We’re just weeks away from the Annual Irony – the day devoted to celebrating a revolt against the authority of a red, white and blue bully (George III) while living under the thumb of … a red, white and blue bully (Uncle).
We’re supposed to celebrate the former – because it benefitted the latter.
The American colonists were not unsaddled. They simply got a new rider. Why celebrate this?
Does it make any sense to you?
The colonists, we were all told as schoolchildren, objected to being taxed by a far-away king and parliament that did not “represent” them. And which taxed them without their “consent.”
How many of you feel represented by the president and Congress in far-away Washington? Do you recall consenting to being taxed?
And what is it about being “represented” that’s so fabulous?
Are we, really?
How, exactly, can a single individual “represent” thousands – let alone tens (and hundreds of) thousands?
The mechanics of it seem dubious.
Your congressman or senator can only represent himself, while claiming to represent thousands of people, most of whom he’s never even met and many of which manifestly oppose what he does in their name and without their consent.
He does as he thinks ought to be done – but gets moral traction by getting the yokels to accept (or at least, never examine too closely) the idea that he is a kind of magic action figure puppet who somehow transmutes the will of an entity called “the people” – which catchphrase has the same effect on some people as a walkie-talkie or cell phone has upon the aborigines of the rainforest.
The god speaks!
Obey… obey… obey…
“The people” is a noble sounding but oily marketing con. Like the detergent that works “up to” 10 times better than the competition (but probably works about the same and quite possibly worse).
Who are “the people,” exactly?
Go ahead, try to find them. All you’ll find are persons. Who very rarely agree on anything – let alone all things.
Of course admitting this presents logistical and moral problems for those who claim to “represent” us … (“us” – aka “the people” – being a kind of undifferentiated mass with congealed interests).
The fact is if you haven’t specifically given some other person your consent to act on your behalf, you are not represented.
The fact that some person claims to “represent” you (and thousands of other people) doesn’t – presto! – make it so.
Think for a minute about the effrontery of it, this business of some guy claiming to be your “representative,” even if you never asked him.
Let alone him asking you.
And then this person threatens to do you harm if you dispute his claims, if you object to him taking your things and ordering you about. 
It brings to mind a statement supposedly made by Lenin: “You may not be interested in government, but government is interested in you.”
Morally speaking, no one is your representative unless you’ve contracted them to so act – and without a gun pointed at your temple, you free to not ask them to represent you.
And in that case, respecting your wishes and going away.
If you do select a representative, he represents only you.
Your choice is not morally binding on other people. Your representative can represent another person only if that person has also given him explicit consent to do so – and only if that person’s interests do not conflict with your interests or any other person’s interests being represented.
Otherwise, it’s a con – or an impossibility.
No. These “representatives” simply presume – and then (if they are successful) assume power over us. And we are expected to accept it as the natural order of things.
Well, why should it be so?
What gives any of us the moral right to impose our will on anyone else? Which is what it comes down to, no matter how it’s dressed up in euphemisms.
And if it is not right for any one of us, as individuals, to impose our will on other individuals, how does it become acceptable when a group of us does it? Or when a king or some other species of politician, like a president or a congressman, does it?
None of it makes any sense.
An action is either morally ok or it’s not morally ok. It can’t evolve from not-ok to a-ok because it was voted on, or because people with special titles say it’s ok – or because the “majority” has ruled. This is not rocket science. Would it be ok to reintroduce slavery if a vote were held and more people said yea rather than nay? And if slavery – the ownership and control of another person against his will – is a bad thing as such, isn’t any degree of slavery also a bad thing?
Similarly, theft can’t be ok… sometimes.
And yet, apparently, it is.
Just call it “taxes.”
It’s of a piece with “freedom” – something we will hear a lot about over the next couple of weeks and which everyone seems to be very much in favor of but which everyone seems to have a very different opinion regarding what it actually is.
