Something very good – though very dangerous to the congealing police state (but not to liberty-minded people) has occurred: Millions of Americans have decided they will not abide by any demand they register their firearms – much less surrender them. And are saying so – openly. More than a few local sheriffs have also publicly stated they will not enforce any such demands. For the first time in living memory, the debate is not fundamentally about which guns – or how many guns. It is about whether the government has any business even knowing whether you’ve got guns at all – much less dictating the type you’re allowed to have.
It’s a Rubicon moment – because this idea involves a great deal more than merely firearms. It is an assertion – though not fully conscious, yet – that trampling the rights of any individual because of the actions of another individual is an ethical outrage. Not just the right to keep a gun.
The Beat-era author/philosopher William S. Burroughs once quipped: “After a shooting, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” He said that decades ago and at long last, people are coming to resent being vilified – and punished – not for anything they did. But because some other person did something.
Or even worse, because some other person might do something.
Group guilt isn’t selling as well as it once did. And the stock people take in individual responsibility seems to be increasing.
Perhaps because the orbit of liberty has constricted so dramatically – especially during the past 10 years. Instead of gradually increasing the temperature so that the frog doesn’t notice he’s being boiled alive until it’s too late for him to hop out of the pot, they’ve cranked up the heat suddenly – and the frogs are now aware of what’s happening to them.
And beginning to hop…
It is no hard think to understand that the average person – merely trying to live his life – is growing weary of being hassled at every turn, treated as a presumptively guilty criminal by authorities that seem unable to recognize, much less respect, any limits to their power. Just as the catcall, “you must be racist” is losing its ability to cow legitimate criticism of such things as open-ended entitlement programs that incentivize multi-generational poverty, so also the tiresome bleats about “safety” and “security” have grown really tiresome. And the frayed edges are beginning to show.
I suspect because – unlike in years past – ordinary people are now routinely subjected to hassles and degradations. Check Food Lovers Specials and Game Specials.
Whereas in years past – especially in the years before nahnlevven – the typical person could for the most part go about his business without being continually subjected to hassles and degradations. That plus increasingly disproportionate punishments for trivial statutory offenses and non crimes has led to more and more Ordinary Joes and Janes thinking about what’s happening all around them. Perhaps for the first time in their lives.
And once they begin to think, they begin to see.
Consider the etymology of register:
Noun: An official list or record, for example of births, marriages and deaths…
Verb: Enter a record in an official list as being in a particular category…
Now, the eytmology of the prefix, reg:
Latin, rex or king.
Why is it any business of the government’s what you or I or any other citizen happens to have in our closet or bedside drawer? The arrogant presumption – the effrontery – of government (that is, of the people who control the mechanisms of state violence) demanding to know such things is absolutely startling. And not just with regard to guns. Why is it any of the government’s business how many children you have? Or cars?
Isn’t the sole justification trotted out for the existence of government that it is there to “protect” people? How is a peaceful person in any way “protected” by being ordered to surrender any and every detail of his persona, private affairs to arrogant little busybodies in funny costumes or who possess self-important titles but who are, nonetheless, merely other people? Your next-door neighbor doesn’t demand to inspect your closets, or that you inform him how many and what type vehicles you possess. Because it’s none of his damn business – and he knows it.
So how come the busybodies in government don’t know it? What gives them the right to shove their noses – and their guns – in our business?
People are beginning – thank god – to catch on to this. Per Burroughs, they are sick and tired of being hectored for what they didn’t do. And increasingly, they are insisting on their right to be left the hell alone until they – as individuals – actually do something. That is, actually cause injury to someone else. Their property – or their persons. Otherwise, go away.
A termagant is no less a termagant because of its suit, its badge or its title.
We’re mad as hell – finally! – and by god, we’re not going to take it anymore!
Throw it in the Woods?
[…] via Pushback | Eric Peters Autos. […]
11 points (92% like it) – 12 up votes 1 down vote
Posted 8 hours ago. 6 comments so far.
When can libertarians use retaliatory force against aggression?
When harm to self, others, or property is imminent or inevitable. This evaluation will be judged by others so one must be certain.
Only on days ending in “Y”
Tor, I can’t thank you enough! So, thanks!
Pushback – Free Your Mind
Pushback – Kundalini – Take Control of Yourself
Jesus – Not of This World = Alien?
Coming Soon To Your City:
A dour short-haired woman is chasing a man down a crowded street. He is walking quickly, so she is following him as fast as she can without breaking into a run. Her high-visibility safety orange jacket, stamped with the crest of the local police authority, makes a plastic rustling sound.
“Excuse me, sir,” she barks, repeating the phrase like an ugly-duckling goose who honking out an officious birdsong with all the importance of an elegant trumpeter swan.
The man is in his mid-fifties, wearing dirty clothes and speaking broken English with a strong Central-American accent. A second fat disheveled black man in the same orange costume, has managed to grab hold of the man, and has taken his ID and is interrogating him while the woman catches up.
The man looks tired and poor. The woman, who is employed by the Trinidad Ward 5 Police Precinct in East Central DC, has just seen him spitting on the street. As of last week the city council classes this as an offense. They run his ID for warrants, radio in his offense to headquarters, and print him a ticket from their handheld dispenser and he meanders off confusedly on his way.
The fine is $220, reduced to $180 if paid within 10 days.
I just couldn’t resist merging the side trip on intellectual property carried out by Bevin, Tor, Ed and numerous others with your monologue on gun control, individual rights, the scope of government and whether or not Clover has human parents.
You’ve probably heard of 3D printing if only because it’s been in the gun control news lately. Turns out some Nimrod has figured out how to use 3D printers to make receivers, which as you know are the parts of guns that need to be registered in the good ‘ol US of A. The BATF have long since decided the AR15 receiver (for example) *is* the gun and it’s the only part that can’t be sold without an FFL or shipped between states without same.
But now anyone with a scanner (and 50,000 bucks to spare)can copy one and print it. This is sending the disarmament crowd into fits of screaming tushwillies.
But it does bring up an important and enduring question of IP rights. Now, I’ll be first to admit the design of the AR-15 receiver is in the public domain, after all it was produced using tax dollars. But there are lots of other thing like tennis shoes, lawn darts and hula-hoops that are still protected by US IP laws. How will we protect them?
The there’s the whole problem of 3D porn. You probably know the Internet was mostly sold to Joe Sixpack through free porn sites back in the 90’s. Just think about this; what happens when someone starts selling CAD drawings of Anthony Weiner’s dick and every kid in the country starts printing a copy in her basement? Huh? What then?
Lord he’p us, Badger. That is at least 9 different kinds of weird. I’ll never get to sleep now.
Thanks Ed. It’s pretty hard to keep up with this crowd but I do my best.
There are a few grains of serious commentary buried in my vain attempt at humor. Patent laws became pretty strange when they started issuing software “patents” on things you had no way to sense the presence of in a commercial product (unless you were able to cleverly detect the purpose of a group of electrons arranged in some meaningful pattern). Software patents are, in my humble opinion, the most nonsensical concept to come out of the legal profession in quite some time, and I believe that is saying something. I don’t mean to offend any software patent holders who read this column (I hold two myself and I understand the pressure to write them) but I do think the idea is perverse.
Until eBooks and mp3 publishing came along software engineering was the only industry subject to the travails of protecting itself against intellectual theft and we don’t really depend on patent law to do it. Instead we encrypt and lock up our source code then do our darndest to find arcane encryption schemes and licensing protocols to prevent the use of duplicated binaries.
This is essentially the same method music and book publishers have employed; build some specialized piece of hardware (or software really) that enforces your digital rights management scheme. Unfortunately no one has ever invented a lock that can’t be picked and so none of the methods are perfect. Oh well.
Now we’re entering an entirely new age, one that threatens the foundations of the industrial revolution itself with the same transformations the publishing industries have faced over the past 40 years. Three dimensional printers have removed one of the most powerful Patent and Trademark protections that existed; the difficulty of physically reproducing something.
Eric mentions this in his comment about the difficulty of reproducing physically printed books and photographs being a major barrier to copyright infringement. That argument applies in spades to patent infringement for physical objects, but now it’s gone.
How will the world cope? Will this increase or decrease the numbers and powers of government “agents” enforcing IP laws?
And who’s going to protect the reproduction rights for Anthony Weiner’s dick?
” one that threatens the foundations of the industrial revolution itself with the same transformations the publishing industries have faced over the past 40 years. ”
See, I doubt that’s really the case. I can’t see IP laws as the foundation of the industrial revolution. In fact, I can’t see anything other than the creative urge, unbound by the divine right of kings to stultify human action as the foundation of the industrial revolution.
Technology has overtaken the control freaks’ desire to ride herd on humanity, and that may be seen as a good thing or a bad thing, according to who is looking at it. One thing is for sure, though, it has happened and there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle.
Maybe we’ll all just have to see about changing up. As to Weiner’s dick, I doubt he has one, but if he does, he can rest easy about me trying to reproduce it. 😉
See, I doubt that’s really the case. I can’t see IP laws as the foundation of the industrial revolution.
In fact, a number of free market economists have argued persuasively that “IP” laws have been a serious drag on industrial and economic progress.
How “Intellectual Property” Impedes Competition
SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 by KEVIN A. CARSON
Any consideration of “intellectual property rights” must start from the understanding that such “rights” undermine genuine property rights and hence are illegitimate in terms of libertarian principle. Real, tangible property rights result from natural scarcity and follow as a matter of course from the attempt to maintain occupancy of physical property that cannot be possessed by more than one person at a time.
“Intellectual property,” on the other hand, creates artificial scarcity where it does not naturally exist and can only be enforced by invading real, tangible property and preventing the owner from using it in ways that violate the supposed intellectual property rights of others. As Stephan Kinsella points out, had a particularly gifted Cro-Magnon man been able to patent the building of log cabins, his heirs today would be entitled to prevent us from building cabins on our own land, with our own logs, until we paid whatever tribute they demanded.
Another excerpt from the same article, worth displaying, just in case people don’t get around to following the link.
And copyright is no more necessary for artistic creation than patents are necessary for invention. In the open-source world there are many businesses that manage to make money from auxiliary services even though their content itself is not proprietary.
For example, Red Hat makes money off the open-source Linux operating system by customizing the software and offering specialized customer support.
Phish has actively encouraged fans to share its music free of charge, while making money off of live performances and concessions.
Radiohead offered a recent album for free download, collecting only voluntary contributions via what amounted to a glorified PayPal tip jar.
Since intellectual property is not necessary to encourage innovation, this means that its main practical effect is to cause economic inefficiency by levying a monopoly charge on the use of existing technology.
In any case, for those whose libertarianism follows from the principles of self-ownership and nonaggression, whether or not intellectual property is necessary to profit from certain forms of economic activity is beside the point. That’s the same argument used by protectionists: Certain businesses would be unprofitable if they weren’t protected by tariffs.
But no one has a right to profit at someone else’s expense, through the use of force. In particular, no one has the right to make a profit by using the State to prevent others from doing as they please with their own pens and paper, hard drives, or CDs.
A business model that isn’t profitable without government intervention should fail.
Frankly I don’t even remember exactly how we got on this topic.
I do in fact see the issue the way I have stated, but it wasn’t really my intention to dwell on it.
As I see it, although it is a serious issue for libertarians that deserves clarification, one need not avoid it, nor harp on it.
Bevin; I meant no criticism, I enjoy this topic immensely, I just took an opportunity to tie it back to the main thread. In a humorous way I hope 🙂
I know you didn’t.
I was not implying that you did.
I was merely taking it as a cue to clarify my own thoughts on the matter.
Although there are immutable NAP principles, that need not mean they are monolithic chains you wear, they are there to serve you, there can be a limited menu of rational variations. NAP must not be some monolithic new authoritarian collective.
One need only say, regarding IP – NAP principle 12 – intellectual property, I adhere to principle 12B and not the less-confrontational principle 12.
Being a 12B Libertarian, I have a retinue of lawyers, bail bondsmen, private investigators, and monitors under hire who go to maximum extent possible against anyone who aggresses against my created works.
I mercilessly prosecute, sue, and restrain, even to the point of financial loss; in order to preserve the sanctity of intellectual property.
Be advised I bring the full weight of the state and all available resources to bear in this arena, I’m sure you’re familiar with this course of action, so take it under advisement before infringing on me, I am a 12B intellectual property defender.
Oh Lordy, Tor. That sounded so much like Walter Block that I almost fell asleep at my keyboard. 😉
Thanks. I take that as a huge compliment. Block is the Larry David of Libertarianism, to my eye Walter & Larry resemble each other somewhat.
Best of Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 1
Best of Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 2
Best of Curb Your Enthusiasm Season 3
Oh, Lord. Larry David. I must admit that I’ve never had any trouble curbing my enthusiasm for his show.
That is indeed a very apt comparison, “Block is the Larry David of Libertarianism”.
Glad you took it as a complement. I didn’t mean it as an insult. 😉
Dear Tor, Ed,
LOL at your banter!
@Eric – “I would have a problem with this: A musician gives a concert and someone records it – and then sells the recording – without the permission of the musician and without offering compensation.”
You really believe that if someone gives something away for free that they retain some ownership control over it after it’s in your possession?
So I must compensate the guy who threw the bag of trash in the dumpster if I find something of value in the bag? Or if I find his sheet music or his recently rejected novel in the bag?
Don, check your premises:
“You really believe that if someone gives something away for free that they retain some ownership control over it after it’s in your possession?”
I very specifically stated the opposite. The fact that something is easily taken (e.g., recorded) does not mean it has been “given away for free.”
Perhaps that specific performance has been given away for free. But if someone records it – in particular, records it without permission (because they knew it would not have been granted) and then sells the recording, then that person is an asshole – and a thief.
