not initiate violence against them.
You have been here for some time and yet you still do not seem to get it.
No, troll, WE get it – you probably never will (this despite the fact that you’ve actually upchucked a few phrases that have indicated your capacity to accept and comprehend reason).
It’s “communism,” Clover? Interesting that you’d equate Libertarianism – the advocacy of human liberty, of individual sovereignty, free exchange and non-aggression – with the most brutal form of authoritarianism the world has yet seen.
And: No fight in us? There is plenty of fight, Clover. We just hope to avoid the physical kind because we (unlike communists and other authoritarians) abjure violence.
No, Giiiiiiiiiiiiil, it’s about everyone quitting the state and doing things their way as long as their actions harms no one else, you stupid bootlicking fascist troll.
This aught to get your panties in a whirl, you cretinous little state worshiping turd:
Message to the Voting Cattle – Larken Rose:
Echoing the accolades – really a great piece, Eric!
I’d like to post this in a forum where I believe it would be appreciated, if that’s OK.
DR
Thanks, DR – and, sure! Just please include a link back here, if you would.
Done! thanks!
[M]ost of us are not masters of verbal ju-jitsu any more than we are masters of actual ju-jitsu…
Now, Eric, you know better than to be so modest. After having written this phenomenal piece of work, one your best ever, the above sentence just comes across as silly.
[T]he highest form of compassion one human being can extend to another – is to agree not to engage him with violence, but rather, persuasion.
Although you do so in the very next sentence, I strongly recommend that anytime we libertarians use the world persuasion, we must always, and I mean ALWAYS modify it with the adjective peaceful. “Persuasion” is one of those words in the English language that statists of all degrees and stripes seize upon and pervert in all sorts of horrifying ways.
All of that said, again, BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN, something to present to anyone still in thrall to the collectivist mindset.
Thanks, Lib!
And agreed re peaceful persuasion. Duly noted. Future references will be so amended.
The other day I posted a topic on a liberal leaning website that I frequent. (ECF) I received around a thousand replies within two days. My posting was titled “The massive little word WE”
I was insulted by nearly every person on the site and when I told them that insults were not arguments they told be to not be so thin skins so I attacked them and told them they were disgusting for advocating violence in the cause of collectivism.
I was told flat out that I deserved to be insulted because my opinion was a direct insult to them. Yep, for simply voicing my opinion that the collective is evil I was attacked in all manner of ways.
The interesting part was that there were more replies and viewings of my little article in two days than the others had gotten in a month. I would say I hit a nerve and that their attacks were simply out of defensiveness. Inside them there must be some little part of them that knows they are wrong. If not, why not just ignore me?
If not, why not just ignore me?
For the same reason my grandfather can’t respectfully debate when I question his interpretation of Catholicism. I’m going to Hell apparently; a pathetic figure worthy of pity and contempt, but not courtesy.
You’ve questioned their faith, proven yourself an infidel not worthy of the same respect granted adherents of the faith. Politics is the closest thing to religion I’ve yet seen.
Adherence to collectivism in all its forms long ago entered the realm of faith, as the logic that supposedly underpinned it has been so throughly debunked. This is why you get the same treatment from the collectivists as you get from the “God hates fags” people when you question them. Blind faith in collectivism is all they have left.
Right on. I like to call it Godvernment.
Brad, you should submit that term to Urban Dictionary.
Liberanter, It’s done and here it is.
Godvernment
An entity that is worshiped for it’s ability to control the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.
We are all so lucky that yesterday the Godvernment declared a new decree. We must all thank the Godvernment for keeping us safe and prosperous.
by justadudeme on Aug 17, 2012
Statism is the world’s largest religion. All faiths and denominations take refuge in its shadow. Political violence is the unifying principle, the body in which they all partake.
Have you encountered that their insults aren’t insults but ‘observations’?
Reflecting their attacks with similar does not work too well IME. Pointing out that they are using insult rather than argument seems to make them angry.
The aim is to put the other person on the defensive. To prove he isn’t whatever insulting thing that they blathered force. It’s a trap. A trap of someone who has no argument. I just take whatever little thing they said that was halfway topical and use it to stay on point and put them into a deeper hole where their only recourse is to become more and more despicable if they want to respond. I am not perfect at it by any means.
If left to dig long enough they’ll reach death threats. That’s all they can do when manipulation, perception, and ridicule fail because ultimately that is the basis of their system, violence.
Oh yah, If you tell them that they are being insulting they always claim they are not. They could say they intend to F your mamma and then turn around and say it was just an “observation” they could if they wanted to, that wasn’t an insult or threat just a fact. LOL.