The word implies the opposite of being a slave, of not being under duress, having the option to do as one pleases without supervision or control by others. Do you feel free in that sense? Or is it more accurate to state that we are “free” to choose among certain limited options presented to us by people who wield power over us – our “representatives” – and are not free to choose some other option?
For instance:
Are you free to be let alone?
Free to buy a piece of land and – having paid the seller – free to live on it without being obliged to pay money to the government in perpetuity for the privilege of not being forcibly removed from “your” land?
Are you free to come and go as you wish, without having to ask permission first?
Are you free to do business with other people on terms mutually agreeable to the parties involved? Or are the terms imposed on you by other people, without your consent and contrary to your preferences?
Are you free to not buy services you’d prefer not to spend money on?
Can you freely drink raw milk or buy beef from a neighbor without the prior permission of people who aren’t your parents but seem to think they are?
It will soon be Independence Day – as it is styled. Do you feel independent? Is your life under your control? Or is it controlled by other people, contrary to your will?
Try asserting your “independence” from Uncle. See what happens. Will he take any less umbrage than George III?
The truth is, Uncle would be more upset.
The colonists under George III were free to actually own their land – without having to deliver in-perpetuity rental payments for the privilege. They could transact business among themselves without prior permission – and without supervision. George III did not force them to buy a health insurance policy.
They would have revolted if George III had told them couldn’t smoke in their own ale house.
We’re told far more more obnoxious things – and we not only tolerate it, we celebrate it.
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site. Please be sure to tell us you want one – and also, provide a mailing address, so we can get the thing to you!
So is there any hope? Maybe, just maybe.
http://robertringer.com/is-a-freedom-revolution-possible/
Good to see someone with “some” type of following say this. I believe practically everyone on this site could have written that…..but where to be published? Yep, the internet did poke the establishment with a sharp stick, the very reason so many pols have railed against it.
Yep, they want to control the Internet for safety’s sake. Not ours, theirs.
And another thing to ‘celebrate.’ There are now more burro-craps with guns than there are US Marines.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/
And that is NOT because there are too few Marines.
Many of these folks have automatic (i.e., real assault) weapons, and are using hollow point ammo, which is against international law for military use.
Years ago the IRS armed up and I can understand their paranoia. This was well after every other fedgov agency had armed up as well(sticktogetherness) but I knew the civilians had their fight cut out for them when the Post Office armed up…..never know when the mail truck might be hijacked and somebody would win tens of millions of dollars on sweepstake prizes. Think about it.
Hey guys, I got a mention on the LRC blog today. Hey, Becky spelled my name wrong, but I love her (and her writing) anyway.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/congressional-dimocrats-snit-fit/
Saw a couple of lard heroes waddling back to their squad with donuts and big gulps an hour ago. Kidney abuse. Heart abuse. Shirt, belt, and pants abuse.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/59/24/d2/5924d2356efa5874c97ffede8aab03d6.jpg
Later when they get home it’ll be toilet abuse, couch abuse, and mattress abuse. Almost made a critterzen’s arrest for their own good and the sake of their bodies and shock absorbers.
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/06/20/Large-scale-motion-detected-near-San-Andreas-Fault-System/9421466436386/
EP articles facebook likes (his titles are often different than original)
Creepy cops and their scanners 109
You’re supposed to fear anarchy 460
Lew doesn’t have your other articles on FB except ones from 2013 or earlier
anarchy comments
Tim Caouette “Anarchy” is one of those words that many people react to emotionally –having been conditioned to do so.
The word has become generally synonymous with chaos and disorder. Dog eat dog. As EPautos’ king troll (Clover; see here for more about him) puts it, anarchy means “do whatever the hell you like.”…
Roger Heath
Roger Heath Anarchy is rule by brute force, the weak will ALWAYS be victim of the strong. To presume everyone will act ethically is an utter fantasy. To be a nation of rights with rule of law eliminating force and fraud to the only solution. The smallest minority …See More
Like · Reply · 2 · January 25 at 2:39pm
15 Replies
Scott Friday You just gave a great description of government rule 😉 The notion of rule of law by a fair and impartial government is just as much fantasy as expecting everyone to be perfectly ethical. The difference is that government institutionalizes the brute f…See More
Eugene Thaden We have little recourse when government rule by brute force and make it “legal” for them to do it to us. Anarchy is not without rules, and an individual can deal with a forceful act that violates his rights without permission from some criminal syndic…See More
Roger Heath Read all three. Don’t need anything thank you. You contradict. No government has no judges no laws at all. That is what anarchy is quite literally. Not efficaciousat all.
