Good Cops?

Brian,

Was that directed at me? I used to read Strike the Root years ago. It has some fascinating viewpoints. I will re-check it. I’ve been reading lewrockwell for many, many years. I find lots of the content very good indeed, but there’s just a whiff of the Christianity trumps liberty a bit under the surface of many of the participants that turns me off, I must say. I do have favorite posters there….Butler Schaffer is probably my favorite. I also like Fred Reed at times for his downhome humor. antiwar.com is another favorite. I’m not saying that bible thumpers can’t be libertarians….I’m just saying that in my observation as a “libertarian” for over forty years, I’ve seen Christian libertarians abandon libertarian principles in favor of Christian dogma more often than not. As always, OALA, EHOATAS.

There is no button below your reply Giuseppe, so I clicked here. Yes, that was aimed at you. I like reading both Lew Rockwell and STR. I have a conservative Christian history, but I parted ways from the mainstream way back when Bob Dole was running for President during the primaries. I was a member of the Christian Coalition back then and taking correspondent courses from the Moody Bible Institute. The only candidates the fit the Christian Coalitions stated beliefs were Alan Keyed and Patrick Buchanan, yet the C.C. endorsed pro-abort Bob Dole. I left C.C. and the Republicans in disgust. I then went to the taxpayers party, then the America First party, then the Libertarian party, then I became an anarchist and have been one for 13 years.
I also found flaws in Christian teachings of the bible which led me to conclude that at the very least the bible has been tampered with. But then again James Redford wrote an article entitled: Jesus is an Anarchist” which resonates with me somewhat:
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
I still believe in a Creator of some sort, because there exists structures so complex in this world that man still cannot build them: http://www.cracked.com/article_20206_5-shockingly-advanced-ancient-buildings-that-shouldnt-exist.html ,but I keep an open mind and I have good atheist friends. Perhaps God is a space alien?

@Brian- I find certain scriptures difficult to handle, but less so when viewed in context. Romans 13, for instance. I still struggle with that passage somewhat, but viewed in the context of Romans 12 its not nearly as difficult. That said, the core message of the Bible: ie. the gospel, salvation, and morality are really not complicated.

It could very well be that we will live on a prison planet with drones watching our every move. But hackers could possibly render the drones useless or civilians will have their own drones or there could end up being a global ban on them being used as surveillance crafts. It could also be the case that this country will break up like the USSR did. These things are out of our control, but you can do plenty by learning about philosophy. Stephan Molynuex has a great philosophy site at http://www.freedomainradio.com , but be warned that he is a strong atheist and you are not going to convince him about the existence of God unless you can prove it to him using the scientific method. He has a goal of abolishing government by raising children using peaceful parenting, but he thinks that the change will take generations to complete. You can take part in that if your skin is thick enough to put up with him saying negative things about religion. He believes that telling children that Gods perfect son was murdered for the childs sin is traumatic and abusive, and I have to agree with him about that. He is a very nice guy though. Check out his free e-books. If you like talk radio styled podcasts then you ought to listen to http://www.badquaker.com/ , and Ben Stone is a believer.

The upside to being your age is you have all kinds of options. You are not yet tied down (both good and bad) with a wife and family of your own. You could, for instance, leave the USSA and build a life in a more-free country such as Uruguay far more easily than I could. For me, fleeing means abandoning a career I’ve spent 20-plus years building and starting over in a new line of work. It’s a lot harder to start over when you’re over 40 than when you’re not even 20.

If you’d like some advice, one nugget I’ll offer is to get as physically fit as possible, develop good habits along those lines. Acquire as many real skills – learn know how to do things – as you can.

There’s no harm – and it may really help, if things do go completely sour.

Regarding leaving… actually that’s interesting. I’m sure you, like most people, have heard the “freest country in the world” line numerous times. How do you objectively disprove the people who say that? I’ve always kind of assumed the entire world was just as screwed up as the US, if not more so, at least domestically (The US is, of course, unique in its ability and desire to inflict terror on the rest of the world). I also have never really thought about it that much (Usually when people make the freest country in the world statement I’ve responded with “so what? Essentially what you are saying is that your gang is less tyrannical than some other gang, doesn’t mean you should love it or thank it.”) So… in what ways is Uruguay, or any other country, freer than the US? (I ask this as a sincere question, not a rhetorical one.)

Regarding fitness, I definitely need to get more in shape, I’m definitely NOT ATM. As for “Real skills” what is a “real skill”, as opposed to a fake one? Lol.

Just out of curiosity, were you actually “awake” when you got married and started your family? Was your wife? Have you had any conflicts along those lines? Just wondering what you did and how it might relate to what I should do in the future.

David, re the “real skills” question. Let me tell you about what’s happening here in rural Wyoming. Lots of people we talk to would like to come here, but the skills/job question is usually the end of it. Far, far too many of them have terrific skills in IT or other computer fields, financial business… in other words, city skills. Nothing wrong with that if you can live and work in a city. They want a high paying job sitting in an office, pounding on a keyboard… and sorry, not many of those around here.

Out here we need people who can weld, drive a truck, pound a nail, operate heavy equipment, climb a telephone pole in a blizzard, deliver a calf, herd sheep, and a thousand other things like that. People need to be able to raise food, cook and preserve it, maybe produce their own electricity, heat with wood and cut their own wood, live with only a few simple possessions, things like that. There are NO cities out here, and very few of the things that make city life so convenient and easy for folks who can afford to make that life work for them. There are very few six figure salaries out here, few “benefits” and even fewer opportunities to live the country grandee style.

And it is those tough conditions that are coming to most of us in this country, one way or another. Those who can feed themselves and have food to barter, build and maintain their dwellings, do the hard and difficult work of basic industry and construction… they will survive and thrive.

David – As MamaLiberty pointed out “real” skills are those things that actually contribute to the quality of other people’s lives as well as your own. My profession is Instrumentation & Control (I&C) systems. It requires a diverse skill set involving computers, PLC’s (Programmable Logic Controllers), HMI’s (Human Machine Interfaces or touch-screen displays), sensors of all different kinds (flow, temperature, pressure, level, pH, conductivity, flame sensing, etc.), tubing bending / light pipe fitting, bench and field calibration and repair, light mechanical work, as well as electrical and electronic work. All of this directly cross applies to residential electrical work, HVAC (heating and air conditioning), mechanics, general household repairs and plumbing.

Over the years I’ve also picked up welding, brazing and hard soldering on my own. I learned to make and repair jewelry as a teen (which allowed me to fix things like eyeglass frames, watch bands and other tiny things you wouldn’t even think relate to jewelry). My dad taught me basic gunsmithing and automotive mechanics. Then as I ran into things like, motorcycle and small engine mechanics, I learned from books and by talking to others more knowledgeable than me. These are things unskilled members of a community will pay you to do, especially when times are tight. When one’s only option is to repair rather than replace an item, the fix-it guy / gal will be in high demand. You may have to take payment for some of your services through barter in eggs, firewood or fence wire if times are really tight. But you and your family won’t be hungry or cold. In most cases, you’ll be very well off if you are known to be skilled, honest and dependable.

I would strongly encourage you (as I do all the young folks I talk to) to look into I&C work. There are very a few of us in relation to the other crafts (i.e. welders, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, etc.), so the pay tends to be higher and there are almost always openings. My employer offers a $25K sign on bonus for journeyman techs right now and we can’t find them. Keep in mind to get this job requires 5+ years actual experience in the field and there is a written / practical / physical test; you must be drug free and have a clean criminal record. The applicant washout rate is over 75%.