Absolutely correct. The old saying “birds of a feather flock together”, as even here, holds true. When you, heretic, speak truth to power, you’re in for their violence that lays sleeping ever so shallow below the surface. I’ve found time and again that there are some incredibly scary fuckers out there who have a smiley mask on.
Eric,
I applaud your two most recents on “why we Obey?” and “winning arguments”. Really good work!
Now I have to go back to work so I may obey my masters at the IRS.
Thanks, Mark!
Great handle, by the way… I dig Datsuns (and Nissans, too)… .
This might be your most striking article yet.
Thanks, Tim!
I’m trying to reduce the basic message down to its essentials, in simple language, using (hopefully) irrefutable logic based on moral reasoning. I believe nothing will change until enough minds are changed. If I can do anything to further that object, I will – to the best of my ability.
Continue doing that and I believe that folks will continue taking time to read what you write, and even more importantly, subject it to Critical Thinking.
tgsam
*Eric* The world – our existence – does not have to be this way. It only requires getting enough of them to see – and to feel – the water all around them, the sea of violence in which they swim.
It is time we crawled out onto the shore and took a deep breath of fresh air. *Eric*
Well done, Eric. Interestingly I’m watching Shark Week at this very moment.
Unfortunately, the fear of losing an election is not strong enough to provide Accountability. Absent a violent solution to the absence of Respect for the Natural Rights of the Individual, there is only Knowledge, Critical Thinking,the so called runaway Grand Jury, and Citizen Solidarity.
So then, where do we begin? A Solidarity of one, two or two hundred simply cannot do the job.
tgsam [email protected]
TGS,
Well said. Though I do not know the way I am willing to begin the journey.
Some Ghandi quotes for you:
Wow. Just an excellent article, Eric.
This is the most concise, well-reasoned explanation of the NAP I’ve read; really top-notch writing.
On top of that–it works.
I had an argument with a particularly intransigent ex-friend and coworker over just that topic–public school taxes. His vitriol, his pure RAGE that I objected to HIS publicly-funded education meant that I was a selfish ogre who would have deprived him of his edukayshun.
I trotted out the violence counter-argument. “But J, I don’t want to pay for public school. Will you force me?”
He replied with the usual weak (and meaningless, and disproven) “social contract” crap.
I held his feet to the fire–“J are you saying that we can’t disagree, and that I MUST pay for public school, or else? Because you’re saying men with guns must force me to pay…or else.”
He became even more defensive and strident–remember I said “ex-friend”? That’s because he’s an asshole, and this argument crystallized the fact for me.
Then–and I think this is even stronger than pointing OUT the violence, it personalizes it–I said “Well then J, you feel so strongly; are you so convinced that YOU would come to my house and hold me at gunpoint to pay?”
Keeping in mind point (b)–that he’s an asshole–he sidestepped this.
But the best part was this discussion occurred in front of three middle-of-the-road guys; one of them subsequently became a hard-core anarcho-capitalist, who asks me for reading material every few weeks.
So I failed to convert the asshole–because at heart I suspect he’s a control-freak would-be sociopath, not a full sociopath, but certainly amenable to its fringe benefits. In fact many of the Clovers are of this persuasion, not full sociopaths but ready and eager–like Remoras on a shark–to feed off the discarded chunks of flesh.
But I made a convert in the audience!
Thanks, Meth!
I, too, have “been there/done that” with an ex-friend – a guy very much like your ex-friend, I suspect.
He’s also a virulent Christian, of course. And a rabid Republican.
No doubt he hates and fears those Gold-Durn raghead Muslims–who are going to come over here, breed like crazy, and install Shariah law if we don’t kill’em all!
Prince of Peace, indeed.
It’s that hypocrisy that drove me away from Christianity–and good riddance. Churches today are temples to the State; might as well have golden calves on the altar, it would be more honest.
I would not necessarily dump the message of a religion (Christianity in this case) because of the actions of those claiming to be members of that religion.
Although your comment reminds me of some quotes from Ghandi.
Well said, Mithrandir! Ghandi’s famous quote is right on the money.
You’ll see me frequently and very harshly bash “churches,” in this blog, my own, and many others, along with the hate-filled, state-worshiping contents of those organizations. HOWEVER, I do not reject the message of the Bible, particularly that of the Four Gospels that these creatures obviously never read or take to heart. While light years from being a skilled practitioner of the tenets of this faith, it is something I aspire to. Believe it or not, the most inspiring practitioners of the Christian faith I have ever met those who are NOT part of an incorporated congregation associated with an established denomination. Few and far between though these people are, they are the REAL Christians out there.