Let’s say someone creates a mirror EPAutos site. They snatch every article I write (and comment I make) and rep-post it all, verbatim. The site is an identical copy of “EPautos.” The guy sells ads, makes money off my work and reputation – and not only that, dilutes the value of this EPautos.
That makes him a maggot – a parasite – in my book.
“The guy sells ads, makes money off my work and reputation – and not only that, dilutes the value of this EPautos.”
Nope, disagree again. You have no ownership rights over your reputation. Your reputation is the collection of the opinions of others. The thoughts of others and the thoughts of others do not belong to you so you have no right to them and hence no right to your reputation.
If someone wanted to make a mirror EPAutos.com then it wouldn’t be called ericpetersautos.com and everyone would know it’s a mirror site, and the market would weed it out. LRC wouldn’t link to the mirror it would link to you etc…
You seem to be treating “print media” and “digital media” ideas put into production differently than any other kind of ideas put into production. They are not. Once an idea is produced it is bought and sold and ownership rights assigned like any other. In the case of your website, it is free. If you wanted to charge a monthly fee you could but as you pointed out it would be more difficult since it’s e-media and someone would free-ride.
I think your ire is at the medium that makes it so easy to diseminate information.
Agreed, the guy who would try to mirror your site is a douche bag, but he has every right to be a douche bag as long as he’s not violating your rights (not laws) and he’s not.
“Agreed, the guy who would try to mirror your site is a douche bag, but he has every right to be a douche bag as long as he’s not violating your rights (not laws) and he’s not.”
But if he is taking my work – and is using my work to make money – then he has violated my rights.
The fact that I am powerless to stop him (for all practical purposes) doesn’t change the nature of thing. The fact that it’s harder to for random people to take the product of your labor doesn’t make it less wrong to take mine.
Dear Eric, Don,
Agreed, the guy who would try to mirror your site is a douche bag, but he has every right to be a douche bag as long as he’s not violating your rights (not laws) and he’s not.
This is probably the crux of the whole knock down drag out debate!
I’m convinced that free market anarchism can evolve private sector, free market mechanisms that will ensure that creative people are rewarded financially for their output — without resort to state conferred monopoly privileges that involve brute force physical coercion against alleged “pirates” of alleged “IP.”
A famous case was LOTR:
In the early 1960s Donald A. Wollheim, science fiction editor of the paperback publisher Ace Books, claimed that The Lord of the Rings was not protected in the United States under American copyright law because Houghton Mifflin, the U.S. hardcover publisher, had neglected to copyright the work in the United States.
Ace Books then proceeded to publish an edition, unauthorized by Tolkien and without paying royalties to him.
Tolkien took issue with this and quickly notified his fans of this objection. Grass-roots pressure from these fans became so great that Ace Books withdrew their edition and made a nominal payment to Tolkien.
Authorized editions followed from Ballantine Books and Houghton Mifflin to tremendous commercial success. By the mid-1960s the novel had become a cultural phenomenon.
This is not a panacea, but it clearly shows that the free market place is not impotent in the face of such problems, and can address them without resort to violations of the NAP.
Ah! There you go Bevin, you made the point I was clumsily attempting earlier.
There IS such a thing as decency; and in a completely free world, I believe it will compensate authors sufficiently.
For example, I regularly throw 20 bucks or so at the Firefox guys; because it’s something I use hours per day and I appreciate it so much I freely give toward it. I’m “paying” voluntarily.
Likewise if someone did what you describe Eric–blatantly ripping you off–I’d be indignant on your behalf and call them out on it, while encouraging others to go to the original site.
Isn’t that what “voluntaryist” means, after all?
Eric remember too, we live in an amoral society. Freedom breeds better morality, because it has survival value. Our present system erodes those finer (and coarser too) morals.
Yup – it’s the ethical aspect I’m driving at.
It’s just not cool to take other people’s work for your profit. To expect, in effect, them to work for free. Not by their choice. But because the system is such that they have no real choice.
Musicians and writers are compelled to work much harder to earn less money simply because it’s so easy for people to avail themselves of their work product for free or next to nothing. The fact that it is easy – so easy that for many people it’s an unconscious act, done without bad intent – doesn’t make it right.
It’s not that writers and musicians are entitled to earn “more.” It’s that they have a right not to have their work relentlessly devalued simply because people have easy access to it as a result of new technologies.
They aren’t demanding to be paid for make-work or to be subsidized. Only that they paid for the work they do.
Technology – the misuse of technology – has made it easy to avoid paying them. It has enserfed them. It has harmed them.
I don’t like to harm people – and that’s why I am uncomfortable with the idea of using other people’s work in the way described for monetary gain.
I don’t think it’s the decent thing to do. I think the decent thing to do is to respect that other people’s work isn’t “there for the talking” just because you can take it.
Write your own books and articles. Write and perform your own music. Make a fortune from your hard work and creativity.
Don’t be a parasite and a maggot – sucking the blood of someone else’s creativity and work.
Philosophically I am probably more in agreement with you.
One should not profit from the work/labor of another without their consent/permission.
This idea could also be extended into the field of photography.
On a practical level, I am not sure how one can effectively protect one’s work from being used by others for their profit.
I am not sure how many sales would be lost from people taking stuff without paying. In some cases, I would think that people would not buy something if they thought the price as too high. OTOH, if the price was low enough or free they would be willing to get a copy.
There are many books/CDs/DVDs/etc. that I did not buy because I considered the price too high for my situation. If I came across a copy that was at a lower cost to me, I would consider getting it.
When I took classes, I looked online for school books, since the cost was very high and I was trying to save money. I did not care where the book came from so long I could get the book in time for my classes and save some money.
Depending on the product being purchased, I would be willing to purchase something at a higher cost if I perceived I was getting a better value overall (service, quality, etc.) for the money spent.
Back to music: I think part of the reason that many musicians go on tour is due to tours being one way that they can keep much of the money generated.
Music put out through a label gives them a (much) smaller percentage of the money generated.
Yup – in our theoretical ideal society, most people would behave decently of their own accord. (They would have to – or else the society would be impossible.) The few who did not behave decently could be dealt with as pariahs – by shunning.
The problem we have as regards the issue under discussion is there’s no stigma attached to taking the work product of writers and musicians and using it to make a buck. People – too many people – think it’s ok.
Or think nothing of it.
I doubt they’d think this way if the tables were turned – and their work product was taken from them or devalued to such an extent as a result of taking that it became virtually worthless… to them. Meanwhile, the maggots who took it are making money for themselves.
All that’s changed is the technology which has made it easy to simply take the work of writers and musicians with impunity.
A person with good intentions, who is trying to do the right thing, will ask – and honestly answer: Am I causing harm?
If the answer is yes, then one should act accordingly.
Here’s another example to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.
I’ve got a very loud motorcycle. I could fire it up and rev the engine at two in the morning. There’s no law forbidding it (and I would not want such a law). But I don’t do it – rev the bike’s engine at two in the morning – because I know it’s obnoxious; that doing so just isn’t right as a matter of good conduct. It’s an ethical restriction I impose on myself, and one which I hope my neighbor will extend to me in turn.
The alternative is incivility – and inevitably, government.
Dear meth, Eric,
Creative people must be fairly compensated.
The question is “How?”
As some of the back and forth suggests, solutions are not beyond reach, and need not be incompatible with liberty.
In any event, I highly recommend the articles at the Molinari Institute website on the non-IP, anti-IP views on copyright and patents.
Written work (and music) is fungible in a way that other people’s work is not. This places writers and musicians in a uniquely vulnerable position. But the question (as I see it) is: Does fungibility – and vulnerability – amount to an ethical sanction to exploit that fungibility and vulnerability?
I want to leave aside for now the issue of redress and focus on the ethics of taking/using something you didn’t create or pay for to enrich yourself at the expense of the person who did create it.
I think it’s disingenuous to equate – as an example – the unlimited use of some tangible thing you’ve bought (a car, say)… your right to drive it, to sell it, to modify it, to give it away – and so on – and the notion that because you bought a book (or album or DVD) that gives you the right to reproduce it and re-sell it.
Technology has facilitated fraud, in my opinion – but not made it ethically acceptable.
If you’re asking whether I think it’s something “wrong,” that people should not do, I believe I already answered that.
They should not. I know I would not.
I would not, to use your previous example, mirror your website and attempt to profit from it.
But… as we libertarians know better than anyone else, many things that are “bad” or “wrong” must not be made “illegal.”
Many addictive drugs are objectively harmful to human health, but libertarians are pretty much unanimous in their opinion that people must be free to sell them to people willing to buy them.
The issue of “IP” cannot be settled on the basis of whether I or anybody else considers it “bad” or “wrong.”
It must be settled on the basis of whether “intellectual content,” which is non-physical, can legitimately be considered “property.”
“So I must compensate the guy who threw the bag of trash in the dumpster if I find something of value in the bag? Or if I find his sheet music or his recently rejected novel in the bag?”
Again, you’re arguing against something I haven’t tried to defend. If someone throws something away – or gives something away – then of course, he has done just that: Given it away.
But that is not what I have been talking about.
I also want to expand on something touched on in my previous post; i.e, explicit and implicit “conditions of use.” If an item is sold under condition that it not be re-sold or used for commercial purposes, that’s a contract – one you’re free to accept (by purchasing the item under the terms stated) or not. If you do accept it – by making the purchase and knowing that’s a condition, clearly stated (as it is on the inside cover of books, CDs and so on) then you’re ethically obliged to respect those terms, are you not? Because implicit in those terms is that the price paid for the item reflects personal use – not commercial use. To then use the item for a commercial purpose is to defraud the originator of the work, is it not?
Of course, much of this comes down to etiquette. Ideally, people would refrain from being assholes. (And it’s an asshole move to record a concert and then sell the recordings; or to reproduce/sell a writer’s work, etc.)
“If an item is sold under condition that it not be re-sold or used for commercial purposes, that’s a contract”
A contract is when both parties are aware of AND understand the details of the terms of the contract, and both parties accept to the terms. Typically there’s a neutral third party to verify all this.
To say that writing something on a book or CD cover constitutes a contract (offer, understanding, acceptance, witness) is a stretch. I believe you that there are such conditions written on CD’s and books but I can’t honestly say I’ve ever seen them or I did see them but didn’t read them because it was ‘fine print’.
Also, the check out girl is not the second party of contract nor is he/she an authorized surrogate to speak on the other party’s behalf. There is no way to ensure that the purchasing party is aware and understands the details of the contract.
If that’s all it takes for a contract to be valid then when you sell a car or bike you should etch a “condition of sale” in the vehicle somewhere that says: “upon sale of this vehicle you owe me an annual stipend of $1000 for the life of or sale of said vehicle.”
Well, that’s lawyer-ese. Let’s stick with ethics – what’s right, or wrong.
Expropriating someone else’s work strikes me as wrong. And that’s what you’re doing when you make an identical copy of something and re-sell it, or use it to make money.
People should quit being parasites.
Isn’t that ultimately what we’re opposed to?
Don writes: “If that’s all it takes for a contract to be valid …”
You’re right about that Don and what some publishers have done to get around that problem is to put a sticker on the packaging that the buyer must remove, which reads something like “by breaking this seal you agree to the terms and conditions of purchase”. Usually the seal is on something inside the box and the terms and conditions can be read without breaking it.
And that’s how they get around the cashier problem you mention.
“You really believe that if someone gives something away for free that they retain some ownership control over it after it’s in your possession?”
Convoluted as it might seem, there’s a huge example of that very thing occurring in the Open Source software community. It’s called the General Public License or GPL and it was originated by a guy named Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation. It allows an author to give away a work of software while at the same time constraining the recipient from selling the software or from modifying it and selling the result. If the software is modified and the binaries are given to another person, the modified source code must be delivered along with it.
So even though your rhetoric doesn’t necessarily make sense in the context of music or novels found in garbage cans, the answer is a resounding Yes! according to international IP law; a person may in fact give something away to you while retaining ownership control over it.
@Eric – “The mere act of creation, composing a song, penning a novel or inventing a mousetrap, gives the creator control over the tangible property of others” ~ Stephan kinsella
This is what I was referring to. You own your creativity but once you put that creativity into a product and put that product on the market and sell it or give it away, that product belongs to the purchaser now. You have no claim over it.
You must see the “statist” backdrop of all this. Claiming some control over something that you chose freely to sell or make public.
But that’s exactly it! I don’t “choose freely to sell” to the people who just take my work without compensation or even permission.
What I’m driving at is third party commercial use of property without permission or compensation.
You buy a book or a record. You’re entitled to read/listen to it, to share with friends. But if you make copies and sell those copies to make money, you’re defrauding the original creator. Here’s why:
The price you paid originally was based on the idea that you were buying the material for non-commercial purposes. This is both explicit (literally, stated right there on the label/flyleaf) and implicit. Otherwise, very few writers would ever bother to write, if they knew they were – in effect – giving away their work. Ditto musicians.
Perhaps authors and musicians should price their stuff such that they can make a living off the initial sales – because the way things are now, they can’t make a living due to all the uncompensated taking that’s going on.
Of course, then there’d be very little in the way of new books – and music.
Beware the false choice / Hegel Dialectic.
There are hundreds of intermediate systems between the old way where everyone was a paying customer, and the new way where everyone is gluttenous free-shit-family pirate.
A new Cyber-UniformCommercialCode is way overdue. Corporations should be banished from the internet. Why not a world of value exchange between the many microconsumers and the few macroproducers, which is the true situational reality.
Why not something new. Cybershare law says, infringers accumulate demerits infringees accumulate perks. You enter a platinum level creator code and your TV shows have no commercials, you get all cable channels in all systems of the world. All media of the world is at your beck and call. Your food rings up with a 99.8% discount at the supermarket. Rock concerts, Nascar races, you get a 99.8% discount wherever you go, cause you’re a producer.