I got my start in this field from Air Force training and experience. But I have since repented of going into the military and strongly advise against taking that track for obvious moral reasons. However, there are a lot of 2 year vo-tech and community college programs available, even on a part time basis, that will at least get your foot in the door in industrial automation and control systems with smaller companies. Once you get in the field, learn all you can on the job. With that experience you can not only move up in pay, you can go practically anywhere you want to in the world. Did I mention the wages are excellent? If you keep your resume’ up to date at the various employment websites, you may very well have recruiters and employers regularly contacting you! I don’t have a formal degree, but I did have four separate (and unsolicited) job offers pending when I decided on my present job.

With respect to marriage and children, I got married the first time at your age. We had our first child when I was 19. It did not work out; neither of us had any business doing it. Hindsight is always 20/20. My advice is not to even consider marriage until you are at least 28. Thirty would be even better. Make sure you’ve got all the crap out of your system first and if you have any doubts or reservations, don’t do it. She’ll get over the temporary broken heart, but neither of you will ever completely get over a bad marriage and the inevitable divorce. It’s even worse if kids are involved.

And don’t be terrified! We are not victims! Don’t fall into that trap. Try to make your choices in life wisely. Be compassionate and thoughtful of those you may affect before you do a thing; be ever mindful of the potential for unintended consequences of all your actions. As Yeshua taught, treat others as you wish to be treated. This is not to say that life will be perfect, it never is. But as I often point out, the source of most of our problems can be found in the nearest mirror. The only things our Creator really gave us complete control over are our own thoughts, which by extension control our actions. I contend that we really don’t need anything more than this to be successful in life and hence, to control our own destiny.

It seems less and less people have a variety of real skills. Most people with real skills seem to have one. Most people period seem to have none. Most things aren’t that difficult to learn to passable degree. Never be as fast or as perfect as those who specialize but being able to get the job done is what ultimately counts.

Now you’re just making stuff up. See, I believe in evolution, and in creation. A deist is not an anti-theist.

Libertarianism for you is some kind of cargo cult. To each his own.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old, like the scientists say.

A holographic overlay creation was commenced, 5774 years ago, by a powerful child spirit calling himself YHWH.

This misguided child spirit launched a hostile takeover of the Earth and the rest of the universe. “Let there be light, he said, and it was so.”

In the barycenter of our solar system, and elsewhere, a fusional burning was commenced. The sun and other stars all became visibly bright all throughout the galaxy.

I learned of this in a dream, by a spirit who was YHWH’s mother. I believe her name is Sophia, but she never said that.

What she told me one night is, “I killed my parents.” And when I heard those words, the image of the big bang filled my mind.

So I know that Sophia is at least 14.5 billion years old, since she was in existence when the big bang occurred.

She is an orphan, relative to other spirits. Her son created everything we know. But he did not create the universe itself.

Every molecule has a life of it’s own. Every celestial body has a language and reality of it’s own. The moon is alive in it’s own way. What we perceive as clockwork, is in reality living tissue of a different sort.

There are agglomerations too dense and too ephemeral for us to perceive. The sun is a shining gulag of sorts, a lake of fire where spirits are interned and made to work. Some have been there for almost 6,000 years now.

What am I to do with such knowledge, I know not what. I have always been able to listen to the thoughts of stars, planets, and heavenly bodies, but for obvious reasons I don’t usually mention this to others.

I certainly don’t intend to parachute into a rainforest and get killed over it. It’s a great mystery I will probably never understand.

Hi David,

Here’s the core problem with the Abrahamic religions: They are exclusivist and do not (in their texts, as written as well as interpreted) advocate the NAP, live – and let live. They all condemn those who do not believe. They impute degeneracy – evil – to unbelievers. This naturally follows from any doctrine of moral-ethical absolutism. Consider, for example, the secular issue of theft. You’re either a thief – or you’re not. If you aren’t you are good, righteous. If you are, you’re a scumbag – and to be looked down upon. No, more than that. To be punished. Rightly so, of course.

But you see my point?

Religions set forth and insist upon the same absolutes, but they involve adherence to doctrines that are not cut and dry/either-or like theft and not-theft. Stealing is not the same thing as disbelieving in Jesus Christ as the son of the living God… except to those who believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living god. In which case, the unbeliever is exactly equivalent to the thief. No, he is worse – because in the religious view, there is no “sin” worse than not believing in “the word” of the “living god.” Such a person is beyond the pale – dehumanized. This is literally expounded upon in explicit detail in the Old Testament, which is as much a foundational document – “the word” – as the New Testament. And the New Testament ain’t very friendly, either. Most Christians believe a sort of “be nice to people” Christianity – which is fine. But they have not actually read their Bibles. Certainly not the Old Testament. They gloss over the gory stuff – and the downright weird stuff, too. And glom onto “love they neighbor” and so on.

So, that’s the intellectual argument.

There is also the historical record. The fact is the Abrahamic religions have a despicable record of the most horrid abuses imaginable, including genocide, infanticide, torture of the most hideous sort imaginable, pillaging and rapine – etc. Islamists put Christians to the sword. Christians put the yellow star on Jews. Various Christian sects set out to eradicate “heresy” – disbelief in one permutation/interpretation of “the word” over another. Or simply for asking impolitic questions (e.g., Galileo – whom The Church threatened to burn alive).

When the Christian Church (or sects) have had political-secular power, they have invariably used it to enforce their worldview using violence and its threat. This is a fact, true since the ascension of Constantine all the way through to modern times and simply cannot be ignored.

I understand – and empathize – that you are being lumped in with “those Christians” whose Christianity isn’t your Christianity.

But the point stands, does it not?

There is good reason for people like me (questioners, non-believers) to fear any of the Abrahamic religions, given their wrathful doctrines and given their extremely wrathful histories.

Regarding theft, it should be a simple issue, but it isn’t in reality because most people don’t use their brains. The only area that’s legitimately complicated for me in this regard is intellectual property. If I take your car, that’s obviously stealing. If I gave you a copy of a novel that I wrote to read, and you made a bunch of copies of it and sold them, is that theft? I honestly don’t know. At the very least, it would be a jerk thing to do, but I understand that mechanically it isn’t exactly the same thing as stealing your car, so I don’t know. Then again, fraud is mechanically different from physically taking your car too, yet most libertarians agree that that is theft (as do I.)

But as far as physical property goes, I don’t see what’s so complicated about it. That said, the reality is that most people are too stupid to comprehend this.

Regarding unbelievers being evil, Romans 3:10 teaches that everybody is evil. Unbelievers are simply evil people that have yet to have Christ’s blood applied to their account, and as such, are still under God’s Wrath. We’ve gotten into the moral ramifications of this belief before, I recall you had some issues with it, but I’m not sure there’s any new ground that can be tread. Here’s the bottom line, there is no NAP violation, and thus, no violation of libertarian principle, contained in this belief. None.

As for the Bible not teaching the NAP, Proverbs 3:30 seems to in my mind. The Golden Rule pretty much does too, IMO. Any cases where the Bible seems to reject the NAP were either because of God’s specific instructions for one particular situation, or for the Holy Land. And even there there was far, far less regulation than in the modern American Mega-State. But I see no indication Israeli laws are supposed to be applied anywhere today. If you want to say that I’m not a libertarian because I believe that the Old Testament Laws were supposed to be enforced in Old Testament Israel, as God’s Chosen Nation (In other words, because of what I believe should have been done 2,000+ years ago) that’s fine. I’m a Christian first and a libertarian second. You’d have to kick Laurence Vance out of the libertarian movement though, and it wouldn’t surprise me if you also had to kick out Ron Paul. But… whatever… Define your terms however you want.

Otherwise, I don’t see what the issue here is. To paraphrase you, if you don’t like my beliefs, that’s fine, but I’m not violating libertarrianism by holding them. You may not like them, personally, but that’s besides the point that a libertarian can hold to Christian theological positions.