Yes that’s very fair, mithrandir. I don’t discount all of Christian teachings–just most established churches and their parishioners.
Churches have, through their 501c(3) status, become beholden to the State.
Their preaching is watered-down, Romans 13 crap–none of the laissez-faire anti-statism of their supposed figurehead, Christ himself.
My favorite Bible scene? Jesus kicking the crap out of the money-changers in the temple–talk about a proper real-life example! That’s the kind of example I would like to emulate.
And that Ghandi quote? Priceless–thanks!
Hypocrisy is the creed practiced out of sheer and often times willful ignorance.
Your welcome regarding the quotes. I think it (or something similar) was used in the movie. It was a great movie in my opinion. I am not sure how much of it was accurate, but Gandhi could be the standard bearer for non-violence.
I liked the quote, since it makes me think at times that I could be someones only impression of a Christian. Setting a good example through ones actions is more effective than any sermon in my opinion.
Regarding religious establishment: I try to follow my religion the best I can. I can not stop the hypocrites. The hypocrites will reap what they sow. They will taste the consequences of their fruit.
I will leave you with Romans 2:13
At some point – I’m not sure exactly when, but circa the 1980s – a militantly patriotic version of evangelical Christianity appeared. These now seem to dominate, or at least wield a great deal of political clout in GOP circles. Jesus as warrior prince, come to slay the heathens. Hitler, interestingly, had a similar conception. And Himmler overtly modeled his SS on the Jesuit order.
Eric, regarding the Warrior Christ: The Revelation picture is one of the sword in his mouth, not his hand. Most fail to observe this, much less consider its meaning. Even in the OT the Hebrew reads “mouth of the sword” in all places where the AV has “edge of the sword”. The weapon then becomes the tongue and the battles won with words. Rather than engage introspection and change to accurately reflect the symbol the common course is to cast the god into one’s own image.
*Meth* His vitriol, his pure RAGE that I objected to HIS publicly-funded education meant that I was a selfish ogre who would have deprived him of his edukayshun. *Meth*
I left school after making bad grades in the Tenth Grade.
Education and Learning are not synonyms. Furthermore, Education is no substitute for Learning.
I think it’s time to reassess Education and Learning now that PCs are no longer a novelty. Somehow it no longer makes sense to maintain an enormous number of buses and consume an incredible amount of fuel just taking children and youngsters back an forth to school five days a week.
tgsam
“Education and Learning are not synonyms. Furthermore, Education is no substitute for Learning.” – Tinsley Grey Sammons
Another priceless addition to the “1000 Most Quotable Quotes Of All Time!”
The clovers are indeed sociopaths. It is just that they are sociopathic cowards, who would rather pay thugs to do the violence on their behalf. This, I believe, accounts for a large portion of the population of the world. In turn, they have convinced the majority, of the rightness, necessity, and inevitability of the state being our provider and protector.
Excellent! I’d consider that encounter to be a big win. For one thing you put the gun into your ex-friends hands and personalized the violence that they personally subcontract.
Sorry, but your neighbor is correct. Some taxes are necessary. Otherwise we would all be living in unacceptable environments. The problem is there is no Specific Use or are no Taxpayer Protections for taxes collected. If there were Use Taxes instead of a bunch of Taxes going for all sorts of stuff, things would be funded and there would be little money left for Political Friends and Supporters.
A Fuel Tax would pay for the highways, a Child Tax would pay for education and a Property Tax would pay for infrastructure Anything else those self-serving hypocrites could think up or have thought up would be paid for by a VAT or National Sales Tax. Want to invade a foreign Country? The VAT will need to be increased by ,05%. Want National Health Insurance? The VAT needs to be increased by 1%. Think NTHSA is necessary? Think Federal Grants for Political Pet Projects are necessary? If the cost is reflected in an increase in the VAT, probably not.
Everyone who benefits – or will benefit – pays. Don’t want to pay? Don’t drive a car, don’t have a kid or – whatever. But this is a little like a barking dog. Do you really think anyone gives a shit about what he is thinking? – or you? – or the guy’s mind you might have changed? Unless people like you have the money to pay off those sperm samples ruling the US, it’s only going to get worse.
Well, you’ve embraced thuggery, then.
I can’t – and won’t.
I fail to understand your argument.
Are you proposing purely consumption taxes?