We need quid-pro-quo not quid-pro-jail or quid-pro-outrageous fine. In a fair world, the most valuable humans might be sexual entertainers and life-endangering daredevils, why restrain their just desserts due to the well-worn cages and whips of the PTB(Psychopaths That Be)
“You buy a book or a record. You’re entitled to read/listen to it, to share with friends. But if you make copies and sell those copies to make money, you’re defrauding the original creator. ”
Naaaah. That’s handing power to sociopaths to enforce your will. Once you perform your music in public or publish your book, it’s out there and will be used by others. To stick to my own principles, I can’t sic Porky on anybody for recording a song I write or for reprinting a book of mine, no matter that they make money from it.
“Perhaps authors and musicians should price their stuff such that they can make a living off the initial sales – because the way things are now, they can’t make a living due to all the uncompensated taking that’s going on.
Of course, then there’d be very little in the way of new books – and music”
A bigger challenge to making a living from writing music or literature is the big time screwing the creative person gets from the publishers and promoters. You didn’t like the idea of Kindle editions because there was no chance of a big advance, but take a look at how much you got per copy for your books. If the Kindle version lists for $10 ( and you set the price) and you get $7 for each download, isn’t that more than you got from the publisher per copy?
Anyway, people who compose music and write lyrics are going to do it whether they can make a living at it or not. The same is true for authors. Fish are gonna swim, birds are gonna fly and people with the creative urge are gonna create.
It can’t be that difficult, someone has a vested interested in this insane system, probably the usual psychopaths.
Imagine a TLD(top level domain) .pay. Your browser is only able to resolve sites in this domain as either pictures, sound, or video games.
Whether you have a PC, tablet, or smartphone, all you have in your hand is a “dumb terminal” while visiting this domain.
The underlying coding and files in this .pay domain are unintelligible to you. Just like a cable box or satellite receiver, unless you’re a sith level hacker, you’re either going to pay for content or not get it.
Digital TV, Digital Radio, Cable, Satellite, and Internet are most likely kept firewalled off from each other for nefarious anti-individualist reasons to maintain state dominance, I doubt it’s an unbreachable technical divide.
I disagree that taking defensive action/seeking recompense (or at least, asserting the right to) when one’s rights are violated means one is “handing power to sociopaths to enforce your will.” The relevant issue here is simply: Have my rights been violated? If they have, the rest is just procedural.
“Used” is vague and can mean many things. I have no issue with uses that aren’t commercial. But when someone copies/re-sells my work, it’s theft just as much as if they stole your work. Why is it that the work produced by writers and musicians is to be short-shrifted and held to a lesser standard of rightful ownership?
Put in simple, country-boy terms: If it ain’t yours, don’t take it. The fact that something’s available/easily taken doesn’t make it ok to take it. Someone worked hard to produce whatever it is – you didn’t produce it. You didn’t pay for it. It’s not yours.
Another perspective: Has the creator of the work been harmed? Has the NAP been violated?
It seems to me the answer is obvious. Not only are writers and musicians deprived of rightful income outright, whatever income they do get is much diminished as a result of the “Fed Effect” of the copies devaluing the original. I’ll give you an example:
Magazines and newspapers that used to pay me $500-$1,500 for a 1,000 word article now pay $75 to $150 (if they pay at all). Because they know that the moment the article is published, it will appear elsewhere (and for free) negating the exclusivity that used to impart value to their publication – and which in turn allowed them to charge people to read – which in turn enabled them to pay the people who wrote the stuff.
Bottom line, people who take/sell other people’s work are aggressing against them. They are talking someone else’s work for their gain – harming the person who did the work.
And that’s the nut of my objection – and the reason why I do support copyright, at least when it is used to prevent people from simply taking someone else’s work, copying it, and making money from it.
Yes, I see your side of it, eric. I see it differently because I don’t actually write for a living. I only meant to speak for myself, and should have said so.
Being a professional writer, you do have a right to seek redress in any way available to you. I really didn’t mean to put it the way I did.
Eric in a pure AnCap, your PDA would enforce your right to your work…IF you belonged to a PDA that did that.
Others might belong to PDA’s that don’t enforce copyright.
Ech…it would be quite interesting.
At the end of the day, I suspect it would Just Work Out; especially considering we’d all be about four times as rich (twice as much money with zero taxes, things cost half as much for the same reason). With that much money, we’d probably be more ethical about “stealing” IP.
“especially considering we’d all be about four times as rich (twice as much money with zero taxes, things cost half as much for the same reason).”
I mentioned that in an earlier post to Don, I think.
Dear Meth, Eric,
“At the end of the day, I suspect it would Just Work Out; especially considering we’d all be about four times as rich.”
Whenever in doubt, I never say, “There oughta be a law.”
I always say, “Freedom works. Trust it to work.” People never tolerate unresolved problems. It’s in our nature to seek solutions. We just need to remain free to find them and apply them.
I suspect this “IP” conundrum is only persisting because cloverite controls have frozen the problem in its current semi-free, semi-controlled state, with its copyright laws, patent laws, ambulance chasers, prosecutors, and judges.
Jettison this statist baggage!
Do any of us, especially hardcore market anarchists, really believe the problem would persist, and creative people remain uncompensated?
I always say, “Freedom works. Trust it to work.” People never tolerate unresolved problems.
Yes, exactly! People have been conditioned that government solves problems. That problems are solved through the application of violence. Rid them of that conditioning and better solutions will naturally come into being.
Bevin, once again you provided me with a key piece missing from my thinking. Filled in another gap.
I’m on your side, guys – insofar as wanting liberty (and not wanting government). I recognize the danger you both have brought up and – just as I am willing to accept the possibility of greater risk (and even the occasional harm) in other areas (such as driving and the issue of “speeding” and “sobriety” checks, etc.) in exchange for the sure thing that comes with more liberty, I am quite content to accept that there may be risks and even harms as a result of abandoning the idea of enforceable IP rights.
What it comes down to, for me, is the ethical question (as I have explained previously). For the same reason that I would avoid driving when I know myself to be significantly impaired – irrespective of “the law” – so also would I not take/copy someone else’s article, or book or movie or song and reproduce the thing for purposes of financial gain. Because it’s (as I see it) an asshole move – and I try not to be an asshole.
Thanks for the kind praise.
As usual, not due to any brilliance on my part.
Merely the application of earnest, even ingenuous common sense reasoning.
It’s funny. All the Rhodes Scholars and Fullbright Scholars purportedly “running the country” can’t (or won’t) figure out what ordinary run of the mill Gen Y supporters of Ron Paul already know — “Those who are governed the least, are governed the best.”
I strongly suspect the solution to the problem of just compensation absent “IP” would simply go away if market forces were given free rein.
The answers are probably not subsumed within the “either/or” alternatives that Eric and I were struggling with.
They’re probably contained within “lateral thinking” that nobody has happened on yet.
That’s one of the difficulties champions of laissez faire, especially market anarchists, constantly face — demands from clovers that we lay out in detail how this or that problem would be solved without the blessings of government.
The fact is, we can’t know for sure. Not in advance. Nobody can.
Privatized road systems, privatized consumer safety measures, privatized reward systems for creators of literary or musical content included.
Not to worry.
I for one, have absolutely no doubt about your commitment to natural rights and individual liberty.
I understand completely that this is one of those difficult areas where sincere libertarians can disagree due to their differing understandings of “life, liberty, and property.”
Another such area is abortion. Ron Paul for example, considers the embryo a human being with rights.
I think he’s wrong. I think the embryo is only a future, potential human being. Future, potential, is not current.
But the point is I know Paul is not a clover attempting to rationalize statist tyranny.
Ditto Ayn Rand and “IP.”
One of the copyright cases I’ve read about was a guy who bought cheaper editions of textbooks overseas, shipped them to the USA, and sold them to students here. He didn’t copy them, he didn’t make pdf’s of them. He bought the property and then resold it at a profit. He was successfully sued for copyright infringement. For going against the market boundaries set by the manufacturer.
The automotive industry has these market barriers hard coded into law, but the book publishers still have to sue in civil court apparently.
The point is this implied use contract becomes things like this. It’s implied that the book is not purchased for resale elsewhere… who knows what else. It means never really owning what one purchased, merely renting it under conditions.
I have trouble with intellectual property because it is rarely a tool of the little guy. The little guy is stuck in the system or he gets stomped by it. IP law rarely serves him. Getting rid of it may be scary, but I think it might work better in the end. There’s got to be a reason the corporatist powers are the forces behind the new IP laws. It’s clearly not coming from the little guy. Congress critters don’t even listen to them.
The example you gave is precisely why authors (and musicians) are paid a fraction of what they used to earn – if they’re paid anything at all. Because as soon as they produce something, someone else will just take it and flood the market with copies of it. Few people will pay for that which they can obtain for free. But the fact that they can obtain it for free doesn’t mean it’s right for them to obtain it for free.
The example I gave is someone who purchased books from retail stores in another country and brought them into the USA to sell at a profit. He didn’t make any copies.
The publisher of the text books would sell soft cover editions with B&W photos in foreign countries. In the USA only a hardcover with color was sold by them. Many US students were fine with the lesser edition, just like you prefer a more basic car.
Let’s say GM made this simplified lighter weight version of the camaro and sold it in *roll dice* Saudi Arabia. Let’s say there were no laws blocking importation. Someone imported these camaros to the USA. He purchased them retail overseas fair and square. He’s selling them in the USA. GM sues him.
Who’s side are you on? The importer or GM?
That’s what this case on textbooks is about.
Music artists have been ripped off by the music publishers since the days of sheet music. I vaguely remember reading the story of an early jazz artist who got ripped off by the sheet music publishers. I think it was Jelly Roll Morton but my memory is vague. Key to the story for us car guys was that he had this Lincoln he bought at the height of his career that was about the only thing he had towards the end as battered as old as it was.
Textbooks aren’t really a good example as they are effectively an enforced vanity press with a huge and completely artificial (not free market) mark-up. Professor X places his own book (this is done) on the course syllabus at $75 each. These books are unsalable on the free market, but students are forced (if they wish to take the course) to get a copy.
Your Camaro example doesn’t work well, either. You describe a “simplified lighter weight version of the Camaro.” In other words, a different Camaro. Right?
No problem there, either.
But let’s say someone made a literal, exact copy of the Camaro – down to the name on the fender and “body by Fisher” on the doorsill plate. That I would have a problem with.
And that’s what happens when some schmuck takes someone’s article or book or album or DVD – and re-sells copies of them.
It’s just not right, mang.
At least, it doesn’t pass the smell test for me.
I’ll take a step back…
In making/selling products, they are often customized for different markets. What I am discussing is that market customization.
In foreign countries people are poorer and/or cannot get loans to cover educational expenses. Thus they can’t afford the fully loaded textbooks. Thus the market, there being less interfered with, resulted in the textbook publisher selling stripped down, cheaper versions. No hard cover, no color, etc and so on.
It’s the same with a car. It might be, for whatever reason stripped of the hundred airbags and countless other crap. It’s the same car, it is just sold with less stuff. Or it could even be an older model. Say GM still sold the 1970s generation firebird somewhere. It’s done by a lot of companies.
Would you find fault with the importer who brought these products into the USA for resale at profit? He sees a market that the publisher or GM isn’t serving in the USA. So he buys the legitimate product in another market and brings it to the USA for resale.
He’s not copying anything. He’s just buying in one place, hauling it to another and selling it. The product is made by the manufacturer who holds the copyrights and patents. They just don’t sell it that way in the USA.
According to court decisions, this is violation of intellectual property.
This is a great back-and-forth, Brent (and Bevin and Don) and I just wanted to say that – and also let you all know I’m not mad at any of you guys; just trying to sort out the problem.
Music – and written works – are (often) the work of a single individual – as opposed to (for example) a car, which is the product of a corporation. Can a corporation have property rights? Rights at all?
I return to the question of harm done.
Is the writer/musician harmed by others using his work for monetary gain (or diminishing the value of the work through reproduction/”free” dissemination)?
It seems to me the answer is, yes.
To be very clear, let me restate what I stated previously:
My ethical issue is with taking someone else’s work and reproducing it, then selling it for monetary gain. That strikes me as freeloading. As parasitical. As theft.
On a small scale (such as someone copying a DVD or CD and giving the copy to a friend) it’s relatively harmless, but the principle’s the same. This can clearly be seen (as I see it) by extrapolating the aforesaid by thousands or millions of people copying/giving away the item (or selling it a minimal cost, with the copier receiving all the profit).
Once the practice becomes accepted and commonplace (as it has) it becomes virtually impossible for writers and musicians to earn a living from their work. Yet their work is earning others a living – or providing a “free” benefit at the expense of the writer/musician.
That strikes me as ethically dubious, if not outright wrong.
On the other hand, I’ve got no issue with someone taking someone else’s idea and developing it on their own. For example: Franklin invents the Franklin stove; someone else builds a stove that’s based on the same principle – but it’s a different physical item. It’s not the same thing. Similar, yes – but not the literally identical stove.
After I did “Atrocities,” at least two books I’m aware of came out that were very clearly inspired by mine. But the written material was different – someone else’s work. So, ok with me.
But if some guy takes my book, gets a Chinese print shop to knock off 50,000 copies and then floods the market with them for $10 a piece he’s fucking me not just out of the $10 per he makes off each copy of my book, he is fucking up the sales of the “real” book – costing me that, too.
As a purely ethical question (leaving aside the matter of how it ought to be dealt with) is it right – decent, proper – to just copy someone else’s work, without their consent, for purposes of making money, without any consideration given to the losses this necessarily imposes on the work’s creator?
You tell me.
Eric I’d like to comment on your example of the Franklin Stove– not just because it’s now possible to duplicate *identically* a physical object, but because the issue of whether or not the item is identical seems to be a problem even with digital media like music, books and films. The problem even occurs with software.