The term “live and let live” is problamatic for the same reasons “Tolerance” is problematic. Its not immediately apparent whether it precludes peaceful persuasion, or only violent force. For instance, if I told a homosexual that they were a sinner and needed to repent (But did not use any force) is that refusing to “live and let live”? As a libertarian, I’d assume you’d say no, but liberals would say yes, and they’d use the same exact line that you used.

Thanks for this, Bevin (and, good morning!)

I found myself nodding in approval with every line. Can you recommend any “starter” books on Buddhist philosophy/teachings?

I ought to have pursued this many years ago. Although I suppose I did – indirectly – by pursuing the philosophical ideas of self-ownership and non-aggression.

No, I am not “referring to the early agricultural era which is about the same era as government and writing began”. I was describing something that is visible anywhere and everywhere that clan systems operated and could be observed and recorded, from Stone Age cultures like Australian aborigines to Scotland as late as 1745 (within walking distance of the Scottish Enlightenment, where James Watt was growing up after the first steam engines were in use farther south) – and hunter-gatherers in Ecuador were still killing outsiders on sight within our lifetimes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nate_Saint – though he managed to buy some time before he was killed). The only difference that greater sophistication allowed was, instead of status being determined largely on the basis of age and sex, inner groups with more status than outer groups developed – and even that was present in certain Amazonian hunter-gatherers, though some anthropologists take that as evidence that disruptions from encroaching civilisation have destroyed an earlier, settled agricultural form.

If a group became too large to forage an area, then reason tells us that the group would break apart into 2 or more smaller groups.

Then reason is wrong. That only ever happened successfully when there was uncontested area to move into. More usually, the only result of that would be that the secessionists perished and the original group was weakened.

If a chief became a bully, then I doubt that he would remain a chief for very long since everyone had similar weapons.

You are forgetting the intra-clan dynamics. By that reasoning, tribal elders could never successfully order that a young man be punished by being speared through the thigh – but that was a common sanction among many Australian aborigines.

The thing is, junior tribe members, though individually stronger, were outnumbered by more senior ones who were by then reaping the benefits (like young wives) of serving their time – and the chiefs had to respect overall tribal norms, including repressing junior members, just to keep things good for senior members. It’s the same logic that keeps conscription popular in France despite being bad for conscripts, making it politically hard to eliminate (which is happening): most Frenchmen are older and no longer face it but want to have conscripts to help them.

For some reason there was no reply button below your comment PM, so I clicked on mine.
Regardless of the true history of our ancestors: We do not need thuggish rulers or government.
Since we are talking about an era that pre-dates recorded history beyond pictures painted on cave walls, even experts have differences of opinion about how early man organized in detail. You provided a wiki link to Nate Saint. I can also provide wiki links.

….Human societies from the Paleolithic to the early Neolithic farming tribes lived without states and organized governments. For most of the Lower Paleolithic, human societies were possibly more hierarchical than their Middle and Upper Paleolithic descendants, and probably were not grouped into bands,[43] though during the end of the Lower Paleolithic, the latest populations of the hominid Homo erectus may have begun living in small-scale (possibly egalitarian) bands similar to both Middle and Upper Paleolithic societies and modern hunter-gatherers.[43]

Middle Paleolithic societies, unlike Lower Paleolithic and early Neolithic ones, consisted of bands that ranged from 20 to 30 or 25 to 100 members and were usually nomadic.[2][43] These bands were formed by several families. Bands sometimes joined together into larger “macrobands” for activities such as acquiring mates and celebrations or where resources were abundant…….Some sources claim that most Middle and Upper Paleolithic societies were possibly fundamentally egalitarian[2][17][32][43][43] and may have rarely or never engaged in organized violence between groups (i.e. war).[32][46][47][48] Some Upper Paleolithic societies in resource-rich environments (such as societies in Sungir, in what is now Russia) may have had more complex and hierarchical organization (such as tribes with a pronounced hierarchy and a somewhat formal division of labor) and may have engaged in endemic warfare.[32][49] Some argue that there was no formal leadership during the Middle and Upper Paleolithic. Like contemporary egalitarian hunter-gatherers such as the Mbuti pygmies, societies may have made decisions by communal consensus decision making rather than by appointing permanent rulers such as chiefs and monarchs.[5] Nor was there a formal division of labor during the Paleolithic. Each member of the group was skilled at all tasks essential to survival, regardless of individual abilities. Theories to explain the apparent egalitarianism have arisen, notably the Marxist concept of primitive communism.[50][51] Christopher Boehm (1999) has hypothesized that egalitarianism may have evolved in Paleolithic societies because of a need to distribute resources such as food and meat equally to avoid famine and ensure a stable food supply.[43] Raymond C. Kelly speculates that the relative peacefulness of Middle and Upper Paleolithic societies resulted from a low population density, cooperative relationships between groups such as reciprocal exchange of commodities and collaboration on hunting expeditions, and because the invention of projectile weapons such as throwing spears provided less incentive for war, because they increased the damage done to the attacker and decreased the relative amount of territory attackers could gain.[48] However, other sources claim that most Paleolithic groups may have been larger, more complex, sedentary and warlike than most contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, due to occupying more resource-abundant areas than most modern hunter-gatherers who have been pushed into more marginal habitats by agricultural societies.[52]
…..During most of the Neolithic age, people lived in small tribes composed of multiple bands or lineages.[31] There is little scientific evidence of developed social stratification in most Neolithic societies; social stratification is more associated with the later Bronze Age.[32] Although some late Neolithic societies formed complex stratified chiefdoms similar to Polynesian societies such as the Ancient Hawaiians, most Neolithic societies were relatively simple and egalitarian.[31] However, Neolithic societies were noticeably more hierarchical than the Paleolithic cultures that preceded them and hunter-gatherer cultures in general………Control of labour and inter-group conflict is characteristic of corporate-level or ‘tribal’ groups, headed by a charismatic individual; whether a ‘big man’ or a proto-chief, functioning as a lineage-group head. Whether a non-hierarchical system of organization existed is debatable and there is no evidence that explicitly suggests that Neolithic societies functioned under any dominating class or individual, as was the case in the chiefdoms of the European Early Bronze Age.[41] Theories to explain the apparent implied egalitarianism of Neolithic (and Paleolithic) societies have arisen, notably the Marxist concept of primitive communism.

You won’t “get a rise” out of me because I’m an intellectual thinker. I happen to enjoy this kind of logical reasoning. But I think you’d likely turn-off any seriously religious people off to your message completely. You can’t really turn me off to what you’re saying because I’m already “In the light” so to speak, but for those who are not… you are not going to get them to accept the NAP in their personal relations if they link that acceptance in their minds with a rejection of God’s authority.

Here’s the problem: If we presuppose God’s existence, than God is inherently moral. To argue otherwise… well… to do so you’d have to use the mind God gave you anyway. The only reason you can question God’s morality is because he gave you the brain that allows you to do so. Who are you, oh man (This could refer to anyone, not just yourself) to talk back to God?

Of course, if you do not presuppose God’s existence, this concern does not exist. However, presupposing that God does not exist amounts to the absurd. It would be like my claim that the netbook I am typing on had no creator. Or that a painting had no painter. What makes man any different?

God is actually worthy of our worship. Not only is this true, but it is this truth that makes state-worship inherently wrong. If there is no God, there are only subjective standards, not objective ones. You think the NAP and the Golden Rule are the standard. Someone else might think “The Law” is the standard, or maximum utility, or “survival of the fittest.” The latter approach actually fits with Darwinism far better than your approach which fits far better; albeit not perfectly, with Christianity rather than Darwinism.

Whereas morally subjective standards like “survival of the fittest”, “The Law”, and utilitarianism fit far better with atheism, or even non-theism.