And, are you not aware of the huge corpus of work–such as Walter Block’s book detailing private road systems–that proves government is not necessary to provide ANY service?
You are apparently accepting the premise that certain services must be provided the state. I don’t accept that premise. The state as a institution has taken monopoly on services that best serve its perpetuation and the people in it, not because the state must provide those things.
For instance, government runs the schools because that serves the interests of the institution of government. The school is there for the benefit of the institution that runs it, government, not the children, not the people. If it were there for the children the entire system would be very different. It certainly would not be the Prussian system which was designed to benefit the state.
Going to consumption taxes and hard money would mean exposing the state’s activities and theft. There I agree with you, that such immediately seen taxation is better. However it is not a long term solution. At best it is a step to a solution.
The premise that certain things reserved and only being able to be comitted by the state is a truth. The state has a monopoly and is the only institution that can make war. Especially for a profit and at the expense of the citizens. That seems very fit in the real chartar of its purpose, of course they always call it defense when it fact its something quite different.
That’s another illusion that is promoted for the state. First, offensive war is not needed.
The Empire of Japan knew better than to try and invade the USA. It was not because of the state. It was because there was a ‘rifle behind every blade of grass’. The US federal government cannot even manage an occupation against those who see it for it is in impoverished 3rd world countries.
Defensive war can be handled without a state, offensive war is unnecessary. The state is not needed.
Ah YES YES YES thank you BrentP–
I will store this nugget of yours:
Defensive war can be handled without a state, offensive war is unnecessary. The state is not needed.
The State makes war purely for its own purposes; as Albert Jay Nock said, “War is the Health of the State.”
No normal human being wants it. It takes the psychopaths–the predators in our midst–to accumulate sufficient power to bring us to that barbarism.
True guys that true defense is individualistic but I’m willing to let the state be associated with mass death and therefore have the brag and glory of being mass murderers. Thats one monopoly that history show that governments is pretty much got the monopoly on.
Just my humble opinion but I think when things get down to war its a sign of weakness on the side of the participants. Everyone has the shit threshold, but I really do believe that even the revolutionary war probably could have been avoided with better results. Slavery could have been ended without wars. It requires a society with vigilance and persistence to win a war peacefully.
I didn’t always believe like a flower child on peace but I’ve came to realize that violence of ideals is really nothing more than assurance of reciprocity. Ideals should be won without bullets or guns, but on their merits alone. However, and with this said I think Jesus said to the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. Here for the act of individual defense against un-godly mobs of people. I’m sure the idea of any kind of empowered people scares authoritarian regimes. Japan for sure was aware of Americans being empowered. We must not forget its not our tools that make us masters but the tool maker inside and the theorist and divine image of our soul that will allow us to move mountains with our sheer thoughts.
Why not fee-for-use highways? Why shouldn’t I just pay the school directly to send my kid there? The doctor as well? Why can’t I pay a monthly fee for the infrastructure I use, based on my rate of usage? Why don’t we just abstain from invading foreign countries?
The answer to every one of these questions: because they would make the bureaucracy of tax-feeders impossible. You wouldn’t need legions of “civil servants” to push the money around, slipping a few dollars into their own pockets while they’re at it.
It boggles my mind how any astute observer can look at the system we have today and think “well it’s the most efficient option.”
t boggles my mind how any astute observer can look at the system we have today and think “well it’s the most efficient option.”
One of the reasons most sheeple do so is because they’re comfortable with the “hidden costs” aspect of the existing system. That is, while they’re definitely paying through the nose, indirectly through taxes, for the cost of the current dysfunctional and inefficient infrastructure that they take for granted, the money doesn’t come directly out of their wallets as a fee for services provided. This gives them the illusion that they’re “getting something for nothing.”
If the State were to vanish, taxes were to disappear, and everything now the province of the State were privatized, the sheeple would be paying directly for the costs of such infrastructure. If market conditions were to ultimately prevail, they would almost certainly get better infrastructure and associated services for lower cost. BUT, they would still be paying for it directly, either through direct fees for service (e.g., toll roads) or subscription fees (e.g., privatized security and fire-fighting services). No one likes having to pay for something that was once “free,” no matter how much more improved a product or service they are getting. In other words, it’s a “maturity” thing.
“You wouldn’t need legions of “civil servants” to push the money around, slipping a few dollars into their own pockets while they’re at it.”.
Yep, that nails it. It’s a little more accurate to say that the “civil servants” slip most of the money into their collective pockets, though. In Richmond, Va, we have beltways which are toll roads. What we actually get for paying the tolls is tollbooth attendants, bureaucrats, and traffic jams. Most of the money collected goes to servicing the “administration structure” while maintenance is still paid out of the state’s general fund.