Eugene Thaden The Hebrews lived for 450 years under what I would call common law and judges with no central government. So we can have judges and law without government, just not the kind that psychopaths in power positions would make. Governments all want to be t…See More
Leo Menezes The hebreus lived under the rule of religion, like may other people’s. Governed just the same.
Leo Menezes Anarchy is the rule of many by the brutality and lack of scruples of few.
I despise the force of government and want it to be an administrator. But then I recall when I used to be our residential condominium manager, some people refused to pay the c…See More
Jamie Wynacht Leo Menezes you can’t change the definition of a word just to support your narrative. Your definition is actually of the state. Oh…
Deb Noelle Anarchy does not mean having no morality, no organization, or no cooperation. Simply put anarchy does mean, no one is your master & no one is your slave.
Roger Heath Yes, I read the article. Anarchy is without government. It has this totally false premise that everyone is an angel and that “all is well” fantasy that all men will not use force or fraud to take advantage of others. Well reality is, that is never
Jaco Strauss Roger, you are confusing Government with Anarchy. Governments rule by brute force; stop paying the taxes they have imposed and see what happens. Especially when you resist arrest…
John Everett In the last 100 years politicians have murdered 240+ million and private individuals 9 million. I’ll take my chances without government:)
Scott Friday Anarchy DOES NOT presume that everyone will be saints. That is a straw man argument against it. Anarchy is the stripping away of the veil of legitimacy that governments have when exercising power over others. Vile and corrupt people still exercise powe…See More
Eugene Thaden Scott, you are correct. Might also want to see this. http://www.catfarmer.com/str/whatanarchismmeans.html
What Anarchism Means To Me
Anarchism is my declaration of peace with you. It is a repudiation of the use of coercive power to achieve my own ends, or to abet the domination of any man by his fellows, or over his fellows. It is a renunciation of the use and support of structures that function to create discord and disparity am…
Eugene Thaden The argument that if we were all angels is BS, where are you going to find the “Angels” to put into power then? Especially when psychopaths and sociopaths are drawn to positions of power? Look what happened to the Catholic priesthood when it became k…See More
Sergi Yavorski Leo Menezes How do you know they were libertarians? Just because someone calls himself a libertarian does not make him one.
Jason RomesMosteligiblebachelor Spoon I always question people such as senators congressman and the likes. Of course presidents also since more than half of them had some kind of mental order. These kind of positions attract some of the worst kinds of people and yet it surprises me people support these kind of people to rule over them…
Lynda K Quadland I like it.
Mary Sukits Obligatory but muh roads!!! ???? Nice read…
Here’s an example of how stupid bureaucrats are. It’s from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-marijuana.
Their description is enough to make any pot smoke want to run the other direction and completely WRONG. It is not hemp but they never let that fact get in the way.
Marijuana—also called weed, herb, pot, grass, bud, ganja, Mary Jane, and a vast number of other slang terms—is a greenish-gray mixture of the dried, shredded leaves and flowers of Cannabis sativa—the hemp plant.
Shredded leaves and flowers eh? Skank as it were. Then they say it’s “the hemp plant”. Gee, any second grader could correct them on this. So how is it they legitimize their wrongful bs? Hey, they’re from the gunvermin, they’re here to help.
And why do they call it “abuse”?
I mean, that’s what you’re supposed to do with it… right? Smoke it?
You know, like drinking a glass of wine or having a mixed drink.
Oh. But alcohol‘s not a “drug.” And having a drink of this not-drug doesn’t constitute “abuse.”