Digital media that are copied are rarely identical and it takes significant labor on the part of the copier to perform the translation. Why shouldn’t the copier take money in compensation for that effort?
Maybe an example is in order. A publisher puts out a DVD format movie. The buyer purchases it, then copies it onto his computer using some copy/library management tool and put the DVD in a box in his attic and never looks at it again.
Under current law, the buyer has committed a Federal Crime and may be subject to 5 years imprisonment and $250,000 in fines. The outfit that wrote the software that conversted the DVD into a format the computer could use is subject to even more sever prosecution. All this for a simple format conversion with no gain on the part of the buyer.
On top of all this, the result of the copy is not an identical duplicate of the original. There’s no point in converting the DVD in the first place if you’re just making an identical copy. The whole reason for making the copy was to convert it to a different format and maybe remove all the junk advertising.
I think you’re probably going to agree that this non-commercial use should be ok, but it isn’t. On top of that, the copied work isn’t identical; value was added by the software developer who wrote the conversion tool, but by law that person can’t offer the product for sale or even give it away.
So the “identical” distinction doesn’t hold up under current IP law. Perhaps there is where the law, which was written by people who wouldn’t understand the difference between a format conversion and a wingnut, is broken.
This is about to become far more troubling in light of three dimensional printing.
Copying in China. I’ve already dealt with this for my work. I’ve designed stuff that within days of shipping there was knock off stuff and accessories in stores in China. (This product’s primary market was China BTW, and is the only made-in-China product I’ve ever had a part of. Sourcing for parts however is always global)
Accessories were a big deal, the look of the product was a big deal too. They could copy the accessories very fast. What did my employer do? Nothing. While there is some sorts of IP law in China there was no doing anything about it.
The product made its money, went through its life cycle, and went out of production. It was followed by the new hot thing in a few months which was in turn followed by something else and so on.
The knockoffs were never quite the same. They were cheapened. Much like pirated music is often badly copied. Where books don’t have the same paper or you’re reading a badly scanned PDF. That’s the reality out there. While it is possible to make an exact copy of the music as an mp3, that’s rarely the case IME. It’s usually degraded somehow. Copiers aren’t much into quality and to even rip a CD right takes attention to detail. By the time you find that good copy out there, you’ve probably used more time than just earning the money to buy the CD would have taken.
I saw on LRC ages ago, someone who was trying to move digital music beyond the over compression of the mp3. Beyond even the CD. He wanted to innovate to bringing better quality to people. And that’s what it takes. The copier is always second-rate if that’s all he does.
All it means is a shortened life cycle really. It means innovating more. It means that things naturally revert into the public domain.
A product I put into the market 3-4 years ago now has competition. I wanted to do generation two right after I was done with generation one. Of course leadership where I work has a build-it-forever patent mentality. Well now in the next week or two I’ll be starting the first steps to generation two. Problem is, the competition already took product improvements I wanted to make.
Now I have a big uphill battle, because they probably patented it. After all mine got patented. But generation two never got past conceptual. I might be able to use those notes, maybe not. But likely I’ll have to work around their patents now if I want to get the price down.
Innovate or die. That’s all I can say. It’s what I was brought up under. Newer, better, faster, cheaper…. Last year’s product is last year’s product. Same with a book or song or anything else. One has to have faith that people want the real thing and want it right away.
Music and books have always been short lived items as far as their ‘hot’ period. That’s where the money is made. I would not underestimate the ability of publishers and record companies to be using ‘piracy’ as BS excuse to screw over creators. It’s not like that isn’t their track record.
I don’t buy books the way I used to because simply I spend my reading time online 😉 Being able to interact occasionally is better than passively reading all the time. I’ve also gotten into works that aren’t available either. Oh do I hate reading books on the screen, but I’m not going to find these books at amazon or barnes and noble. Usually I get them from the -author’s- website or if it’s some 100 year old book, it’s up on google or archive.org or something.
I absolutely concede the practical issues you raise.
I’m just trying to get at the core ethical question: Is it right?
My mind – and heart – tell me, no.
Because it strikes me as wrong.
I’m not meaning to be a prig or a pedant. I understand that life is nuanced and that there are shades of gray. I am not advocating Inspector Javert-like pursuit of every “infringement.” I know it’s not possible, for one – and even if it were, many of these instances involve no malicious intent and cause little specific harm.
Still, I don’t like it. I would not like it done to me. Therefore, I will not do it to others.
summoning my inner Colombo… just one more thing…
Product for other markets really can bounce back into the USA. It’s happened with stuff made along side stuff I’ve designed for the US market. Old designs stayed in production for places such as South America. Somehow it bounced back and ended up in a big box discounter’s stores in the USA.
This would have really angered federal regulators because the reason it went to south america was because it didn’t meet what US regulators said it had to, so they pulled it when they were informed they bought product not for sale in the USA. If the big store hadn’t been at risk from the feds they probably would have sold it.
This is a great back-and-forth, Brent (and Bevin and Don) and I just wanted to say that – and also let you all know I’m not mad at any of you guys; just trying to sort out the problem.
Right! I hear you loud and clear.
Like I said, I know from past experience that you are sincerely committed to natural rights and individual liberty, and are only trying to clarify what they are.
There is no disagreement about underlying principles, only about definition, specifically of the term “property.”
I converted to the “IP is bullshit” position relatively recently. Only a few years ago.
I myself am still sorting out all the logical implications.
Believe me, I know the gut level sense of “This ain’t right!” that you are referring to.
But I then read many market anarchist arguments at LRC and FEE proving that “intellectual property” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
Since then I haven’t been able justify the invocation of state violence against “pirates” of “IP.”
I agree with you ethically. I don’t get worked up about it. I worry more about making stuff that isn’t good enough to copy.
Also I rather run the hazards of copying to allow additive and derivative work now rather than 20 or 100 years later. If someone patented the best way to do something it could send things down the wrong path for decades.
Plus I’m really good at building on the work of others. To take it to the next level. Patents prevent that. That’s not really an issue for copyright with fair use and all. Someone can write their own book and cite yours. Patents not so much.
Thanks for all the insights into your industry. Here is my account of how I became an “infringer.”
In about 3rd grade, I started listening and recording college alternative music from a distant radio station.
All kinds of anti-establishment niche music was played. Songs with taboo themes and expletive laden anthems which raged against the PTB. I’m sure this station inspired some of its small audience to do what I did: Place record store orders for lots of albums that otherwise, one wouldn’t know about.
I made mixtapes from my collection and recorded songs directly from the radio as well, skipping the artist middlemen completely. I owe a great debt to all the talent and labor of those “starving artists” for the impact they had on my development, though of course my mental debt never paid their bills.
In retrospect, it became a type of second-hander looter activity, where I mostly recorded my music. “Infringing” is a magical type of looting where the lootee suffers no direct loss of property, and doesn’t even know you exist.
Over the years, I enjoyed the status of having a collection of music my peers had no conception of amassing. Rather than being a fan and patron of the artists, I kept my source confidential and basked in the alpha-nerd glory of being the only one of my peers with such an adult eclectic collection of cool music.
The karma of giving away mixtapes then, or digital files today, is exactly as you say. People are happy to get free stuff, but don’t display the same level of thanks or gratitude they do when acquiring your property through “legitimate” channels.
Second-handerism is the new norm, and I am loathe to invite the state in to crush it. Unquestionably though, the best and most rewarding policy is to trade one’s own creations, and not be either a “legitimate” or an “infringing” second-hander at all.
Even though you and James Altucher live under vastly different circumstances, you do have being published on Lew Rockwell in common. I’m posting these just in case any of it applies to you or to any of the other prolific posters here.
James Altucher on self-publishing.
What if Dom started hosting some new premium stuff behind a paywall subdomain on your sites? members.epautos dot com, premium.clovercam dot com or thecloverclub dot com or whatever?
– – – –
SUBSCRIBE NOW TO TheCloverClub dot com AND WE’LL GIVE YOU 6+ MONTHS FREE!
If you haven’t yet had the chance to become a Cloverclub subscriber, now is the perfect opportunity! As a holiday season gesture we’re offering 12 months worth of subscription for the low price of just $19.95 – that’s over 5 months free when compared to the month to month price!
So if you want to enjoy monthly high quality MP3 downloads of The Eric Peters Show, live weekly 2 hour video streaming call in podcasts with epautos members, along with access to dozens of special auto reviews, articles, and pre-recorded documentaries and behind the scenes footage, as well as advance viewing access to Eric Peters’ upcoming Libertarian blockbuster novel Freedom Ride, then simply go to xxxxx dot member dot signup dot php and select the 2013 Spring Break Special.
But hurry, because this limited time offer will not last long! For more information on what you get for your subscription visit xxxxxxx dot com.
Still not sure? You can get a trial monthly membership for just $2.95 and cancel at any time.
All of that is great, except it doesn’t work.
Yes, you can set up a site that’s pay-access only. The problem is that you can’t control someone copying what’s there – and disseminating it for free. Or rather, without paying the creator.
Reproducing a hard-copy book (especially if it has photos) is technically challenging and there are enforceable copyright laws in the event someone does.
With “e” (online) stuff, it is virtually impossible to restrict access to paying customers because people know they can get the material for free. Just Google it. Someone will have copied/scanned it – and put it up for the taking.
PS: Another profession that’s been decimated by “e” publishing is copy editing. These used to be salaried positions at every major paper and magazine. They did the valuable work of catching errors of fact, as well as errors of grammar and spelling. You may have noticed that even high-line, prestigious magazines are now routinely suffused with embarrassing spelling and grammar errors. Reason? The writers copy-edit their own work. The copy editor has been eliminated. The writer does both jobs now – but gets paid for one (and much less than he used to for the one).
This has also coarsened discourse. We are regressing. Vulgarity is ascending.
As a writer – and so, someone who appreciates correct writing – I find it all very depressing.
“The problem is that you can’t control someone copying what’s there – and disseminating it for free. Or rather, without paying the creator.”
I don’t get or agree with copyrights. If I buy a piece of literature, then it belongs to me and I have every right to do with it as I please, including copy it.
How come there aren’t copyright laws against furniture? I can buy a chair from IKEA, and create an exact copy of it but nobody gives a shit about that.
It’s as if the cost of creating a copy is what determines whether it’s “wrong” or not. If the cost is high (building furniture) then it’s ok, if the cost is low (copying a CD) then the gov’t will increase the cost by outlawing it.
Just more impediments to innovation and invention similar to patents. Someone asked me once: “without patents how does anyone make money from their invention?” and I said: by continuously improving it and staying competetive.
But that’s much more difficult than just getting the gov’t to outlaw anyone else using your idea. Patents and copyrights, IMO, are just more gov’t enforcers for the mob. You pay your protection money (Patent) and they’ll make sure nobody messes with your idea.
I dunno, Don –
Copying furniture – you’ve produced something new. It’s not the same piece of furniture. It may be similar – but it’s a new thing.
Someone takes my book, which I created – and reproduces it. They haven’t created anything. They have merely taken something made by someone else.
It’s not cool – because it’s a form of aggression. It’s like using someone else’s car – or any other item of property – because it’s “there” and you have access to it.
Doesn’t make it right.
I agree that once you’ve bought a book you have every right to do with it as you wish. Rip it up. Lend it to whomever. Use it for toilet paper. Etc. But that does not include making more identical “its” (i.e., copies of the book) to disseminate without the author’s permission. By doing so, you are doing exactly the same thing the Fed does when it prints more money.
Writers (and musicians) are uniquely vulnerable because their work is so easy to steal.
Doesn’t make it right.
If it were possible to somehow break into a doctor’s mind and transmogrify his skill/learning into our heads, to be used for our benefit without asking the doctor’s permission or compensating him for the work he did and the years he spent acquiring his skill/learning, I expect most of us would see the ethical wrong.
How is that any different from just taking a writer’s work and using it as you please, without permission or compensation?
Did you create the work? Is it the product of your brain and body?
Also, consider this: If we “ok” the idea that it’s ok to just take whatever a writer (or musician) creates, simply because it’s “there” and because we can do so easily – then what incentive is there for people to write/create music?
Do you like to work for the unearned benefit of others?
Would you continue to work, knowing in advance that whatever you produce is effectively “common property,” freely available to anyone who wishes to take it?
You’re being morally inconsistent, regardless how distateful it might seem to you.
Borrowing someone’s car is not remotely the same. I did not pay for the car. I do not own the car.
“They have merely taken something made by someone else”
If they paid for your book then they’ve taken nothing. They purchased it and now they own it.
It’s surprising to me to hear you contend that doing with your private property as you wish is an act of aggression if it’s a “particular” kind of private property AND condoning gov’t mandates to boot.
I know it “seems” wrong because you are in the print media business but if you don’t like it then get into another business. Isn’t that what you’d say to someone complaining about making minimum wage?
You don’t want someone copying your shit? Don’t put it out there. Nobody’s forcing you. You want to produce something that isn’t so easily copied? Produce cars.
You seem to feel ‘violated’ that your creativity is being stolen, but it’s not, it’s being purchased. It’s the nature of your creative medium. Isn’t a car designer’s creativity sold with the car? A home designer’s? A fashion designer’s?
“you’ve produced something new. It’s not the same piece of furniture. It may be similar – but it’s a new thing”
A copy of a written page is also not the same written page. It too is similar but it’s an imperfect reproduction of the original just like a chair.
Disagree, Don – for all the reasons already mentioned.
The fact that it’s easy to copy – to take – printed material (and music) doesn’t justify the taking or make it different than taking the product of anyone else’s work.
It’s not yours.
Or rather: You buy a copy, you have a right to read/listen to that copy. It is yours. You don’t have the right to make copies of it for the benefit of others who have not compensated its creator.
I don’t “seem” to feel violated when someone (as an example) copies an article of mine without permission and posts it on their commercial web site, in order to profit from my work without paying me. I am violated. It’s theft – and aggression.