Most toll booth collectors are surly, deliberately slow to make change, and imbued with a sense of authority over drivers who use the toll roads.They will make change for a $20 in ones and quarters, and make change for a $1 dollar bill in nickels, whenever possible.
The only recourse a driver has, if he needs to use the toll roads, is to buy the EZ Pass, which is an electronic device which sends a signal to the system, tracking your use of the toll roads and deducting the toll from your prepaid account.
It’s what happens with any bureaucratic system. What the taxpayer gets for paying property taxes is more tax collectors and other bureaucrats, with perpetually rising taxes to fund the do-nothing careers of the leeches, along with their early retirement benefits.
What we get for our road use taxes are additional skinheaded donut munchers who write us tickets, rather than well maintained roads. The system of issuing tickets is just another tax on our use of the roads, call it what they will.
Ed:
Great points. However, one might not be so bad. You commented:
“They will make change for a $20 in ones and quarters, and make change for a $1 dollar bill in nickels, whenever possible.”
Keep those nickels. The metal content is worth more than their face value.
This is a truly no-risk investment. Inflation, and Gresham’s law drives them out of circulation. Deflation, and they are always worth at least a nickel.
I agree – the “toll roads” of today are not private toll roads, but a bridging of the worst of both types of roads.
Private toll roads, where bad drivers that do not grasp the concept that you should be passing those to your right, and passing them briskly, would not be allowed.
I never understood how someone could think that taking 10+ miles to pass a tractor trailer by driving 0.000000001 mph faster, is safer than pasing them briskly by exceeding the posted limit. Truly, they should just get behind them, since they have no desire to travel at any greater speed, so why even bother to hog the other lane?
Anyway – keep those nickels.
They made it illegal to melt down nickels. But they can’t stop people for selling them over face. And unless they catch the melting in the act… good luck figuring out where the metal came from.
It’s disappointing to see someone advocating violence against other people. People like you who have these violent tendencies are morally deficient and are unfit to live in a free society.
He started his sentence with “sorry” so it makes stealing and violence OK. We live in a nation of retarded BRATS. What did you think public school would produce?
The biggest flaw in this argument is that it is “assumed” that whatever tax the State levies is somehow legitimate. There is nothing within VAT or “flat” tax arguments to restrain them from raising it ever higher under the guise of “fairness”. It’s a blank check once more with the false promise that they’ll somehow do better this go around. I look at it this way. Let’s say with have a tax and the only way it can go up is if there are mandatory salary cuts to ALL government employees and beneficiaries. Would they like that? Hell no! On the flip side if they actually cut costs and improve our lives while letting us keep more money, and actually REDUCE taxation, then they can get a bonus at the end of the year. That way they actually have an incentive. All to be audited through unattached third party agencies. Just some thoughts.
One of the potential issues I see with stepping back from the status quo of armed coercion we have now is the “f–k you” attitude bred into the population by the destruction of family and community. I submit that it would be near-impossible to get voluntary contributions from such a populace, regardless of how noble the cause.
Make no mistake, I’m not offering justification for the status quo, but suggesting that for anything to improve, there will be a long, uphill road ahead.
Don’t lose faith–despite the “fuck you” attitude, which is totally understandable considering they’ve been robbed half their income–Americans are still astonishingly generous.
Last year, they donated $300 billion to charity of various stripes.
Imagine how much more if their incomes doubled.
Guess who donates the largest percentage of their income?
Yes–you, the observant fellow in the back–the poorest of the still-working. Wehfayr recipients not so much–but the working poor give, and give, and give.
I highly recommend reading the book “Family and Civilization” if you have not, by Carle Zimmerman. It’s something of a dry read, but IMO, worth it. He talks about how the root of civilization’s problems are a direct effect of how the family is treated in society.
The biggest obstacle to getting people to understand this seems to be collectivist thought patterns, as in: “We” all benefit from having an educated populace, so “we” all need to “contribute” to funding the school system. It’s not until you start looking at people as individuals that the horror of using violence to force them to do what you want becomes clear. And it’s really difficult to get the point across to people who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into collectivism all of their lives.