I don’t really want to rehash this conversation again though, unless you’re actually interested. Its impossible to persuade anyone to become a Christian. Only God can change the heart.

Also: the use of force to impose Christian views is fundamentally anti-Christian, that would be a contradiction in logic.

Best of luck,

David

However, presupposing that God does not exist amounts to the absurd. It would be like my claim that the netbook I am typing on had no creator. Or that a painting had no painter.

OK, then, who created God? Don’t you see that imagining the existence of “God” solves no problems?

“The one thing I insist on – which I consider non-negotiable – is self-ownership. When it comes to me, I am the ultimate authority.”
The problem that most people have with this brand of libertarianism is that each person on earth is justified in deciding for themselves right and wrong, good and evil. If you want to be a serial killer, you’re justified. If you want to be like Mother Theresa, you’re justified. Of course you, Eric, don’t mean for that to be true, but the only way around it is to appeal to a Universal Authority, such as Natural Law. By what authority is Natural Law made an authority? I don’t accept the existence of Natural Law or Natural Rights.
This brand of libertarianism seems to infer that people are basically good, and thus just need to be educated to ‘see’ the light. Human history does not support any idea that people are basically good.
You imply that God, like Government, coerces compliance. Where is your evidence that God ” makes” people do what God tells them to do? God says,” do not murder”. Where is your evidence that God forces people not to murder? God says,” do not steal”. Where is your evidence that God forces people to not steal? You might say,” well, God does not exist, so of course He does not force compliance.” Does Government exist? Does Government force compliance? Who or what is behind the ‘ curtain’ if it is not God? Could it be individual people or groups of individual people, who, exercising their self-ownership have decided that it is a good and right thing to steal all of Eric’s stuff?
God is if fact the only true libertarian in the universe. If you, Eric, are able to think clearly and understand that Religion is not God. The Church is not God. What Religion does God practice? How silly! God is not moral either. Moral Agency is the ability to choose to do evil or good. God has no such ability. Religious people tend to think that God and their Religion are the same thing. To obey one is to obey the other. Call a thing what it is. It is the elevation of the ‘Individual’ that is the strength of you’re message.

Eric, I’m really not an expert in science, but the more I see about the magnificence of the universe, the more I find it absolutely dazzling that anybody could try to tell me it was created by chance. In Oceanography class they tried to teach me that a bunch of nebulae just happened to form into all the stars and planets and what have you. Frankly, that’s just as much an insult to my intelligence as “Support the troops” or whatever nonsense.

I understand that many Christians do not abide by the NAP, but that’s not really relevant. Only the actual teachings of the Bible are relevant. The Golden Rule is a Biblical teaching. By contrast, the belief that the world formed by chance leads to the “Survival of the Fittest” mentality, which logically leads to the State, those who formed the State, and are able to sustain it, are “more fit” to survive than the rest of us, because they are able to sustain their power. I don’t see where you are actually getting any form of absolute morality from without presupposing the existence of God.

I’m more of a presuppositionalist than an evidentialist, despite not knowing enough about Christian apologetics to give you a really good explanation of either one (I’d recommend looking up both terms if you are interested, unless you already know what they are). My belief in God is based primarily on personal experience, although logic is a part of it too. Maybe you can come up with some idea that’s equally “rationally” plausible, but I can’t see it. Maybe this isn’t the case for you, but most people who reject creationism seem motivated more by an unwillingness to be held morally accountable than sound argumentation.

On top of that, I’ve been meaning to post to the forum about Jewish prophecies that were fulfilled later in the OT and in the NT, although I haven’t gotten around to it yet and don’t have the time ATM. So for now, I’ll stick with this.

I’m not sure there’s really much I can say here about your thoughts on the universe. I find the idea that everything around us, and the whole universe, including a planet that’s habitable for humans, “just happened” simply doesn’t work in my brain. I should also say here that, while its not a hill I’ll die on ,and I’m by no means a scientist, I’ve always found the arguments for evolution to be lacking. Oh, the public schools tell you that its “proven” and “fact”, but I take them no more seriously than anything else they say. I realize that that isn’t really related to the debate at hand, but its something I wanted to throw out there. I find it interesting that many libertarians on the more anti-religion (or at least, not religious) side of things know full well that the public school view on history and philosophy is crap, yet they seem to trust them on science. As always, maybe I’m missing something.

But… if you don’t want to believe, what can I really say? I do believe what Romans 1 says, so I believe that if you don’t believe in some form of Creator that you are suppressing it somehow, but I can’t really prove that either. So I’ll simply leave it at that.

That said, I find your argument for the NAP somewhat underwhelming. I mean, its not entirely wrong. I agree with you that the Golden Rule is great. The problem is, your argument amounts to mere pragmatism, so if something is more practical at a given moment, your argument cannot possibly refute it. Take, for instance, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki. The pragmatists say that it “Saved lives” or what have you. I say that it was wrong because it was mass murder. But without an absolute authority, why was this wrong? Isn’t saving a million lives worth killing a hundred thousand people? I say no, again, because I believe in absolute ethics. I think you’re smart enough to know that you can’t get away with a “yes” answer either, but why not? If morality is absolute, where does that morally absolute standard come from, you?

I’m having a hard time distinguishing between your “Self-interest”, argument, and naked pragmatism.

I believe the big bang hypothesis is completely ridiculous. First of all, how the crap can an explosion create anything? Can something that supposedly happened billions of years ago be tested by the scientific method? Nope.

I agree that microevolution is true, and I believe macroevolution is false.

Maybe you are right. Science has never been my strong point. Maybe for you it is. Maybe you’ve looked at the evidence and you buy that theory.

For me, I don’t understand advanced science, its never been my strong point. But I think the fact that public schools refuse to let ID be taught (note that I am not saying ID SHOULD be taught, I don’t think anything should be taught in public schools, because I don’t believe in public schools), and the ways that macro-evolutionary theory has been taken to its logical “survival of the fittest” conclusions by Hitler and other tyrants, has led me to believe, based on logic, that the public schools have some sort of agenda in promoting it, and that it isn’t actually true, or at least not proven. Again, this is logic taking me to that conclusion, logic based on the way I have seen government schools work in other areas. My conclusion is not in any way based on science per say.

What I find interesting is that many libertarians who distrust the government on everything else just intuitively trust it on this particular with no facts that they themselves are aware of to back it up.

That said, I don’t necessarily think the method of creation is so important as the idea that there is a creator is important. Its relevant to certain theological debates, but none that would be interesting to you at present. But: its not an essential issue.

Carbon dating, to my (limited) understanding can only trace back 20,000 years or so. I don’t really know much about it, but even if it is accurate, so what? When I say “Young Earth” I’m not necessarily saying “4,004 BC.”

As for radiometric dating, again, I don’t know much about science, but I asked my science teacher how they knew that the rocks actually started with all uranium and no lead. How did she know they didn’t form with some uranium and some lead in them? She didn’t know the answer, but insisted that intelligent design (God) had no place in a science classroom and continued on teaching, despite the fact that she couldn’t answer the question.

Here’s the bottom line: Secular public schools hate God. You can talk all you want about the NAP (BTW: I agree with 95+% of what you say about politics) but the reason they hate God isn’t because he’s a threat to peace and harmony or what have you. They hate God because God’s existence is a threat to the deity of the State. Which is why many ATHEIST libertarians such as the late Murray Rothbard and the current Walter Block are so pro-religion despite being unbelievers, because they know that absolute statism and Christianity cannot coexist. At some point, one will swallow up the other. You can’t be a Christian and a state-worshipper, there are contradictions between the worldviews.