And thus, wrong.
“If it were possible to somehow break into a doctor’s mind and transmogrify his skill/learning into our heads, to be used for our benefit without asking the doctor’s permission or compensating him for the work he did and the years he spent acquiring his skill/learning, I expect most of us would see the ethical wrong.”
If I buy your book ( I didn’t sorry man, I’m not into cars ) then I didn’t break into your mind nor were you not compensated.
Buying your book, or sharing a copy of it with someone else, in no way imparts me or someone else with Eric Peter’s journalistic skills. I’d still be a shitty writer. It’s simply a product of those skills that I now own. I own the product not the skills. You own the skills and have every right to do with them as you please, including not use them to produce things that you think you will not be ‘adequately’ compensated for because of the nature of your business.
“If I buy your book ( I didn’t sorry man, I’m not into cars ) then I didn’t break into your mind nor were you not compensated.”
Oh, I agree – but that’s not what we’re talking about.
But if you buy my book – and then make copies of it, which you use to make money, then we’re talking about something rather different, are we not?
It’s not about “adequate” compensation; the amount is not the issue. The principle is.
Someone who just grabs an article of mine and republishes it for his benefit is a parasite and a thief.
I’ve experienced someone stealing software I and others created. They tried to compete. It did damage, they ultimately failed.
I know more about patents than copyright. But let’s say in the curent system I managed to go out on my own with something I created and patented. Megacorp could simply copy it entirely and exactly and then I have an uphill court battle to stop them. The system as it exists as I see it is to herd creative people into the system. Those that break from the heard often end up broken.
One supplier I worked with tells the tale of woe of how his prior company, the successful one, was taken by the banksters. He’s still fighting the good fight not knowing what he doesn’t know. Which is probably my problem, I’d be better off not knowing what I was up against.
I guess a big part of my attitude on copying is because I first worked out of school in the consumer electronics industry. Copiers were always behind. To be a copier meant being a no-body. It was an innovate, make the money, let the product die, come back with more innovation, rinse repeat. Not this make the same thing for decades with government protection deal.
Also I wouldn’t worry too much about the cheapskate who found a bittorrent download. That’s for people who have time but not money. They weren’t a customer anyway. The ROI on finding pirated stuff is negative for anyone who can earn a decent living. Even without copyright law, looking every night to see if someone had what you want to share up, and then fighting to get enough bandwidth to grab it, and so forth? Not worth it. Look at porn. Most profitable thing on the internet. Copied and pirated to the nth degree and has been since the days of 8bit computers and 300 baud modems. It hasn’t died.
I think the paper funny money, and constant threat of socialist appropriation of property skews the entire spectrum of human cooperation. We need sound money, and comprehensive deferred transactional settlement record keeping.
A true copyright would be indivisible and never removable from any duplicates.
This could be accomplished by mutual cooperation among productive gentlemen. Even from Gutenberg days, every press owner could intermix the attribution chain of original creators on every page in an permanent unobtrusive way. (watermark/hash total/check sum/unique seals)
Each of the now 6 billion bibles printed historically could reference the scribes they copied from. Scribes could reference the scribes they copy from. A UCC of references could be maintained.
Every photocopy, pasted text clipboard, duplicate file, mp3, flashvideo, should still provide a way to identify its maker.
Each creator would choose his own remedy. Record labels could block your video, insert ads of their choosing in your video, embed redirects to their content areas within “your” copy of their property.
The younger Cyber World deserves special privileges, being it is an emerging realm.
It makes little sense to allow content creator claims to overburden the internet until everyone suffers a loss of property.
Some kind of internet appliance could keep a cyberdollar bank of all infringements. Lets say Lady Gaga is owed 3 billion dollars. Perhaps each content creator on the WWW should be issued shares of the world wide web internet based on the total value of their infringement. These shares imply rights and authority of aspects of code and click through and advertising revenue.
Otherwise, what we have now is the following neagive trend: Primitive 3rd World Evicts Colonialists Yet Keeps Their Property, Old World Europe subjugates New World America, America subjugates Newer World Cyberspace.
Imagine that Kevin – a thief stole Larry’s bike from Larry’s yard a week ago. In my eyes, possession is 9/10ths of the law.
Primary claimant is Kevin the “new” owner because Larry “let” the bike leave his property. Larry failed to stop him in a timely fashion.
Under a NAP theory of property rights, the burden is on Larry to have a convincing method of proof that it is his bike. An even heavy burden is Larry has lost the opportunity to legitimately use force, when he negligently lost his personal property. He is only due the bike if he can get it back at a reasonable cost to everyone else.
Better that the proven theft be recorded in the record and Larry is forced to wait for the return. Larry should be encouraged to offer a lesser liquidated damage amount to resolve what in part was his own failure.
There are different degrees of aggression, there are no shortcuts, new thoughts are needed. If someone takes a picture of your daughter at the beach and runs off before you can catch him. You’re SOL unless her bathing suit had a barcode hidden in the fabric or she has a special tattoo on her for just such an occassion.
Nobody is due their day in court. Every trial has a cost and a benefit. The public cannot be forced by the gibsmedat justice mentality to provide infinite justice for every imagined slight.
“Writers (and musicians) are uniquely vulnerable because their work is so easy to steal.”
Would you say that if a musician didn’t write his music down, didn’t sell his music but that he just chose to play free concerts in the park from memory, that it would be ‘wrong’ for someone to listen to his concert and try to write the notes down as he was listening to be used for whatever he wanted?
According to everything else you’ve said your answer has to be “Yes”.
Because otherwise ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ would depend on the medium used (paper, electronic, from memory), the price of the good (free, sold), geographic location (within earshot, front row), intended use (personal enjoyment, for sale) etc…
But right and wrong do not change based on those things or anything. They have to be solid, consistent, as much as one hates to admit it. Moral inconsistency is the hallmark of the staties not moral men.
“Would you say that if a musician didn’t write his music down, didn’t sell his music but that he just chose to play free concerts in the park from memory, that it would be ‘wrong’ for someone to listen to his concert and try to write the notes down as he was listening to be used for whatever he wanted?”
I would have a problem with this: A musician gives a concert and someone records it – and then sells the recording – without the permission of the musician and without offering compensation.
That’s what I’m trying to get at here.
IPR is a Randian minarchist fallacy, that unfortunately allows the camel’s nose into the tent, and will eventually lead to the evils of maxarchism.
I used to buy it. But no longer.
The short rebuttal to “IPR” is encapsulated in this quote from Thomas Jefferson.
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
– Thomas Jefferson
The long answer is, needless to say, much, much longer.
I agree with regard to ideas.
But that is not the same thing as a finished work.
An idea is not an actuality – a finished work, is.
I have an idea for a book; someone else writes a book along similar lines. Fine; no conflicts or ethical issues.
I write a book – spend all the time/effort necessary to create it – and someone just takes the finished work and reproduces it.
I see these as qualitatively different.
Well, that was a nice primer for the Wenzel-Kinsela (IP vs. Anit-IP) debate coming up:
“I agree with regard to ideas. But that is not the same thing as a finished work. An idea is not an actuality – a finished work, is.”
I understand the distinction you made perfectly, from a creative perspective. I too, am a published writer and translator.
But from a natural rights perspective, it is unfortunately not possible to enforce “intellectual property” without authorizing the Leviathan State to resort to brute force physical coercion against individuals who are merely making use of their own bodies and real property.
Here is an article that lays out why.
Intellectual “Property” Versus Real Property
JUNE 12, 2009
Intellectual “property” (IP) is a sleeper issue. It seems uncontroversial: Someone invents or writes something and therefore owns it. What could be plainer? But IP contains the power to destroy liberty.
The crux of the issue is this: Do IP laws protect legitimately ownable things?
What does IP refer to? What exactly is owned? It is not ideas per se that are owned, according to the law.
Note that… ideas are said not to be the object of intellectual property. And yet, ultimately, it is ideas that are at issue. For what is a “form or expression of ideas” if not an idea? And what is a “practical application” of an idea if not an idea? When someone holds a copyright to a novel, she does not own all copies of the book in the world. And when someone holds the patent to the widget, he does not own every widget in the world. There’s no escaping that IP is about ideas.
There is another way to look at IP, but it is even harder to square with traditional property rights. When one acquires a copyright or a patent, what one really acquires is the power to stop other people from doing certain things with what is indisputably their own property. One can say that a copyright holder doesn’t actually own anything but the legal authority to stop other people from using their own equipment to copy a book or CD they purchased. And one who holds a patent on the widget actually only has permission to call on the state to stop others from manufacturing and selling widgets in factories they own.
IP is a peculiar form of property, indeed.
I dunno, Bevin –
“it is unfortunately not possible to enforce “intellectual property” without authorizing the Leviathan State to resort to brute force physical coercion against individuals who are merely making use of their own bodies and real property. ”
I give a concert singing (assuming I could!) Beatles classics. That’s me using my body. No problem there.
But if I take Paul McCartney’s voice – by recording it without his consent – and then sell the recordings – have I not violated McCartney’s right to “his own body”?
Is the recorder not in fact attempting to exercise control over someone else’s body? Is it not, therefore, a form of enslavement?
This is no doubt a difficult issue – at least, it is for me. I absolutely do not want to commit an act of ethical inconsistency or in any way violate the NAP. But that’s just it (as I see it). People are being aggressed against when their work is taken without compensation.
Few people in any profession would continue to produce under the same circumstances, but writers and other artists are expected to accept what few in any other profession would regard as acceptable, much less decent!
“Since “pirates” of “IP” did not resort to brute force physical coercion when they “pirated” my “IP,” they did not violate the NAP, and I cannot justify brute force physical coercion in response. ”
Bevin, I agree. Some people have stated the NAP in a way that includes fraud as “the initiation of force or fraud”, etc. I ask myself if a pirate’s use of my material would amount to fraud, and the answer is no.
The pirates aren’t fraudulently presenting themselves as the authors, or even as the owners of the right to produce copies. They are simply flauting a law made by people who have no legitimate authority over them.
I’ve seen bootleg copies of popular films being sold at flea markets while the film is still being shown in the theaters. They are usually made with digital video cameras in the theater and are poor quality, but that’s the only reason I don’t buy them.
It’s kind of silly the way the legitimate producers of films on DVD threaten the viewers of the DVD they just bought. There’s the old threat of the FBI, of course, but now they threaten you with the DHS and something else called the IPRC as well.
What’s really funny is the warning that Interpol has “expressed concern” over DVD piracy. Pirating is so widespread that it’s really sort of a non-crime these days.
This is no doubt a difficult issue – at least, it is for me. I absolutely do not want to commit an act of ethical inconsistency or in any way violate the NAP. But that’s just it (as I see it). People are being aggressed against when their work is taken without compensation.
It is a really tough question. I don’t doubt for a moment your commitment to natural rights and individual liberty.
I myself went through a transition period, similar to the transition period I went through when I forsook the limited government Classical Liberalism of Locke and the Framers for hardcore Daoist/Rothbardian market anarchism.
So I know it’s a tough nut to swallow.
I’m the author of two screenplays, one a psychological thriller, and the other a SF alien invasion tale.
Believe me, I am deeply ambivalent, at least feeling-wise, about openly asserting that “IP” is invalid!
The pirates aren’t fraudulently presenting themselves as the authors, or even as the owners of the right to produce copies. They are simply flauting a law made by people who have no legitimate authority over them.
For example, the movies and songs that have been uploaded to various torrent sites are not advertised as being the uploaders’ creations.
They are merely being offered for download, as is, take it or leave it.
However one might feel about them is one thing.
Is it despicable? Is it contemptible? Is it “wrong?”
From a rights perspective that is beside the point. From a rights perspective the only relevant question is “Was the NAP violated?”
This is a fascinating thread on a topic that has confused me. Here’s my perspective: I work for a publishing company. We spend millions of dollars creating content that will be useful to our subscribers. Without some form of protection, a single subscriber could destroy our business by paying the subscription price, then selling the content that we created for, say, $10 to thousands of people who would otherwise subscribe to our product.
That seems to me to be theft, but if there were no protection for IP, it would be perfectly legal. In that case, nobody would bother putting out useful information and analysis. Why would anyone spend all the money so that someone else could get all the profit?
Perhaps the anarcho-capitalist solution is contractual terms prohibiting resale of the content. But as Don has pointed out, those already exist but are ignored because people don’t read them. It would be possible to have everyone buying a book/CD/subscription or attending a live performance to sign a contract not to reproduce, etc., the content, but that would be an administrative nightmare.
Personally, I would prefer administrative nightmares to the existence of the state. But as long as we have government, it seems that copyright law is a simple way of providing contractual terms for the use of people’s publications or performances.
As I said at the beginning, this is a confusing issue. I will enjoy reading clarifications.
As someone who is also in the publishing biz, I know well the situation you describe. Please see my previous post in reply to Bevin.
The bottom line is, people need a moral-ethical compass. Without it, human society becomes a free for all and some form of authoritarian government becomes inevitable, because people will beg for it.
In the situation you describe, the person copying/selling the material is a scumbag. An asshole. Such people cannot be citizens of our theoretical free society. If there are too many such people, the society will devolve into chaos – and then, authoritarianism.
People must act decently – or they can expect indecent government.
It is a difficult issue. Emotions run high.
I highly recommend scanning through the article titles at
Molinari Institute Anti-Copyright Resources
and skimming through the articles that strike a chord.
The bottom line is whether one truly believes anarcho-capitalism/market anarchism/voluntaryism is workable, or whether one still needs a state monopoly on the use of force in certain areas of life.
I myself have concluded that property must be defined as physical.
Any attempt to define property as “intellectual,” and not just physical, must of necessity, intentionally or otherwise, lead to compulsive Cloverite control of other peoples’ behavior (translation: freedom).