Another problem is the religious reverence people have for “democracy.” If the majority says so, you have to follow because that’s how democracy works. I like to ask if it would be ok to stick Jews into ovens if the majority voted to do that. The answer is something along the lines of “That’s different.” I agree that it is different in degree, but ask how it differs in principle from what the government routinely does now in the name of the majority. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
Of course, no answer would satisfy me, because democracy is, at bottom, collectivist. It assumes that everyone is owned by the state. But being ruled by a majority vote, instead of the diktats of a party’s central committee, doesn’t make you any less violated when you are deprived of your life, liberty, or property. And requiring you and me to submit to the will of some majority is to glorify the collective over the individual.
Incidentally, those pictures of “The Awakening” made me chuckle. A Park Service employee who was working at Potomac Point Park when it was installed told me that the workers perpetrated a practical joke that the public will never notice: underground, at the appropriate location in relation to the man’s visible parts, they included a male appendage.
I like to ask if it would be ok to stick Jews into ovens if the majority voted to do that.
Jews? Oh, Lord no, heaven forbid! Ay-rabs, Eye-ranians, Mehicans, Chinese, and other dark/yellow-skinned terrist-poodles? HELL YEAH!
‘Mike’
I’m a little confused by your statement regarding Johnson’s ‘The Awakening’ as it was installed at ‘Hains Point’ part of ‘East Potomac Park’ and was buried by the sculptor and his crew with NPS oversight. The National Park Service never owned the sculpture, it was on temporary loan.
It is now privately owned and installed at the commercial development ‘National Harbor’ in Maryland.
Note; While the two parks, East & West, Potomac Park could generally be considered Potomac Park, residents don’t confuse the two, or call it Potomac Point Park, or at least they didn’t in the late sixties.
Regards Tre
Hi Tre. You are correct: it was Hains Point. My memory of that area is based on a few brief visits in the 80s, and I apparently never did the geographical identifications quite right. Thanks for clarifying.
Your welcome Mike..
Just backstop me when I’m a little fuzzy or have confused the info.
Regards…Tre
Haven’t seen you fuzzy or confused yet, Tre, but will let you know if I think it might have happened. 😉
Saw this statue on a school trip to DC when I was twelve. It seriously creeped me out then.
Now all I can think of is what a sick joke it was that a statue called “The Awakening” was in DC.
Maybe a more appropriate title would be “The Drowning” seeing as it’s a sea of debt and slavery they’ve tossed the common man into.
Apart from not using ovens, that’s just precisely what the Athenian democracy did to the inhabitants of Malos during the Peloponnesian War (whereas they reversed a similar decision for the genocide of Mytilene in time). The genocide was so thorough that the island was renamed Melos in the dialect of the new settlers after the ethnic cleansing. You won’t find it satisfactory, but Thucydides did report the Athenian reasoning in his Melian dialogue.
Oh, and that wasn’t an isolated one off during a major war, either. It had been routine practice in the century or so just before, in ethnically cleansing the islands like Lemnos where the previous inhabitants, the Pelasgians, were still holding out against the Greek newcomers.
The problem is that I’ve had people come right out and say that the violence is acceptable. In a recent exchange a friend of a friend told me that we ‘don’t own ourselves in a society’.
I’ve cornered people on these topics and they’ve outright stated these things in between cracks about Somalia, mountain men, and other nonsense and diversion. They can’t back up their arguments for violence and slavery but will state its necessary. This last guy dropped the mountain man stuff when I pointed out that even mountain men aren’t left alone by the state even though they live totally on their own. That they are put into serfdom to pay property taxes to remain on the land.
Some of these people consider themselves Christians, supposedly followers of someone who preached non-violence and tolerance, someone who was killed by the state.
I don’t understand how they can believe this fictional ‘social contract’ makes the immoral, moral. It’s a disconnect my logical brain cannot process.
I wonder if these people would approve of forced labor and camps for those taking a government check? If the state owns my labor, it should own their labor as well, right?
BrentP-
It’s hard not to despair when we’ve reached a point that people readily admit their slavery and say they wouldn’t have it any other way.
Or, as my brainwashed, government check-dependent daughter says “we’re all slaves anyway, so just live with it.”
Ohhhh….. Dude! That’s heart breaking!
Not half as much to me as it will be to her when the government checks stop coming.
I understand, but, still, it’s your flesh and blood. I have four, three of them teens, and it would be a dagger to my heart to hear something like that.