With that being said, would it really surprise you that they’d promote the big bang and evolution as facts? Think about this, which idea is more compatible with liberty: the idea that God created the world, and gives human beings certain (far less than any secular State, and generally not enforced by violence) commands to follow, including “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”? Or a system where the world formed by chance and the fittest survive? I think its pretty obvious that the Darwinian model is foreign to liberty. With that being said, its hardly a surprise to me that public schools would try to censor the creationist view from being taught.

Now, to be clear, I don’t really care how old the earth is. That’s mostly an academic question to me, and not one that really interests me. if the world if 4 billion years old or 15 billion or whatever, that makes no difference to me. What does matter to me is the philosophical principles that evolution logically leads to which, if they are true, completely destroy the merits of both Christianity AND Libertarianism. And lead logically to statism as the “fittest” climb to the top of the power ladder and crush everyone else. That’s consistent with evolutionary thought: that people are animals and thus have no natural rights, only those rights the powers that be choose to give them. By contrast, the view that everyone has inherent rights that nobody, not even government, has any right to take away… that’s the Biblical view.

What view do you think secular public schools who want to teach children to worship government would want to teach kids?

To be clear, I do not advocate government schools teaching creationism (just for the benefit of anyone who may be reading this without context and missing it.) I advocate the abolition of public schools, and for parents to be able to teach their kids whatever they want. But I do believe the public schools have a vested interest in protecting the evolutionary theory.

I agree completely with what you said in your latest post.

Which gets back also to what I was saying about religion. Even if you yourself do not believe, it is a positive force for liberty, because it prevents TOTAL state worship, if nothing else.

Dear David, Eric,

David wrote,

“Which gets back also to what I was saying about religion. Even if you yourself do not believe, it is a positive force for liberty, because it prevents TOTAL state worship, if nothing else.”

Wrong. Non sequiteur alert.

Ayn Rand demolished that notion in her essay “Attila and the Witch Doctor.”

She uses two terms to illustrate the most notorious individuals who have played a role in the history of philosophy: “Attila” and “Witch Doctor”. She categorizes various participants in human history, who have been a force for evil in her view, as being an “Attila” or “Witch Doctor”. An “Attila” is someone in history who used physical (“brute”) force to accomplish goals. A “Witch Doctor” is someone (often a philosopher, religious person, or other type of intellectual) who has used the written or spoken word to persuade people to go against their rational minds, often to the advantage of the “Attila” who is currently in power.

Basically Attila is a secular tyrant. The Witch Doctor is a religious tyrant, or theocrat. Both are enemies of individual liberty.

Secular tyranny and theocracy are rivals in ongoing struggles to impose their will over sovereign individuals.

Just because secular tyranny such as Communism was evil, does not mean that religious tyranny/theocracy would be a good alternative.

Just because the USSR was evil, does not mean that a Christian Fundamentalist USSA, or a Islamic Fundamentalist Arab world, or a Zionist Israel would be good alternatives.

Just because the one was evil, does not mean the other is good. Both can be and in fact are equally evil. Both are implacable enemies of political liberty rooted in reason and individualism, as crystallized in the NAP.

I understand Bevin’s point, but he wasn’t really responding to me. I was talking about religion and belief in God. He was talking about theocracy. One does not necessarily lead to the other. Mind you, its possible to have both, but its also possible to have one without the other.

Dear David, Eric,

Eric wrote,

“The one thing I insist on – which I consider non-negotiable – is self-ownership. When it comes to me, I am the ultimate authority. And the same goes for you and everyone else. We are all kings of our castles, so to speak.”

This is a key point.

David, you made a distinction between religious faith and theocracy. That is valid. However, the line is easily crossed.

Why?

Because religious faith is often a euphemism for religious dogma, and righteous dogma at that. Theists often argue that since the dogma is unquestionably right, being the “world of God,” It trumps the self-ownership that Eric talks about. According to religious dogma, “God” is the ultimate authority, not the sovereign individual.

Therefore the temptation for religious devotees to impose their religious faith/dogma on others by force, against their will, for their own good, to save their souls, is often overwhelming, as the many Crusades and Inquisitions prove.

Therefore, no, I was not addressing another issue entirely.

I really appreciate these types of comments. I love the occasions where I can get away with saying something like that and having someone like it. Normally I water down my distaste for police and military (And I hope you don’t ever take my critical assessments of anything that is said as SUPPORT for either institution) for “regular” people and people still shake their heads in frustration at me.

If the public owned the roads or the parks or anything else then the government couldn’t act as owner.

Old Faithful is a lousy place for strip mall. However a geothermal power plant is more likely. When it comes to the wonders of nature its a toss up. Quite a number of government lands, wonders of nature or not, were set aside for insiders to strip resources from. Lumber, minerals, whatever. Furthermore, the freer the country with the greater protections of individual rights and property, the less pollution there is. (the bad pollution in the USA was the result of government not doing its job to protect property rights and individual rights)

The federal government could just as well turn over yellowstone to lumber companies and power plants as it could make it a national park.

One of the false premises of anti-private property harangues is that people who own private property will act perversely, in ways inimical to their own self-interest. This is pretty silly when you stop to think about it. And it’s of a piece with the government-snuggler’s cognitive dissonance regarding guns; i.e., people cannot be trusted with guns… but people in government can be trusted with guns.

As a land/homeowner, I certainly have every right to insist that, for example, visitors remove their shoes before coming inside, or that they leave whenever I say so. Such actions do not violate their rights.

And they are free to leave on their own initiative at any time. And I have no right to prevent them from leaving.

That is, I am not free to violate their rights – as by example kidnapping them or otherwise coercing their behavior using threats and violence. That would be as much a violation of the NAP as anywhere else.

The acceptance of government requires one to believe people will act against their own self-interest.

If one of the conditions of entering your home is that a guest remove his shoes or be held in your basement, then you wouldn’t really be violating the NAP by enforcing that, would you? The thing is, even if somebody did violate your rule, knowing the punishment, it would not be in your interest to impose any punishment beyond asking him to leave(think about the costs of keeping someone in your basement).

However, if you could forcibly take the money needed to impose the penalty you desired on the guest from say, your neighbor, then punishing your guest may suddenly become a more attractive option…especially if your neighbor would more willingly give you money on the condition that it be used to punish your guest rather than harass your neighbor.

Acceptance of public property(which is what almost everything is in today’s America) is the perversion that makes most others possible.

Hi Dave,

You’re 19 – so you won’t remember the era before “Mom Culture.” It began in the ’80s, with things like “Baby on Board” placards and Mothers Against Drunk Driving – which begat sobriety checkpoints, mandatory child seat and buckle-up laws and the now-current obsession with eliminating all risk from life.

I call it the rise of “Mom Culture” because (and I am old enough to remember) there was a different dominant culture before the rise of Mom Culture. It was not a reckless culture, but it was a more risk-tolerant one and thus, a more liberty minded and individual-oriented culture. It was the culture that had the audacity to put men on Saturn V rockets and send them to the moon. That level of risk is inconceivable today. As are cars like the ’64 GTO: No air bags, no ABS, low back seats and a huge V-8 pouring the power through overmatched 14×7 and 15×7 wheels and tires.

I grew up in the era of that – and of lawn darts and kids running off to play all day unsupervised by adults (just be home in time for dinner), without “buckling up for safety” and smoke if you feel like it.

Damn, I miss it!

Oh, PS: Yes, they can and do seize cash – and it’s then up to you to prove it was not “drug money” and so on.

Hi Eric,

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? (I’m still 18, BTW, won’t be 19 for a couple more weeks). I’m just curious how far back you actually remember.

You’re right, I don’t remember that far back. I don’t know exactly what the risk is for leaving a kid unbuckled. I know what the propaganda says, but not the actual math. I presume people still kept infants in car seats?