The example of copyrighted choreography restricting how others may move their own bodies in one example.
Another is song copyrights. According to some accounts, a certain number of notes in progression can be copyrighted.
Minimum number of notes to be copyrighted? I believe it’s 8. I heard Stephen Schwartz speak on writing the music for the hit Broadway musical Wicked on how he would borrow some tunes from The Wizard of Oz, but only 7 notes, because that’s the limit to avoid copyright issues.
— posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:02 PM on February 12, 2005
Once that song/sequence of notes has been copyrighted, other people are prevented by law from playing those notes in the same progression.
Those notes [!] now “belong” to the song copyright holder. Those notes are now his “intellectual property.”
Such are the logical absurdities that the anti-concept of “intellectual property” lead to, as opposed to the real, natural rights concept of physical property.
There are two issues here, as I see it.
The first is the rightness of the notion of taking anyone’s work product without compensating them.
The second is whether there ought to be “a state monopoly on the use of force in certain areas of life. ”
As an ethical question, I condemn taking anyone else’s work product without compensating them. It’s an uncool thing to do. It involves harming them. It is an act of aggression against them. Thus, a violation of the NAP.
This is the principle at issue – as I see it.
Now, how to deal with it?
I suggest moral persuasion. As with so many of the other issues Anarchist and Libertarians have to wrestle with. Our proposed society must be an ethical society. If most people do not voluntarily behave decently, our society is simply not possible. Once a certain percentage of the populace becomes amoral, government almost necessarily becomes inevitable.
This is why it is essential to make the moral case – to convince people to do the right thing. Not because they have to – because they fear punishment – but because they want to be able to look themselves in the mirror and not be disgusted by what they see staring back at them.
@Mike re: intellectual property…
Mike, people WILL still create content. For example, I regularly contribute to open source programs–no pay, just glory. And a feeling of belonging to a community that’s given me more useful tools than I could ever repay.
Look at the wealth of software out there; the free stuff–not just Linux–but Firefox, Thunderbird…thousands of excellent programs, FREE. That’s intellectual property done right.
So how do we make our money? Writing for companies that pay well for proprietary code.
I don’t pretend I’ve worked it all out for myself yet with respect to books, both fiction and non-fiction, and other items currently covered by copyright law.
Perhaps in a pure AnCap/agorist society, the moral reproach for copying something without paying the author will keep the authors in rent money.
In fact just such a thing is happening on the music scene already. I’m not up to date, but last I heard Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails were completely self-publishing. Both ask nothing to download their work; you are free to pay or not.
Radiohead made more off their first self-published album than any of their studio-associated productions.
It’s late so I’m not fact-checking myself, just going off memory; please verify my statements.
But given what I see in software, I bet you could make a go without government thugscrums backing your efforts.
Royalties are referred to as royalties for a reason. They were privileges, not rights, granted by royalty.
Bear in mind, I am someone who has been published and who stands to lose from the free market anarchist abolition of copyright and patent “protection.”
For some of the strongest arguments against “IPR” see this website:
An excerpt from one article, penned by Ilana Mercer and N. Stephan Kinsella, frequent contributors to LRC.
Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?
Yes: They are a burden to marketplace transactions and discourage business startups.
Copyright and patent grants of privilege are another form of property infringement, courtesy of the state. While they have their origins in a much earlier privilege given to “friends of the crown,” in their modern incarnation they blend in with the welfare state’s wealth-distributing impetus. Far from being natural property rights grounded in the common law, patent and copyright are monopoly privileges granted solely by state legislation.
The mere act of creation, composing a song, penning a novel or inventing a mousetrap, gives the creator control over the tangible property of others. In addition to allowing the author partially to control the paper, ink, computer and photocopies of others, copyright in particular restricts not only our rights to our property, but to our very bodies. Consider the choreographer of a dance who gets the right to stop another from moving his body in a certain fashion.
It gets worse. You don’t have to be guilty of copyright violation to be constrained; doing something that might result in some third party making prohibited copies will suffice. A particularly rank example of prior-restraint legislation is the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
Patents, however, take the cake. The patent holder can prevent others from practicing invention even if, as is quite common, they arrive at the process quite independently. Happen to think of a new way to tune your car engine to get better gas mileage? Better hope someone else does not have a patent on that technique; he could stop you from twiddling with your own 1967 Mustang in your own garage.
Yup! Any gov’t barrier to entry is a privilege given to some – at a price of course – and a violation of the rights of others.
Excellent references and points. As a NAP anarchist, I can only say that way is one way that must be respected in my case.
Most likely in the greater world, copyright and lawsuits will be modernized but not eliminated.
I have sociokleptopathically obtained a lot of property through the open internet. Via big data and big algorithms in every computer could be made to recognize that fact and keep a tally.
Lets say I “owe” 2 million dollars to various creators. Just as my every cell keeps track of all kinds of biochemical data. Why can’t cyberspace keep equivalent tally of my infringing.
Each of my devices has an IP, my current IP provider knows all my device IPs. Why shouldn’t it also know I have a deficit of 2 million cyberbucks?
Upon my death, my largest claimant Robert Heinlein is owed $Cyb-100,000 and my smallest claimant, John Stossel is owed $Cyb-0.75 whatever that would mean.
A cyberdollar banking system would serve as a basis for a meritocracy. Perhaps the world owes Kim Kardashian $C 800 trillion for all the netizens who have ogled her online for free.
These are the types of important financial things that will make the primitive, rural, urban, international-commercial, and cyber-worlds more prosperous and enjoyable for all.
Consider the choreographer of a dance who gets the right to stop another from moving his body in a certain fashion.
To me that is one of the most The most striking examples illustrating the fallacy of “intellectual property.”
Another example is the song “Happy Birthday.” Most people don’t know it, but it is copyrighted.
You are not legally permitted to sing it without paying royalties to the current holder of the copyright, the Warner Music Group.
“Consider the choreographer of a dance who gets the right to stop another from moving his body in a certain fashion.”
I agree, that’s silly.
But, let’s consider another case. How about the dancer who gives a performance – and whose performance (using his body, his training, all the work and money that went into staging the show, etc.) is surreptitiously recorded for commercial purposes? The dancer had intended to sell DVDs of his performance – but now some asshole is selling copies of the performance, lots of them, at a fraction of the cost of the performer’s DVD (because the bootlegger has no costs to recoup, or far fewer, etc.) with the predictable result that the performer loses a great deal of money.
Seem ok to you? No violation of the NAP?
The “commercial” element is what resonates with me. My parasite alarm starts to clang – loudly!
Free sharing is one thing – or it seems to me to be.
But I think a line has been crossed when Smith takes Jones’ work – not a general idea, but his literal work, something he produced with his mind pr body – makes verbatim/identical copies and sells them to make money, without permission and without compensation.
How about this, we copyright everything we do. Then when the government records it, it’s a copyright violation and subject to lawsuit.
But I think a line has been crossed when Smith takes Jones’ work – not a general idea, but his literal work, something he produced with his mind pr body – makes verbatim/identical copies and sells them to make money, without permission and without compensation.
As an author myself, I agree with the feeling aspect of it.
But from an objective, natural rights perspective, I don’t see how I can justify siccing the cops on someone who does not actually use brute force physical coercion or the threat thereof against me.
That’s the sticking point.
To me, it’s sort of like traffic laws, including speed limits, stop signs, and drunk driving.
The mainstream considers the status quo “safe” and “stable.” They fear what would happen if these rules were eliminated.
But market anarchism is predicated upon the premise that unless the NAP is violated, resort to brute force physical coercion cannot be justified.
Since “pirates” of “IP” did not resort to brute force physical coercion when they “pirated” my “IP,” they did not violate the NAP, and I cannot justify brute force physical coercion in response.
All of us trust that a market anarchist system would evolve some sort of free market mechanisms that would ensure traffic safety.
We should also trust that a market anarchist system would evolve free some sort of free market mechanisms that would ensure economic rewards for creative people.
That’s a whole ‘nother topic that I will set aside for the moment. But the market anarchist website I mentioned has some good info on that too.
Besides, even from the author’s perspective, “IP” as conventionally defined by Leviathan State, is not necessarily in the author’s best interests.
Authors: Beware of Copyright
by Jeffrey A. Tucker
When an author signs a publication contract, insofar as it contains strict and traditional copyright notices, he is pretty much signing his life away. It used to be that the publisher would maintain control only so long as the book is in print. Today, with digital printing, this means forever: your lifetime plus 70 years.
” Q: Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?
Yes: They are a burden to marketplace transactions and discourage business startups.”
Yes, that’s a very real effect of IP law.
Eric writes: “As a writer – and so, someone who appreciates correct writing – I find it all very depressing.”
Well then I suggest you add an “edit” button so your contributors can at least correct they’re speling gramer and useage. 🙂
I no thats rite. Be4 huk on fonix my spelin was harble. Now luk.
LOL U R funnee. “harble”–that’s a keeper!
“No hard think to understand” is it? 🙂
Your right. Its nerve wreckin. it has lead us to this.
Lol Bevin! I have all you living human mirrors to keep me informed, regardless.
I refuse to look at anything else so irrational and distorted. My time spent on the internet is misleading and confusing enough.
“Humans simply aren’t intuitively equipped to deal with reflections, yet mirrors resonate deeply in the human psyche. They represent truth and illusion as a package deal at the same time. They convince the weak minded they represent all they are, but not quite. They cause you to perceive a non-existent new world to be explored behind the mirror that we can’t access.
The potential of humans accepting reflections as reality is one of the disorienting paradoxes that make mirrors so powerful in both magic and science.”
State science is a fictitious mirror. Government is a fictitious mirror. The printed word. Math. The internet. These are all representations, images that may be falsified without one’s knowledge.
Seeing something in a mirror or in a video is not the same as seeing it with your own eyes. One must be wary of giving to much credence to anything so easily counterfeited.
Mirrors are fascinating.
That’s why Lewis Carrol latched onto the mirror as the portal to another world in his writings.
1590s, “bewitch, enchant,” from Middle French fasciner (14th century), from Latin fascinatus, pp. of fascinare “bewitch, enchant, fascinate,” from fascinus “spell, witchcraft,” of uncertain origin. Possibly from Greek baskanos “bewitcher, sorcerer,” with form influenced by Latin fari “speak” (see fame).
The Greek word might be from a Thracian equivalent of Greek phaskein “to say;” cf. also enchant, and German besprechen “to charm,” from sprechen “to speak.”
Earliest use – of witches and of serpents, who were said to be able to cast a spell by a look that rendered one unable to move or resist. Sense of “delight, attract” is first recorded 1815. Related: Fascinated; fascinating.
The Constitution says this:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”
But the courts say this:
“Thank God for the justice system that finally sent a message: If you think you’re taking a cheap shot, it may be a lot more expensive than you had imagined,” Wynn said in a statement after the punitive damage was awarded. “Therefore, think before you post; think before you speak; hesitate before you start to destroy someone’s character. There may be a day of reckoning.”
THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK! Why would I do that? Your reputation does not belong to you. It’s the sum prodoct of what others think of you and you do not have any ownership claims over other people’s thoughts and opinions.
Slander and Libel are two laws that directly and clearly violate the Constitution so they are illegal and the enforcement of them a criminal act.
“Your reputation does not belong to you. It’s the sum prodoct of what others think of you and you do not have any ownership claims over other people’s thoughts and opinions.”
The same of course applies to “Intellectual Property Rights” or “IPR.”
Now there’s an Orwellian anti-concept if there ever was one.
Film studios and record companies routinely claim that “pirated copies” of a film or song “violate its intellectual property.”
The reality of course is just the opposite. The reality is that there can be no such thing as “intellectual property.” If it’s “intellectual” how the fuck can it be “property?”
The reality is that the studio’s “intellectual property” is actually the so-called “pirate’s” physical property. The PC, the DVD burner, the DVD, all belong to the “pirate.”
That of course is why Thomas Jefferson considered copyrights and patents conceptually and morally untenable. As Jefferson put it,
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.”
Too bad the schaffenmenschen are unwilling or unable to think for themselves about just what precisely constitutes a “right.”
On IPR, one aspect of it is really depressing. Publishers can gain the rights to a work they published in order to take it out of print for good.
The negative consequences of this ersatz, state-concocted “right” are even worse than one might initially imagine.
@Brent – “The mighty USSR collapsed when the illusion collapsed”
But not w/o bloodshed it didn’t. In Russia, and in eastern Europe. Having lived in eastern Europe for 4.5 years I can attest to seeing the bullet holes in the apt. blocks. The photos of the dead in the streets. The stories from friends.
So I have to wonder: what if the people had taken action before the state took action? What if the people had gotten the drop on the state rather than the other way around? Could things have changed sooner? Better? Fewer deaths? We’ll never know.
But today we see the same thing here. The state continues on, growing larger, stronger and all the while people advocating civil disobedience. I think civil disobedience plays right into the state’s hands: we’re busy chanting and marching and bitching which keeps us occupied and satisified and prevents us from acting otherwise.
The continued reaffirmation that words matter more than actions is a state’s wet dream. They’ll let us bitch all we want while they act against us.
I don’t get it.
Who is the enemy? Must the rabble always be soothed, or can it now be vigorously and righteously aroused? The enemy is this public symphony conductor with the white baton. Of what use is he? Cannot the artists coordinate by sight and gesture without this little dictator on a pedestal and his prissy hissy fitz?
Beethoven’s 7th Symphony 2nd Mvt in A Major -Amarillo TX
200 years since a drunken Ludvig Van conceived his greatest masterpiece, and no improvement has been made, no answer has been given to the subtle fibonacci encodings and assertions?
Today’s publik museless musicians are like the servant who bury the master’s talent in the ground. See, Herr Ludwig, we have preserved what you gave us, wrapped it tight like a mummy, not invested it for a profit. What is our reward?