I am 52 years old, retired due to being discovered at the age of 49 as genetically epileptic my whole life (lots of adventures in between). I grew up in a family of corrupt law enforcement parents and siblings..I have not spoken to my abusive parents in 35 years (Dad’s Dead/Mom’s very old)….then went to work for the US Department of Defense for 22-23 years…I retired as a 20+ year “federally protected whistle-blower”..as useless as that designation was…the corruption was immense and while I didn’t go around turning folks in, I would not participate in the corruption , nor lie to cover it up…often times I simply threatened whomever was acting corrupt, until they changed their behavior…I reported so much illegal activity and theft of overtime, etc..eventually they retired me….In my years of watching corrupt cops, and corrupt government officials…I’ve stood up several times and virtually walked out on the abusive idiot, or thrown them to the upper management wolves in a legally threatening manner…
…the funny thing is…I was a business management trainer and i taught people how to open and manage fast service facilities on military installations…I am a McDonald’s U graduate (Dean’s List)…I was managing my “own”business by the time I was 18..and I was teaching business management around the country by the time I was 25…because of McDonald’s
…and after I went to work for the military…. I opened Cinnabon, Manchu Wok, McDonald’s, Burger Kings, bars and about 19 different fast-service businesses around the world..Bosnia, Hungary, Japan, Germany, Korea…all over the US….I once managed a $20,000.00 a day bar on an abandoned Soviet Air Base in Hungary…open four hours a day and we’d rake in over twenty-grand..a day!
So McDonald’s taught me business, but as far as handling the corruption around the world, and especially the government…screw them!…I’d rather have my dignity…the worst they could do was fire me..and I was employable at about 200,000 businesses around the world..thanks to McDonald’s… Ha!
Regards,
RJ O’Guillory
Author-
Webster Groves-The Life of an Insane Family
You have a logical mind? None that I have seen. Is road rage logical? Do some laws that are broken that create dangerous situation OK but other laws that are not dangerous at the time deserve your road rage? Where is the logic in that?
Clover, logic involves the coherent presentation of factual points in support of an argument. A plus B equals C.
You write things such as:
“Is road rage logical?”
Which is nothing more than an assertion using terms with subjective (and loaded, by you) meanings. What is “road rage”? You would characterize it as exceeding the posted speed limit, or passing someone such as yourself who will not yield. Others will disagree with your definition. And that’s precisely the point, oh Clover. Logic cannot be disagreed with. It either is – or isn’t.
You specialize in emoting – and package dealing. In the innuendo. The straw man argument.
Not logic.
Your next statement is simply incoherent:
“Do some laws that are broken that create dangerous situation OK but other laws that are not dangerous at the time deserve your road rage?”
Oh sorry I missed the part where in the post you’re replying to that discussed road rage. Because it doesn’t idiot!
Why do we bother with clover at all?
I suspect it’s a sophisticated Eliza-type fake AI. A chat-bot for derailing serious conversation.
Haa. Chat bot. Love it CH3NH2!
Troll Clover, you have no evidence of my emotional state. You’re a proven liar that makes things up. Your reply is also off topic and diversionary. Conclusion is that you are once again displaying troll behavior.
Two problems are presented here.
1) Real evil cannot be confronted because of the monopoly on violence. Those who perpetuate violence should (in a theoretical world) themselves be open to extermination by violence… but that’s not the case.
2) The real war is the war against ignorance. If it isn’t a direct result of human nature (which, I would concede, it may be), fools learn to think like this from somewhere. They’re educated by the same fools who are monopolizing violence. Government, and the government institution of school in particular, is the enemy of humanity.
“Some of these people consider themselves Christians, supposedly followers of someone who preached non-violence and tolerance, someone who was killed by the state.”
Much to my discomfort, modern, mainstream, conservative Evangelicals have, for whatever reason, become quite possibly the most rationalizing demographic in U.S. history. So many of them exist, albeit thanks much to hard work and good decisions, in an isolated bubble of success. Unfortunately, that bubble has inspired in them feelings of absolute terror about the possibility that conditions could change from those that are affording them a level of safety and success. They essentially become status quo worshipers and are willing to defend their worship with any line of thought, no matter how inconsistent and repugnant.
I could not agree more. Most christians are unable to differentiate between the worship of God and state. Oddly, for them, they are one in the same.
Brent-
I’ve had similar conversations.
They’ve mostly ended with me saying “just to clarify, you believe people (myself included) should be shot for not paying for/doing X?”
If they say yes I treat them as if they mean what they say. I refuse to associate with people who advocate violence towards me. How can you? They may pull a gun on you at any minute. I will end friendships/relationships over this. And I feel good about doing so.
It’s a little trickier dealing with family or coworkers, in which case I usually let it be know that we will no longer discuss politics/philosophy anymore.
It’s a hard road to travel, but again, how can I justify associating with people who openly threaten me (after giving them a chance to view it from that angle)?