I should say though, if the roads were ever privatized, I’m pretty sure there would still be some road regulations. They’d be less onerous than they are today, since people could actually “vote with their wallets”, and roads that were more regulated would be more expensive, but I still think you’d need some. I can imagine there being no speed regulations on highways, but there would probably still be some in residential areas (Considering kids play on the road, etc.) . I’m not really saying what’s right or wrong here, just what I suspect would be the reality. The plus would be that the necessary rules and enforcement would be set by what the market wants and is willing to pay for (And could also differ based on road/company) rather than being controlled by a monopolistic government that only cares about its own revenue. Market based laws would only weed out reckless drivers, not criminalize virtually everyone. The speed limit on the Long Island Expressway is 55MPH, and all sorts of people break it. If the speed limit were 95MPH, I doubt very many people would drive that fast (Keep in mind we’re talking about the LIE here, not some highway in the middle of nowhere where extreme speeds of that type might actually be safe) but there probably would be a few wackos that truly don’t care about anyone’s safety and drive in a way that’s clearly unsafe, and I suspect that even market roads would deal with those types of drivers.

All that said, I agree with what you say. I’ve seen it pointed out on another forum that in 1812, even people who want government roads would have been seen as “socialist”. I can only imagine how much wealth our country would have if that era’s mentality had kept up (Minus slavery, of course. Maybe NOT minus the idea of only letting property owning men vote?)

That’s interesting. I know a lot of 40+ people but have heard little to nothing about the differences… ever. I wonder why that is.

On highways I see absolutely no merits for speed limits, as you say. One area I find more tricky is residential areas. Is it EVER acceptable to drive 50+ in a residential community where kids are likely to be playing on the road? To do so In such an area would be inherently reckless, IMO. Kind of like how driving 100 on the LIE would almost always be reckless, but not so much so in the middle of nowhere, etc. A little more common sense, and a little less “The law is the law”, would go a long way in this world.

With regards to parents and their choices, I agree with you. The only thing I continue to wonder about are those few parents who simply DON’T CARE. There are always going to be some people who will neglect their kids, even in a free society. I’m totally with you on the NAP as far as adults go, and I’m with you on parental rights as long as the parents are actually raising their kids. But… would you say that no crime is committed if I bought heroin and gave it to my 11 year old brother? Or if someone just left an infant on a regular seat in a car without any protection? I’m not sure these things actually happen that often (I know that the statist MO is to exaggerate everything “for the children”) but having an answer for them is helpful nonetheless.

Note also that this does not presume any need for “law enforcement” any more than laws against murder and theft do. The distinction is that all laws would apply to everyone the same. None of this “You can’t do that, unless you’re a cop” or “Stealing is wrong… unless the government does it, then its taxation”. Its possible that a free people might delegate peace-keeping duties the same way that they choose to delegate other duties, but only the rights that a person actually has can be delegated. Kind of like how most people buy their food from a grocery store. They have the right to grow crops/raise livestock/whatever themselves, but as an economic matter, they choose to do otherwise. Or, you have the right to build your own car, but you would normally (well… this IS an automotive site, so maybe you wouldn’t, but most people would) hire someone else to build it for you. In the same way, people could hire other people to do their peacekeeping for them. What they cannot do is invent a right to aggress, which they do not have, and give it to “law enforcement.”

Hi Captcow,

Yup. As to how we got here: I think “here” – the urge to dominate/control/punish – is always lurking beneath the surface. It only needs to be brought to the surface by fear or some traumatic event and then exploited by willful demagogues.

That awful croon… saaaaaafety.

When you hear it, expect tyranny to follow on its heels.

Indeed it was, Joe.

America’s Reichstag Fire Moment.

And just as “good Germans” in the German military and police forces fell into line and served as the hands and feet of a monstrous tyranny that annihilated millions of lives, so also will the “good cops” and “heroes” of the US military do likewise when the moment comes. A few will not, of course. But they, as always will be a tiny minority.

God help us all.

The patriot act, which many consider to be proof of a inside 9-11 conspiracy because it was ‘ready to go’, was actually a bunch of failed law enforcement legislation from the Clinton years. Basically the congress critters wrapped a bunch of stuff that had been written and failed to pass into one big ball and passed it as the patriot act.

This police state was desired long before the events of 2001, but two team politics wouldn’t allow it to be passed until it became a great thing for team R to do. Then it went through without difficulty.

And you’re correct, determining a “terrorist” works pretty much like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

There are the obvious lies. There is the obvious marketing/manipulation. Did they come before, during or after? That’s the big question. However, not what I was looking to address. I was only looking to address the police state aspect, the patriot act.

The patriot act already existed, had already been tried in pieces. It failed time and time again. Sadly mechanisms are set up so that persistence wins rather than what is right or wrong. It only has to pass once and then is never examined again in most cases. Bad legislation makes it through eventually and sticks practically forever in this model. The police state goals were there many years before the event that finally got the legislation passed. Never let a crisis go to waste so it has been said.

David – Although I understand that bad things sometimes happen to the innocent, I have enough life experience to understand that one really does “reap what one sows.” I don’t doubt that “good” cops occasionally run afoul of a bad situation and end up paying for the transgressions of their “brothers” in a guilt by association manner of speaking. But as a general rule, any individual can find the source of most their personal problems in the nearest mirror, myself included. Once you understand that, you can move on to improving yourself through virtuous habits and avoiding infringing the rights of others; which goes a long way toward planting good things for future harvest in this garden we call life.

But when you go about imposing your will on your fellow beings under threat of violence or at least belong to a group that does, even if you personally eschew the act, you invite Karmic retribution. Your failure to understand “What comes around goes around” does not immunize you from it. Standing by while your “brothers in arms” beat someone up, taze them or even shoot them without a trial makes you an accomplice. Much like being in any other cartel or union, the members are implicitly expected to cover for each other. “Professional courtesy” they call it when they let other members of the Kop Klan get away with things we mere mundanes would be severely punished for. That is morally and ethically wrong. It is completely contrary to the “equal protection under the law” this nation supposedly promises all of us. It is also a tool used by the PTB to keep us in check and the cops feeling superior to the rest of us so that the psychopaths in charge can continue to rule with minimal fear of the populace. The cops are their dogs of war, so they get the best bones and steak fat.

Now, I will concede that many if not most of the younger cops don’t have enough education or life experience to understand that what they are doing, even just turning a blind eye and going along to get along, is wrong because it is technically legal (or merely tolerated by their superiors). But that does not excuse them from the consequences of Natural Law. If one lives by the sword one can expect to die by the sword; Nature’s scales will invariably be balanced at the individual level one way or the other, robes and medallions of office notwithstanding. Keep in mind that a free market solution would not be flawless either. As long as people are involved, there will be trouble.

@ David
Psalm 14:2 The Lord looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
You’re ignorance of even the basic tenants of the Christian Faith does not commend you. Go back to the beginning and learn the ‘milk’ first and then you can learn the ‘meat’.( Hebrews: “[12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
[13] For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
[14] But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil”)

Bobbye – I would add Proverbs 20:11 too. “Even a child is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right.” Little children know it hurts when they bite and kick. They know it’s wrong to lie and blame something on someone else (bearing false witness). Trying to rationalize that a cop doing the same things to a fellow citizen because the cop is ignorant, that would land that same citizen in the pokey or even in the morgue if he did it to the cop, is indeed a “cop out.” And a poor one at that. Standing by and letting it happen while your coworkers administer non-judicial punishment is just as bad. Since we are supposed to trust these state functionaries with lethal force, it is imperative that they be held to the highest standards of moral and ethical conduct, not given a free pass with the tired excuse of officer safety. If they’re such limp wristed panty-waists that they fear the fellow countrymen that much, then they need to find a nice accounting job. And if they want to be jack booted thugs in balaclavas lording it over us, then they need to be in pokey themselves. It really is that simple.