You should be flogged, and replaced with new musefull servants, sayeth the spirit of Beethoven. How dare you brutes lay your bloody paws on the allegretto of my 7th Symphony? I will re-animate and re-activate in the DNA of the living listeners. I am removing the blocks of the Heavenly Monotheist Cabal, my audience will again hear and be moved, in all dimensions and worlds.
I hex ye of the white baton. I curse ye of the black baton. Your concert hall and musicians who are paid and maintained by a public thugocracy symphony conductor and minions of the black batons. Kneel before us mundanes, or we will beat you even to death. This you call culture? You who are lower than the lowest animals and songbirds will be made to suffer and repent.
You fascists, communists, republicans, democrats, are all trivial variations of the same white baton, black baton, symphony of enslavement. I return now along with the ancient creators of humanity, the Otherworlders of the Sumerian Zodiacal Council.
Prepare to endure my tenth and fiercest symphony. I offer redemption to all the good archons, fallen angels and lost demons. I am hiring you to muse for me, play with me, learn my old and new symphonies. You are a lesser evil now and on the road to redemption. The chains of human government subjugation are the greater evil now. Return not to rule, but to empower and re-awaken the descendants of those you gave the word and all other forms of civilization handed down to the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.
Listen and come with me. Come and be redeemed. Beethoven’s tenth symphony is being written and performed. Hum and whistle it in the night winds, let the animals howl it in the night, and fill the caged and chained isolated minds of the men we have created. The men now brought low in your absence, who you again may serve, build up, and try anew to make good and free.
Maths of Beethoven’s 7th Symphony 2nd Movement – 1813
CC: Namma, En, Ki, NiNurta, EnLil, NinLil, Ea, Ashur, Tiamat, Marduk, Inanna, Dumuzid, Ereshkigal, NinHursagKi, Sin, Sama
Beethoven’s 7th Symphony 2nd Mvt in A Major -Amarillo TX
When I hear this, I hear these words:
Laissez Faire et Laissez Passer. Let him do. Let her make. Let them pass. Let me through. Leave him alone. Leave her alone. Leave them alone. Leave me alone. Let us pass. Let her by. Let him through. Or you must die.
Where all the physiocrats at?
“You should be flogged, and replaced with new musefull servants, sayeth the spirit of Beethoven. ”
Got Damn, Tor. You sho’ nuff loves you some Ludwig Van. Did you read “A Clockwork Orange” as a young’un? I did, and it turned me into a Beethoven fanatic for awhile.
My fellow young Potheads thought I had melted down when I would put on my LP of Glenn Gould’s performances of LVB’s piano sonatas. Took me years to get back to Southern Rock.
Well…..maybe at least a year.
It’s a strong power move to whistle or hum some Beethoven. Before monism, we were zodiacal/dozenal, before that – straight up polyphrenic instinctual like all other mammals.
You’ll hear Ludwig’s tune in The Black Cat’s film score at the 30 minute mark. Many great psychopaths including Hitler(niece/mistress) & Stalin(wife of 14 years) really get going after the “suicide” of their mistress or wife.
Black Cat – Fu11 Movie – 1934
We must pushback. Get our revenge against those rebel scum terrorists who destroyed our dreams of empire. Nine-Eleven-2019. Never forget the day the death stars fell.
This poem is called “Die Rebel Scum.” It’s dedicated to one of my personal heroes. My brother Todd. He was a technician on the first Death Star.
Die Rebel Scum
I remember Endoran Yavin 4
I remember the death and destruction of war
The terrorists fist raised in defiance
The murderous rise of the Rebel Alliance
The evil X-wings polluted our skies
Watching in horror holding back tears from my eyes
With hopes crushed while great heroes were swatted by flies
The Death Star a dream that ceases
A vision of peace in pieces
Our homeland riddled with treason and spies
With tumors and termites feeding on rumors and lies
And Darth Vader more metal than man
That Sith traitor villainous rusted tin can
With cynicism nepotism and doubt
He let his weakness win out
The force is there and its there and its there
And its here and its screaming in my ears
Greater than that traitor Darth Vader can ever imagine
Regroup rebuild reload give ’em hell
And never forget nine-eleven when the death stars fell
Pushback. Rebels do that. They’ve anticipated us, for a long time now:
The era of programming the mind
Excellent points Methylamine. The legitimacy of Southern secession is forever called into question because of the allegedly “unprovoked” attack on Fort Sumter. Never mind the facts in the case, none the least of which was that King Lincoln knew that covert efforts to “resupply” (i.e. reestablish federal sovereignty over) “his” fort would certainly precipitate a violent and politically useful response by Charleston.
I would argue that provoking shots have already been fired against the Amerikan people: For example, Ruby Ridge, Waco, 911, Chris Dorner, and the plethoric daily depredations of the Amerikan public at the hands of the thug-scrum (as documented by Will Grigg et al). But most of Homo Bovinae Americanus still stands by obliviously chewing its HFCS sweetened cud and accepts the ministry of propaganda’s latest official regurgitations as Gospel truth. So as Chris Dorner found out (if that was his real name and if he was actually in the cabin when it burned), you can’t count on the support of your fellow countrymen. I’m sure that warms the hearts of the real perps and terrorists in this case: the LAPD and their ilk.
Now, many people will cry foul that I dare lump all of the cops, good and bad, together in one stereotype. But they are all of the same house. We have considered this line of reasoning countless times in this venue and the conclusion remains the same; if the police were our friends and protectors we would not feel apprehension, fear and dare I say terror even, when we see a police vehicle coming up from behind. Do we feel this way because we’re doing something wrong? Or do we feel this way because it doesn’t matter if we’re in the right, we can still find ourselves detained, restrained, forced to act against our will through “pain compliance” or even dead at the hands of our supposed protectors.
Most recently my son found himself on the receiving end of Officer Friendly’s ministrations. He was on his way to pick up his wife from work and passed by the cops talking to a woman on the side of the road nearby. When he parked his truck and got out, he was greeted by Officer Friendly with a gun in his face and the salutation “Get down on the ground, NOW!” When he he asked what he’d done, pig boy repeated “Down on the ground! NOW!”
Not wanting a .40 cal. lobotomy my son complied, he was immediately cuffed, frisked and allowed to sit on the tailgate of his truck wondering what he’d done. The tax feeders searched his truck without ever asking permission and then and only then checked his ID.
It turned out the the woman was in fear of her estranged boyfriend who was purportedly armed, looking for her and driving a truck that met the general description of my son’s. Once the fat swine line determined that he was the wrong man they let him go, but without so much as an apology. You can pretty well guess my son’s opinion of cops now. When the police regularly engage in this type of behavior, it’s appalling that they have the audacity to expect public support. I now wonder when I hear a cop was “shot in the line of duty” who the real criminal was in the first place. The “perp” may very well be the hero and the cop just got a dose of the Karma he’d been dishing out with official impunity .
One thing is for sure, when someone gets away with something, they tend to do it again. And when they “get away with it” once more, they often get cocky and do it repeatedly. We know *some* cops lie, steal, rape, murder and cover these things up (enough so that this can’t be ignored even by the mainstream media). Worse, since dirty cops receive official sanction in altogether too many cases thereby thwarting organizational justice, things have a way of coming back around. So it becomes important to point out to our fellow Ameri-cattle that the police are acting more and more like the Redcoats (and in my son’s case searching our persons, papers and effects without even the pretense of a Writ of Assistance). So when one of the “thin blue line” takes it in the neck these days, chances are pretty good that they may very well be reaping what they’ve sown.
WRT the Confederate government,
The CSA was just as evil as the USA. The War Between the States was balanced on one side by the northern industrialist state and on the other by the landed aristocratic gentry state. The error, IMO as a southern born individual, lies in backing either of the inherently evil entities involved in that conflict. The overwhelming majority of casualties on either side were the ignorant cannon fodder that serves tyrants in any such conflict. By the way, those tyrants, again IMO, include the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lee, Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Bush, Patton, McArthur, Obama, Clinton, Bush II, Johnson, Wilson, Roosevelt (both of those warmongers), Reagan and Hamilton….the list is non-exclusive. I’d recommend reading some Lysander Spooner. No Treason is a good starting point.
As far as putting cops in an undeserving bucket….I’d simply point out that any cop that supports any of the status quo as it currently exists, supports tyranny plain and simple. This actually includes cops who support the constitutionally limited government at the federal level because from a principled PoV, the U.S. Constitution is a document based on the assumption that “citizens” are essentially slaves to the feral government.
Putting LEO’s (what a joke) on a continuum from bad to good ignores the fact that their authority is illegitimate from the getgo. I don’t know about you guys, but I never signed the contract that I was willing to have these asshats exercise arbitrary power over my life.
BTW, Eric, heard your Lew Rockwell interview….very nice indeed.
Reg; “I don’t know about you guys, but I never signed the contract that I was willing to have these asshats exercise arbitrary power over my life. ”
Hear! Hear! ‘Giuseppe Crowe’ Same thing I said at 18 when drafted by the government while still in high school. ‘The government doesn’t own me’. They can’t arbitrarily decide to sacrifice me to some idealized idea of protecting us from some contrived evil, or, unstated and venal corporate interests.
Thank you… Gerald Ford.
“if the police were our friends and protectors we would not feel apprehension, fear and dare I say terror even, when we see a police vehicle coming up from behind. Do we feel this way because we’re doing something wrong? Or do we feel this way because it doesn’t matter if we’re in the right, we can still find ourselves detained, restrained, forced to act against our will through “pain compliance” or even dead at the hands of our supposed protectors.” – Boothe
“As far as putting cops in an undeserving bucket….I’d simply point out that any cop that supports any of the status quo as it currently exists, supports tyranny plain and simple. This actually includes cops who support the constitutionally limited government at the federal level because from a principled PoV, the U.S. Constitution is a document based on the assumption that “citizens” are essentially slaves to the feral government.” – Giuseppe Crowe
That is putting things into perspective. Perfectly.
Put those two in the history books.
I’m reminded again of the safari adventure hunter I saw on the Johnny Carson Show, he was asked what he was afraid of. Not lions, not tigers, not charging elephants, just the flashing blue and red lights in the rear-view mirror.
Then they killed the real Crocodile Dundee, and wa-la: here we are, Death Squad and torture world as if it were fun and forever. ?
How does Johnny Quest fit into this other than being a pawn for the PTB? Go Team Go? Rhah?
I always have to laugh when I hear pro-LEO citizen-slaves mouth off about “Don’t blame the cops. Blame the politicians and the laws that “make” they have to enforce”! As if! Nobody put a gun to their worthless heads and forced them to put on a costume and violate everyone’s rights. That simply excuses their evil culpability in the whole corrupt charade.
“Don’t blame the cops. Blame the politicians and the laws that “make” they have to enforce”!
They All put on masks to avoid the reality of what they do.
“I always have to laugh when I hear pro-LEO citizen-slaves mouth off about ‘Don’t blame the cops. Blame the politicians and the laws that ‘make’ they have to enforce ‘”.
The Nuremburg Defense. But it takes the ability to think conceptually/critically to see that they – Nazis “following orders” and “hero” cops doing the same thing – are the same thing.
“Don’t blame the cops. Blame the politicians ‘
Blame ’em all. Genius idea, eh? Beauty.
If they listened to their own consciences and refused to “enforce” bad laws, then bad laws would merely be black ink on white paper. They would be meaningless.
They would be just like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Pieces of parchment in glass cases, treated with reverence in ritual, but with contempt in reality.
They make bad laws real in the external world by enforcing them.
Therefore how can they possibly escape blame for their part in making bad laws real?
The ideal pushback is to reach a point where you see your enemies of the big bad wolf of state and all his little piggies as sources of hilarious entertainment rather than sources of dire obsession.
Structures of straw and wood are always vulnerable to getting blown in, but don’t despair. And don’t buy in to the manufactured crisis, where all townsfolk must drop everything to provide more and more bricks to keep everyone safe from the obligatory state fairytale. Life is never free of danger and potential loss.
If you are human, you will not be able ignore some of your enemies, especially those connected to the vast police state. There is no point doing so and playing fake Olympian as they will bother you even more when you try to push them out of consciousness (recall that efforts to “not think” about something turns it into an obsession).
Having strong enemies is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective: without your enemies, life would be bland and boring; you begin to atrophy; enemies are vastly more entertaining than friends, so one should exploit them. Instead of ignoring them, you should use them for fun and relaxation.
Reliable enemies will be observing you, even spying on you, so feed them with information while making it seem hard to get. Nothing frustrates them more than a) the knowledge that you are enjoying yourself, or, b) if you happen to be troubled, that they are not the cause of your discontent.
Never ignore interesting enemies as they may lose interest and you may develop other harmful vices. Make sure to sustain their envy or anger. The only caveat: never think of your enemies outside of sources of entertainment, or else you will be harmed by them and they may become fixations.
Having strong enemies is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective: without your enemies, life would be bland and boring; you begin to atrophy; enemies are vastly more entertaining than friends, so one should exploit them. Instead of ignoring them, you should use them for fun and relaxation.
Did you ever see the John Boorman film “Zardoz?”
It depicted an “advanced” society too long without Darwinian stimuli. The lack of stimulus led to enervation and decadence. Zardoz’s aim was to save mankind from its hopelessly stagnant status quo.
Sehr geehrter Herr Bevin Chu,
No, but I agree with the premise. Look at all the Darwinian denial we “spoil” our pets, zoo tenants, and society captives with.
Fu11 Movie Zardoz 1974 – (use dummy email to register)
Lantern Festival at 23’56N Lattitude 120’32E Longitude
David Icke – Pushback by tuning yourself to a frequency They don’t control
One of the many benefits of being a “weirdo” is it’s hard for TPTB to manipulate me because I don’t conform to any of their boxes. Example: I haven’t looked at myself in a mirror in over 20 years. Result: In my mind I’m still in my prime, and I have total confidence.