A guy who used to be a friend I grew up with was always wanting to try pot so a mutual friend arranged it. He got so stoned he freaked(one of those). Then he does an about face and knocks pot. His sister points out that alcohol was a much stronger drug, beer would eventually make you null and void and do crazy shit. He counters with “alcohol is a refreshment” to which the whole family laughed at him.
Too bad the gummint quit making all that good LSD. I’d look him up and spike his bourbon.
Rape is an apt term. We are born into a state rape scenario. Worse than being bastards. Or kidnapped by bandits. We are born property of stationary bandits. We are children of forcibly cuckolded fathers and dissonant cognating state whoring mothers.
In this bleak culture. We are forcefed a human livestock diet of rape culture sustenance. Given just enough to keep us alive. Shown the glimpse of enough, that we don’t rebel and become more trouble than we’re worth.
Over at TBP, that Hardscrabble dude is off the charts talented and engaging. But he grades himself on the curve thinking that he is the farmer and the lower classes are the livestock. Not true, not true at all. The being livestock phenomena is far more meta than that. Society is layers and layers of various livestock all living off each other in as brutal a manner as any other animals.
Hardscrabble too was born to a state-ensnared breeding pair he calls his father and mother. But they were never his primary caregivers or household masters. They too were a type of livestock. And now so is he.
At least harryp over there groks it, hard as it is to admit and so finally exit the denial stage and move forward.
COEXIST? –
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/06/20/coexist/
I also like ILuvCO2’s take on the same bumper sticker
http://www.cafepress.com/mf/90477373/coexist-guns-firearms-white_bumper-sticker?productId=1312775280
State Rape Culture – It’s worse than you think
rape (v.)
late 14c., “seize prey; abduct, take by force,” from rape (n.) and from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) “to seize, abduct,” a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere “seize, carry off by force, abduct” (see rapid).
Latin rapere was used for “sexually violate,” but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprare “to defile, ravish, violate,” related to stuprum (n.), literally “disgrace.” Meaning “to abduct (a woman), ravish;” also “seduce (a man)” is from early 15c. in English. Related: Raped; raping. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.
rape (n.2) kind of cruciferous plant (Brassica napus), late 14c., from Old French rape, from Latin rapa, rapum “turnip,” from PIE *rap- (source also of Greek hrapys “rape,” Old Church Slavonic repa, Lithuanian rope, Middle Dutch roeve, Old High German ruoba, German Rübe “rape, turnip”). Usually grown to feed sheep, an oil made from it is used in cooking (see canola).
rape (n.1)
early 14c., “booty, prey;” mid-14c., “forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion,” from Anglo-French rap, rape, and directly from Latin rapere “seize” (see rape (v.)). Meaning “act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both” is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.
Do rapists have the moral authority to rule over people engaged in consensual sex? Years ago I spent weeks researching why this country is the way it is while my family of origin kept listening to Faux news and their preacher. During Shrubs first run for President I tried to share with them what I had learned, but they rejected what I told them They arrogantly thought that their viewpoints had the same validity as mine, and they saw me as being arrogant when I told them that “No politician is worthy of ruling over me!” I then expanded it to say that no person is worthy to rule over anyone else, but my first statement was sufficient to cause them to mentally cover their ears.
Even clovers have (slightly) higher morals than nearly all politicians. Why is this so hard to grasp by the masses?
I know people who are still miffed they didn’t get to give the shrub his 5 minute BJ, some who even now claim to be libertarian but support the cops, politicians and the war on some drugs.
Others, still holding on to the great white Republican hope and see BO as the one who ruined the country all by himself with no help from the shrub. Now that’s just pitiful for somebody who is supposedly intelligent……they just can’t overcome the hype and have now joined the jihad against Muslims and even Mexicans. They just can’t conceive that the US is responsible for not only Islamic terror or narco drug wars. They can give themselves for once being pot smokers(you can tell they never suffered at the hands of the state for this)but can’t tolerate other people who do still smoke or god-forbid, do other drugs like meth or coke or heroin, the ultimate sin in their view even though it’s used in GB for pain relief. WTF did they think it was made for? There’s always been good opium or at least for several thousand years.