Every time one of my “adversaries” curse me for NOT believing in STATUTORY LAWS I shall give him the link to this article-BRAVO, keep up the fight for NATURAL RIGHTS

I don’t agree with Bobeye’s comment there. I mean, self-defense is of course justified, but specialization of labor is a natural part of capitalism. I’m not sure why peace-keeping has to be any different in that regard.

Of course, in a free society, you’d be welcome to do the guarding yourself or hire someone else to do it. But I suspect most people would hire others to do it, much like today you could fix your own car (Or is there a law against it now… who knows) but most will hire a mechanic, etc.

“The peoples power to Peace Keep was removed from them, spare me this line of thought.
Most Americans are no longer allowed to protect themselves and it will get worse.”
Who removed it? Who doesn’t allow? How did they get that power? Is not the way it is the way most want it to be? Where is the resistance? If one does not resist or object, isn’t that consent?

What about forced compensation for real crimes (ie. with victims.) Technically its not “defense” but I believe its still justified.

Soviet prosecutor Andrey Vyshinsky of Moscow Show Trial fame would agree with you, of course.

The thing is, Clover from Down Under, we’re talking ethical principles – right and wrong – as opposed to “the law.”

You take the position – the Cloveritic foundational premise – that right and “the law” are synonymous and therefore, any violation of “the law” is an ethical violation.

My position – the position of most Libertarians and anarchists, is that “the law” is very often at odds with right – and therefore, it is an ethical violation (wrong) to support or obey or enforce it.

All this has been elaborated here – and to you – at length on multiple prior occasions. I realize you’re here to disrupt and troll, but I have responded to your shopworn cliches for the benefit of the new people here.

Most of the time this is more gray than you imply that it is, at least in theory. For instance, I was talking to my aunt recently about that drone strike that murdered 15 people in Yemen, and she agreed with me that it was horiffic. Yet when I pointed out that this was why I did not “Support the troops” she said the individuals in the army (I’m not sure if the drone killers are technically part of the “Army” or not, but that was how she said it… but ultimately it doesn’t really matter which branch of the legalized mafia that it was) had to follow the orders they were given. I pointed out to her that the Nazis who slaughtered Jews could have said the same thing, and she admitted I had a point.

Similarly (Although this is a somewhat lower stakes issue) some conservatives think its wrong not to “pay taxes” but yet they hold that the taxes are too high. Personally, I’d pay ’em just to avoid risking arrest or causing anyone else to stumble, although my stance changes dramatically when it comes to doing something immoral, like murdering people in some foreign country, or what have you.

At any rate… there’s often some nuance between always supporting the law and always ignoring the law. Most people are probably somewhere in between.

Hi Yank,

There is pretty compelling evidence that the Constitution was deliberately written to facilitate limitless (in principle) federal power over the states – over everyone. Hamilton – the prime mover behind the secret conclave that birthed this document – was a brilliant man and lawyer who knew exactly what he was doing when he and his fellows included such purposefully nebulous terms as “general welfare” in the text. His object – which he never tried to hide – was to create an “energetic” (his word) central government. He, almost alone, connived the federal government’s assumption of the individual states’ war debts – so as to facilitate a federal debt that would lead to federal taxing authority. He laid all the groundwork for the income tax – among many such achievements.

My point being: The Articles of Confederation were anathema to the agitators for an omnipotent central government – Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Jay, Marshall. These men were not believers in liberty for the individual as we understand it; i.e., self ownership, the NAP. They wanted power for themselves, to rule and control the population, to direct along lines they believed best – perhaps “benevolently” – but rule and control and direct nonetheless.

Even Jefferson – a man I greatly admire – betrayed the beautiful words he wrote in 1776 when he became Dear Leader.

Spooner said as much over a hundred years ago.

I read an article some time ago that used the line ‘We are all indigs now’. That is the indigenous population of some occupied territory.

Eric – I don’t don’t doubt that some of the statophiles wonder about how the police state has come to pass here in the “homeland” (or would that be fatherland?). But the gun-vernment itself? Pu-leeease! They know exactly what they are doing and it is by design. Sending troops into a foreign country to run roughshod over the populace and steal their natural resources is “training” for what they are expected to do here. This is why our progenitors gave us the Second Amendment. When we can no longer reason with, plead with or negotiate with our herders, we will have the means to visit them with something they understand: violence. I can understand that the 27% that “go along to get along” are just unthinkingly following orders and “enforcing the law.”

But the real psychopaths, the six-percent, know exactly what they are doing and are counting on the rest of us NOT to know nor to inform the rest of the sheeple. Not only is it up to us to know, educate and inform, it is also up to us to provide the PTB with sufficient incentive to back down. I know it it cliche’, but freedom really isn’t free. Soon, we will be presented with the bill. Do we dispute the presentment or do we march meekly off to debtor’s prison? Time will tell.

Ever notice how socially unacceptable it is to question or dispel a cultural myth? I think this is key top the psychopath/sociopath’s political power. They create social myths which the vast majority fall for and believe. Those who don’t get conned have an uphill battle to effect change.

The answer to all your questions in the first paragraph is “a good cop.”

I have no doubt. I have no doubt that plenty of people who I know would call the cops for the same reason (“illegal” drugs.) Most people don’t have a clue about logic, which is aggravating.

Here’s the thing I’m getting at though. I’ll give you a real life example to illustrate the point:

I was talking to my aunt about seat belt laws, and she argued in favor of them because: “What if you get into an accident and then you get paralyzed and somebody has to take care of you.”

I of course responded that that should be up to the person’s family, or other individuals, and that the POSSIBILITY that that might happen is no excuse for coercion. Most people can’t stomach that though, because of the “What if”. I can’t imagine the founders of the country standing for that kind of logic, but most people today do. She did not buy my logic.

A few minutes later, Obamacare came up and my aunt was rightfully identifying it as stupid. I explained that the liberals use the same logic to defend Obamacare as she used to defend seat belt laws.

Unfortunately, she refused to seriously think about the issue. Most people are not serious debaters.

Most people take the “if its a bad law, change it, but the law is the law” attitude, and refuse to blame law enforcement.

For what its worth, another aunt said something along those lines, so I asked what of the Nazi Germans?

She responded “Well, then don’t be a cop” which was unfortunately intended to dismiss the conversation. She didn’t realize how right her statement would have been had she meant it literally.

Most people, cop or not, don’t think critically about the violence they support.

I don’t know what to say beyond “people suck.”

If we were in a situation where people hated soldiers and cops, I might feel differently about it, but as it is I find the worshippers even more disgusting than the pawns. I don’t like any of them, but I try to recognize that most people just don’t care about freedom…

David, your post about the seat belt law conversation brought something to the front of my mind. Force begets force. The government forces others to care for people who make decisions that harm themselves, then because of that they start forcing people to make ‘good’ choices… over time it just piles on layer by layer.

That’s probably how it works for most people. But for those wealthy folks who want to build their vision of utopia nobody has to look further than the company town utopias, the corporate parental mentality of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Somewhat different means to the same ends.

I of course pointed out that the government shouldn’t be taking care of people. The response: So do you just leave them on an island to die?

My response is, essentially, that wouldn’t be the best thing, but nobody has the right to FORCE anyone to take care of someone else.

We’ve been conditioned out of the acceptance of this concept.

Its ridiculous, and it drives me nuts. Most people just shake their heads.

“So most if not all “laws” are repugnant to the Constitution, if no harm is caused no tort is committed.”

idmtman is somewhat correct regarding the Federals though the enumerated Powers in The Constitution really don’t read as an approved libertarian laundry list of acceptable State actions. In truth the Powers granted to the several States in their constitutions are not at all libertarian but rather the rough concensus of what the electorate wants their State to be. While it may be easy to make the case that State/local cops are thugs per libertarian theory it is much harder to make the case that the several State constitutions are being wholesale violated.