Mathew – They’ve mostly ended with me saying “just to clarify, you believe people (myself included) should be shot for not paying for/doing X?”
Be sneaky, in front of (valued to them) others, find something that they break the law doing (everyone and I mean everyone does) and call them on it, pointing out that according to their own beliefs, THEY should be fined/jailed/shot. The ensuing mental contortions and justifications as to why THEY should be and exception are usually enlightening to those watching. Occasionally it will even get them to see the flaw and arrogance of their argument, but that is pretty rare.
Saner-
I like it!
I remember talking to a guy one time who smokes and was telling me cigarettes should be illegal.
I’m pretty sure my head exploded.
This is where I get the ‘but that’s different’. Ask to clarify. They repeat. I push they go on the attack and say I am too black and white. I then try to explain principle. They don’t get it.
Most little people consider government as mommy and daddy and they have been programmed to obey threatening parents. Watch how Obama speaks to people as if they are stupid and weak little children (aka, His Supporters). You can always tell the mental retards by the way that they think Obama is an actual human being worthy of respect instead of – as an adult would feel – hard-core contempt for a terrorist thug.
“You can always tell the mental retards by the way that they think “… True.
I’ve come to prefer the term used by James Lee Burke, a novelist. He would have written, “You can always tell the moral retards by the way that they think.”
Politicians are morally retarded. Some may be clever, or even somewhat intelligent, but all of them are morally retarded.
He’s just playing his part. Even Ron Paul isn’t the persona his staff has developed for him.
He is thus able – of all things! – to posture as a “concerned” and “public-spirited” citizen, who “cares about the childrens’ future.”
Even worse, he considers himself “generous” and takes credit as if he himself had put up the money. Remember when ObamaCare passed and some gasbag in Congress stood up and said, “We have given the American people affordable healthcare”?
At its heart, it’s such a simple philosophy: Give us what we want, or we’ll kill you.
As you say, the trick is making them understand that this is what they are saying.
Amen, though I’d put it more strongly: Confronting them with the truth of what they’re advocating.
Fantastic article Eric. Keep up the good work if they ever stick you in an prison outpost I’m coming to bust you out. Your a man with a vision and a plan.
Thanks, Hot Rod –
Hopefully, they won’t get either of us!
You take the high road, I’ll take the low road. You go south and I’ll go north spreading your message all about. 🙂
Your also excellent with verbal ju-jitsu and I’m guessing actual ju-jitsu as well. Isn’t Ju-jitsu where you use your opponents thrust and forces against himself? Seems very fitting of your approach as well as a purely Christian view of self defense.
I’m eating my juicy steak really enjoying that the government matrix isn’t telling me it so. Totally off the topic of course but still having to do with the Matrix movie.
You could say you’re having your steak, and eating it too.
LOL exactly, but now I do understand the steak is gone (consumed) unlike certain government workers I know.
It is near impossible, sometimes. Statists are in such denial of their role in the inherently violent nature of the philosophy they believe in. It is like telling an alcoholic they are killing themselves and harming others through their abuse, only to have them turn around and tell you how they need that alcohol in order to survive. Statism is a disease.
A statist would also deny the alcoholic his right to kill himself. An alcoholic’s ability to harm others hinges on some very specious logic as well.
As tragic as (the suicide by booze of an alcoholic) is, ultimately, our lives are ours. Probably the first step toward recognizing human liberty as a right is recognition of the ownership of our selves.
What, an individual’s personality can’t be altered under the influence of booze? I’ve seen people who were otherwise pretty docile become downright violent after a night of drinking. Still, I wouldn’t deny them the right to drink themselves to death. I would stop them from trying to hurt me.
Your reply is a non-sequitur. I’d say that an individual’s personality does not change under the influence of alcohol. Perhaps inhibitions are released, but the basic personality does not change. That, of course, has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Violence towards others violates the ZAP, but thinking violent thoughts does not. To wish to control individuals’ behaviours before they have acted amounts to wishing for mind control. You have every right to defend yourself from an individual who initiates force against you, or even an innocent stranger. That’s not what I was pointing out. I merely pointed out that any action that conflicts with an individual’s self ownership, by law or writ, as long as that individual is not using force or fraud, amounts to a conflict with the ZAP. Lots of behaviors offend me, some of them greatly. However, I’d be a hypocrite if I advocated making laws against said behavior. This is why anti-porno laws, anti-prostitution laws and legal prohibition against the uncoerced use of any drug by any individual amount to initiation of state sponsored slavery.
Well-said Giuseppe,
Good to have you with us!