These same people would shit a brick if they could experience the heyday of Roman life for the wealthy. Just can’t stop eating the shit pie they’re fed every day……yum yum, gimme more.
A child is told various things and believes them. The adult he becomes cannot bear to admit he was fooled as a child. That the reality that was built for him is false.
That’s my best guess. So long as the government has the schools this is how it will be.
“So long as the government has the schools this is how it will be.”
But the ‘schools’ are getting worse and the home-school movement is growing, so maybe there is some hope – perhaps in another generation.
For many home schooled because of the condition of government schools the parents will pass down what they were told. Only those who home school because they recognize the conditioning will not become invested in the standard myths, etc.
Good point, Brent.
Home schooling in every state has some criteria, mostly their bs tests of their bs bs. Parents who do nothing but follow those guides will be little more or less than the teachers in pubic school. But hopefully, homeschool will be something more than that although it’s fairly dominated as I saw it but the religious zealots.
Some day, some prominent Establishment pundit is going to get careless and let slip the truth: that “freedom” had jacksquat to do with the American Revolution. It was merely a move to replace a British oppressive aristocracy with a native-born one. The Flounderers couldn’t have dreamed how well their coup succeeded.
Fun fact. Monty Python were a bunch of statists supported with funds from British government goons.
BBC Revenue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue
The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £145.50 per year per household.
A licence is required to legally receive broadcast television across the UK. The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law.
The revenue is collected privately, the BBC pursues its licence fee collection and enforcement under the trading name “TV Licensing”. TV Licensing collection is currently carried out by Capita, an outside agency.
Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation.
The licence fee is classified as a tax, and its evasion is a criminal offence. Since 1991, collection and enforcement of the licence fee has been the responsibility of the BBC in its role as TV Licensing Authority. Thus, the BBC is a major prosecuting authority in England and Wales and an investigating authority in the UK as a whole. The BBC carries out surveillance (mostly using subcontractors) on properties (under the auspices of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) and may conduct searches of a property using a search warrant.
According to the BBC, “more than 204,000 people in the UK were caught watching TV without a licence during the first six months of 2012”. Licence fee evasion makes up around one tenth of all cases prosecuted in magistrate courts.
According to the BBC’s 2013/14 Annual Report, its total income was £5 billion.
Didn’t say they were perfect, just funny, acerbic and on point in this case…biting the hand that feeds them, if you will
Love those guys. Just throwing out some info. Trying to separate the gilded age from the gilded cage is all.
Also, I’m not an anarchist against UK commonwealth countries per se. I don’t know enough about them. And some of their systems seem to actually function, unlike the current shitshow of the United States.
Zero Theorem(Terry Gilliam) Nurse Visit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-xN_jZACgA
I totally agree with your post. Why should we pay taxes on land that we supposedly own? It sounds like we need a new revolution so there may be proper representation.
Try digging a hole in certain parts of your yard without a permit.
especially w/o calling ‘Miss Utility’
The average Congressional district is rapidly approaching 3/4 of a million people, many of whom cannot vote (too young, not registered, etc.) and most of whom do not vote, either for ‘their representative’ or for his electoral opponent. It would be impossible for anyone to represent that many people unless they self-selected, much less because of residing in a gerrymandered district.
The other thing that is often overlooked about ‘the consent of the governed,’ (even if it were so) is that it is basically a reference to delegated authority. And you cannot delegate to the gunvermin (or anyone else) authority you do not have for yourself. If you don’t have authority to take money from you neighbor, you cannot authorize the gunvermin to do so. If you cannot own a full-automatic ‘assault’ rifle, or a bazooka, or a tank, or an aircraft carrier, then neither can the gunvermin do so.
Once again, comedy pierces those that think they “rule”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0