The Federalist No. 45

Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered

Independent Journal
Saturday, January 26, 1788
[James Madison]

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons.

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

PUBLIUS

“We the People, in order to form a more perfect union. . .”

The People are the individual human beings making up society AND the people making up the sovereign states in the union. I do not disagree with you, but The People most certainly was a conceptual entity of the combined people and sovereign states exercising all power and delegating some small portion of that power through the ENUMERATED powers to the Central Government.

The People existed and can again exist, at least conceptually.

Dear Fed45,

You wrote,

“When the State acts, it acts under authority, or power, granted to it by The People.”

This of course it’s pure bullshit.

Fallacies – Ambiguous Collective
by David King

In this statement “the people” has three distinctly different meanings: One group of “the people” (the victims, or producers) are ruled by another group of “the people” (the bureaucrats, with their action arm, the police) in order to achieve the goals of yet another group of “the people” (the politicians).

Why else do you think “we” have “democracy” and “majority rule?”

It’s to rationalize steamrollering over individuals who refuse to be part of “The People.”

Bevin–For whatever reason, a reply is not permitted to your comment, so am posting a reply here.

First, it appears that both King and you are confusing the “We The People” of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States with the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” of the great tyrant’s Gettysburg Address. Seriously?

Second, “We The People” was used by the Framers simply to establish the source of the very limited, enumerated powers granted to the very limited government under the Constitution as it was written. No one at the time, and few since, would ever have honestly believed that there was some actual assembly of “all the people” being referred to. It is in part a term of convenience–used to remind both all the people of the nation, the sovereign states of the union, and the central government of that union, that the government is not the source of any power.

Third, the entire point of the post is to set forth the truth–the reality–that for any free government to work there must be a recognition that the government has no power except that granted it by those who have agreed to come into union to form the government. In the Articles of Confederation United States in the timeframe from the Philadelphia Convention through ratification, those in agreement about the need to form a new government were the sovereign states.

Fourth, those SOVEREIGN STATES (hence, the “quaint” notion that they were free to leave the union when the central government became oppressive and anti-liberty and anti-property) sent delegates to participate in the making of the Constitution, thus representing the citizens of those states. Of course not everyone agreed, and certainly some could argue that there were political power plays and deceit involved in some instances, but the fact of the matter is that this was a peaceful process designed to improve the existing government while limiting any new government through the ENUMERATION of powers, systems of checks and balances, and the separation of powers. The SOVEREIGN STATES are responsible for the Constitution we have, and at the time, it appears to have seemed like a good thing.

Fifth, the Federalists of 1791 were extraordinarily conservative men. They sought to preserve their wealth in this new order–to conserve it–through a the notion that private property and liberty went hand in hand and that one was absolutely necessary to preserve the other. Unfortunately, over time, they became corrupted by their greed and lust for power. This began as early as Adams’s presidency, with such ridiculous legislation as the Alien and Sedition Acts. They began the stream of descent from liberty and property into political power grabs and it has never stopped (their descendants are the Republican Party Statists and monied interests that use the central government for their own ends). The Anti-Federalists of 1791 had it right. They were, in short, murdered by the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans (now known usually as the Democrats, though sometimes called Republicans) very early on. They left only the onsie and twosie descendants like those on WRS and ZH and SHTFPlan. The Democratic-Republicans became, over 220 years, the current, mutated, horrific Democrat party, and the likes of WW, FDR, LBJ, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Frank are the most common Democrat over the years. To them, the State is God and OWNS everything. As a result, they will do anything to control the power of the State. NOTE that in both cases, liberty and private property are meaningless.

We live in a totalitarian state, but most just do not know it. They refuse to see it or are too ignorant to even contemplate it. If you say this publicly, you are shouted down and figuratively tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. You are a right-wing nut job. A wing-nut. An angry white man. A racist. A misogynist. Anti-gay. Evil. A terrorist. A gun nut. The media, academia, and the political parties are all in bed together on this and will be sure to destroy you without, in most instances, even resorting to the power of the State to do it. But if needed, the power of the State certainly can be brought to bear.

I hold out no hope for some sort of reversal of fortune such that my children and grandchildren will live in a free nation protective of liberty and private property. Neither is protected today. What little of each there is, is always subject to State control.

Dear Red45,

I commend you for opposing the modern totalitarian state.

Unfortunately the premise you take for granted is precisely what enables the emergence of that very same totalitarian state over time.

There is no such thing as “The People.” Capital “T” capital “P.”

Used in this manner, used in this context, “The People” is singular and implies unanimity and universal consent.

That of course is bullshit. It is, as I noted before, a verbal sleight of hand to steamroller over dissent and whoever does not consent to be part of “The People” and to be ruled by “The Government.”

If you look through my reply you will find no reference to the concrete examples from US history that occupy your consciousness. Your head is so filled with these concretes that you can no longer see the larger abstraction, the underlying principle, and the forest for the trees.

What I’m talking about is senior to all that. What I’m talking about is this:

Whenever any group of people “found a government” they invariably presume the right to rule over others who happen to be living inside an line they drew on a map. They invariably do this unilaterally without actually obtaining the consent of everyone involved. To gloss over their action, they invariably invoke such weasel concepts as “implied consent” or “social contract.” More bullshit.

Consent is not implied. It must be explicitly given. Contracts are not “social” they must be agreed to be individuals, and signed.

My point is the entire process was fraudulent, and always will be, unless everyone signed on the dotted line.

Wow, Bevin, you have the perfect defence for your court case: you simply assert government has no right to rule therefore you don’t recognise the laws you’ve broken thus you cannot be charged let alone hauled into court let alone punished so the court has compensate for your time and send you on your way.

Bevin:

I understand the point you are making. I do not disagree in principle. But in order to have a discussion about how society organizes and form governments and grants those governments powers, the term “The People” is useful. It is a tool. It is a convenience. So, in the Preamble, “We The People” is, AGAIN, a tool to suggest that a majority of the people, through the sovereign states, chose a particular form of government as set forth in the Constitution. “The People” do, in fact, exists, in this way, in this context. AGAIN, certainly there is no single entity called The People that represents 100% agreement with any notion of government. But for the sake of moving the discussion along in 1787, and for the sake of explaining, without volumes of discussion about nature, man, God, and the origins of power, the term “The People” was, and is, of great value.

Eric said:
All “states” are in fact nothing more than the small minority of people who have arrogated power over others to themselves.

The problem is that the “state” continues to hold that power because the individuals have been fooled into thinking that those “rulers” actually have some legitimate authority to hold that power… and the vicious cycle goes on.

Anyone with the least interest in breaking that nasty chain needs to get their children out of the government indoctrination camps, and teach them individual sovereignty by word and deed at home. Nobody can serve two masters, and it is not possible to give your children to the “state” part of the day, and expect them to grow up to be self owning individuals. It might happen, just as it did for some of us, but it is unlikely.

Dear Eric,

It’s amazing isn’t it?

Clover can’t get it through his thick skull that the power to control others is not the same as the right to control others.

Example: Say my family has been living in North America since the Pilgrims landed.

Suddenly in 1776, a bunch of strangers “found a nation” and “form a government.” They notify me afterwards that my family, which has been living here minding our own business since 1620, are suddenly, magically “under their jurisdiction,” and owe them both obedience and money, “or else.”

They show me a piece of paper, signed by a bunch of people I’ve never met, that says,

“The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare… “

Now nobody denies that as a result of sheep like behavior on the part of others, that these complete strangers have now acquired the power to impose their will on me. But we were talking about rights, not power.

This principle of course applies to every “nation” on earth. Not one of them has any moral legitimacy.