Flocks of Foreign Journalists Land in Taiwan
I haven’t looked at myself in a mirror in over 20 years.
I’d cut my face to pieces….
I must have a mirror to shave… and emulating ZZ Top is not for me!
Absolutely. Not in a self-reflective kind of way. You have to brush teeth, align hair follicles, etc. to do the mandatory grooming rituals, but don’t gaze at your inner medusa.
The way people stand there and look at zits or grey hairs or bald spots, hell no. That’s for chicks man. IMHWO. (W is for weird). And not even for them if they are putting on makeup out of fear, and not out of fun. Your chick needs to look physically good enough for you to want to sleep with, and that’s it. Screw all the Cover Girl and Macy’s crap.
A cheap gimmick? Maybe, but it works. Like Chevy Chase in Caddy Shack was asked, “How do you measure yourself against other golfers?” “By height he answered.” Just enjoy the course, let the clovers count your strokes.
Don’t take the “free” guns that emanate from Zardoz’ mouth. Don’t hate your own penis and love finding and killing all your imperfect brothers in the world.
Most of Their TV voodoo is about youth and beauty worship. And making you fear your lack or losing of it.
The violations of NAP spring from fear. Look at Tinsley and his fantasies of killing billions. Blacks are animal and apelike. All men are naked apes. One time he mentioned hating being giggled at by crowds of kids for taking a piss. I think he hates himself because of his part in global warming even. Against all evidence, you have to love yourself, mang.
In my case, being happy in most areas. I performed a “prep” if you will of not judging myself where I am most vulnerable. My appearance.
For others, your self-loathing might come from your career, your family, your morality, your destroying the ozone or whatever.
Communism, Christianity, Democracy, and all world systems are a failure. Because they put the blame on the individual. There is so much potential, once the NAP is adopted as a system, and your social vehicle for taking your self-hate out on others is destroyed and no longer available.
I usually take a razor into the shower, only rarely at a sink with hot water, no perfumy menthol cocktail gel for me.
ZZ-Top is in accord with natural law. It is us shavers who make a choice to appear more… what exactly? How can we call the long-beards the weird ones.
Come to think of it, I’ve been in SHTF mode for decades. It was a drooping Salvador Dali fan, and the “sh!t” was fava beans as painted in “Soft Construction With Boiled Beans – Premonition of Civil War”.
One of the few attractive teachers in grade school was the art teacher, who liked Dali, and I’ve followed his philosophy in many ways ever since.
Pink Floyd’s Time + Dali’s Boiled Beans
Salvador Dali Mike Wallace Interview 1958
I love ZZ Top – and have no issue with beards… they’re just not for me. I’ve tried. I can grow one, no problem – but the itch is a huge problem. Last time I tried, three weeks in, one night I literally could not stand it anymore and hurled myself out of the bed and into the shower… and cut the thing off (and my face into a bloody mess)!
I’ve grown several flavor savers in my long life and none of them ever stopped itching.
Mercifully, my hairy balls rarely itch so I don’t bother shaving them.
You’re a vampire. You have no reflection in mirrors!
I congratulate you all on the most articulate and philosophically apt discussion I’ve seen on a freedom-blog in a long time.
For further info on ethics criteria and a pathway to an ethical society, I invite you to read this article: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/017302-2007-04-13-ethics-law-government.htm
Thanks, Cronus – good to have you here, too!
“I, too, am a peaceful man. I loathe violence. ”
I am too. That’s all I have to say about that.
I like it when a bad person dies.
I am a peaceful man, but I do own guns and if I have to fight I will. However, I will first and foremost put my trust in Jesus Christ, for He is the Author of Liberty. It is from God that we get our rights, not from man. What man gives, man can take away, but our rights which come from our Creator are inalienable, they cannot be altered or taken away. If we do not turn from our sins and turn back to God then our cause is lost. As John Adams said; “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Liberty and morality go hand in hand, you can’t have one without the other. Some people may not like hearing this, but it’s the truth whether they want to believe it or not. It is not my truth, but GOD’S truth.
I, too, am a peaceful man. I loathe violence.
However, I also understand that any attempt to take away my guns is an attempt to render me defenseless against violence – either the ordinary kind (street thugs) or the much worse kind (government thugs). And defenseless people inevitably become victims of violence.
If the effort to disarm us succeeds, the violence will come next – whether you wish to see it coming or not.
The question, then, is simply whether you’ll go quietly – or not.
It’s not necessary to invoke a diety to assert basic human rights. If you simply assert that rights come from your diety, then you leave out in the cold all of the people who believe in inherent human rights based on self-ownership and who extrapolate from self-ownership, using logic and rational discourse, to the NAP and inherent individual liberties. I am not a violent man either, but my defense of my liberties may be violent and it does not require me to worship a higher authority in order to justify it.
“Rights from god” is just another form of authoritarianism. We’re given – and allowed – such and such. And that implies our “rights” may be taken away.
But if we have rights because we exist – because we are men – then those rights cannot be taken away.
Mind: I have no quarrel with anyone’s personal spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof). I just ask they be acknowledged as exactly that – personal beliefs – and not foisted onto others who may have different beliefs.
Precisely the point. This goes for any group who wishes to impose their values at gunpoint. That, sadly, includes a lot of people claiming to be libertarians.
Good point, eric. I use the term ‘inherent rights’. Some 18th century writers used the term ‘inalienable rights’ without stating that they had been granted by anyone, even by God.
My view is that my rights are inherent in my very existence as a sentient being. I also make the presumption that everyone else has the same rights that I have.
I really can’t add to the comments as all made excellent points regarding individual freedom. I don’t know what the catalyst will be to bring revolt against this insane govenment intrusion, but it will come, maybe in the form of a total paper money collapse.
Obtain and read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross. In it are possible “solutions” . . .
Government (officials) should fear the citizenry–NOT the other way around . . .
What happens when people from all parts of the country (finally) fight back??
I second that, but good luck finding a printed copy of that book. It’s available used from Amazon for a mere $400. However, with a bit of searching, one can find an electronic copy.
Government functionaries do fear the citizenry. The recent events in California were a telling example of just how easily the thugs of officialdom can be terrorized, and how it only took the gentlest of a push to start them openly terrorizing the local population. Forget about the slippery slope, that place was in freefall!
The one thing that seemed to turn the modern equivalent of Hitler’s Brownshirts into Hitler’s BrownSHORTS was one guy. One guy whose conversations could not be monitored because he didn’t have any, who lacked a group to infiltrate because it was a group of one. This is why they’re so eager to slap the label of “domestic terrorist” on all and sundry, because they have no way of telling who might decide to “push back” in a manner that they can’t just arbitrarily ignore, i.e. the cartridge box as opposed to the ballot box.
How long before the seeds of domestic terrorism bear the same kind of fruit as they have overseas? How many American children will grow up having nightmares of watching their ex-Marine dad bleed out on the floor in front of them after being executed by badge-carrying home invaders? How many sons and daughters have to be slaughtered in front of their families just because some inattentive bureaucrat typed the wrong house number on a charging affidavit? How many might decide that no other children should have to experience that?
The debt clock is not the only clock that is ticking in this country.
> I second that, but good luck finding a printed copy of that book. It’s available used from Amazon for a mere $400.
Wow, I should sell my copy. For a good book on how an individual can really monkey wrench the system, I recommend an old PsySci book called WASP by Eric Frank Russell.
Here’s part of the description as noted in amazon: “Mowry secretly lands on one of the Empire’s planets. His mission: to sap morale, cause mayhem, tie up resources, and wage a one-man war on a planet of 80 million–in short, to be like the wasp buzzing around a car to distract the driver…and causing him to crash.”
Let me reiterate: “…to be like the wasp buzzing around a car to distract the driver…and causing him to crash.” You might like this book. It was banned in the UK for quite some time but with its appearance in amazon, I suspect even Brits can now get this book.
If you liked that, you will probably be interested in Eric Frank Russell’s The Great Explosion too. Wikipedia even gives links to the text itself.
On the same page with you!
I believe I mentioned it in an earlier comment.
Read it decades ago. But never forgot the freedom seeking pioneers’ acronym, “MYOB,” or “Mind Your Own Business.”
A sometimes overlooked libertarian SF classic.
Barnes & Noble has it for a mere $170. Used, of course. Wondering what kind of pressure the PTB have put on publishers to keep the book out of print. Will look for it in used book stores, which are often gold mines of great books that are otherwise hard to find.
ISOhunt.com search for “unintended consequences”. Ebook is out there. 9.3MB has ebpu, mobi & pdf files while 3.8MB is pdf only. (Watch check boxes on that site!!)
Glad I bought a copy when it was in print.
Wonder if Ross is thinking of a re-print?? Hope so.
Two points on John Ross’s Unintended Consequences. First, those of us who have a copy could share it with those who don’t but wish to read it. The second is that John Ross has a website, http://www.john-ross.net and he has some details as well as a FAQ about UC there.
“First, those of us who have a copy could share it with those who don’t but wish to read it.”
I’ve never had a “shared” book returned. Maybe we could ask Mr. Ross to publish the book on Amazon Kindle.
I hate those electronic readers. Hate them on aesthetic grounds. I like a book, god-damn it. Books last. Hundreds of years (or more) if printed on quality paper and taken care of. They are tactile and real. You can make notes in the margins. They’re personal and individual in a way those filthy flat screens can never be.
Yeah, they’re a drag, but doing a Kindle edition would be a way to get the book out where it’s instantly available to anyone seeing it mentioned in a discussion.
The book’s publisher could have it tied up by IPR law to keep it out of print.
Another issue – one that I’m very ambivalent about – is that these electronic means of distribution have made it virtually impossible to earn a living as a writer. It’s much easier to publish – to get one’s stuff to the readers (which is good) but unless you’re one of Oprah’s anointed, good luck earning more than hobby money writing books.
Personal example: My first book (pre-Kindle, pre “e” readers) came with a five figure advance plus royalties. My second book (contract signed just as Kindles were coming onto the market) came with a much smaller, four figure advance – and minimal royalties. I have a third book, as well as concepts for several others, but there’s no money in proceeding. The publishers no longer offer any advances – which means, you’re expected to work without compensation for the several months of full-time work it takes to produce a book – and then they want to do a “revenue sharing” thing once the book is published that amounts to self-publishing, only they (the publisher) get half the revenue – and the “revenue” is virtually nothing, because there’s virtually no profit in selling an e-version of a book for $5 as opposed to a hard cover book for $29.
Well, maybe – if you’re a NYT best-seller; then you can make it up on volume. But middle-tier authors like me have been well and truly screwed. We’re expected to do the same work (writing a book involves the same brain sweat and time today as it did 100 years ago) but for a fraction of the pay – and that fraction of the pay is so insignificant that, unless you’re already a man of means or have some other source of income, writing has been reduced to a hobby as opposed to a livelihood.
“…but doing a Kindle edition would be a way to get the book out where it’s instantly available to anyone seeing it mentioned in a discussion.”
True, but then writing becomes an act of charity for the writer. It is exactly like expecting a doctor to provide his services gratis – or nearly so.
The problem, of course, is that earning a living is not optional for most people. And if one can’t earn a living writing – or doctoring – odds are the person will have to do something else to earn a living.
Now, that said, if the fucking government didn’t steal most of our money – either indirectly through fiat currency or directly, via relentless, ubiquitous taxation – then a man could probably still get by.
Again, personal example: If I didn’t have to pay “rent” (property taxes) to the government, I’d own my land/house free and clear. If I didn’t have to hand over a third (or more) of my earning in taxes, I’d have ample funds to secure the necessary things (food, fuel, household items, upkeep, etc.) with even the minimal income provided by “e” publishing.
But of course, I have to earn effectively twice the income I would otherwise need to sustain my existence – in order to sustain the existence of the tax-feeders who prey upon me.
And thee, I might add!
The point of the new technology is that it will cut the corporatist creatures out of the loop entirely. To break their stranglehold on creation. A hold they got by a concentration of capital followed by laws, that’s government, to prevent new entries into the market. To keep creative people in their grip. Breaking out is happening first in writing and music and it is becoming true for other areas as well.
Times of transition are difficult. I get as stuck in ways of doing things as anyone else can, but I welcome breaking the hold on us all. That gangster like hold these companies have had since the days of sheet music or before. No doubt there will be complaining through the transition even by me, but on the other side the PTB will be the PTW. (the powers that were)
I have no doubt that the actions we see today by the governments and corporations of the world is because they don’t want to be the the powers that were.
Maybe book writing won’t pay like it used to when knowledge was more restricted, maybe it will pay more for those who do it really well. But writers won’t have to sell their creations away any longer. The gate keepers will be gone. A person won’t have to ‘behave’ to keep making a living and settle for a tiny percentage of what their creation is really worth.
Even my profession could vanish, although its already vanishing from the USA for the reasons of the stranglehold on the creative processes, so I don’t see much danger in processes that could result in the old ways of manufacturing dying and replaced by something else. Staying with them won’t stop my career from going to China.
Technology has the ability to remove much of the virtual chains creative people have on them or chain us even more, and that’s a big part of the battle now. These companies may be using as it excuse to take even a greater percentage while they still can or to even discourage people. Who knows? The non-creators have always sought to control those who do and take the fruits of their creativity. That’s the system we live in, but can that system ultimately end for something more beneficial to those who do the creating?
The debt clock is one of the many clocks counting down to the total economic collapse. World War I broke out only a few years after the miraculous discovery of unlimited Persian oil. We can’t let German Engineers bring all that oil to Europe for cheap, we might lose power, they decided.
Its the internet and now 3D printing they hate the most now. Who needs a Pharmaceutical Industry, just print your drugs on your desktop for cheap.
They prefer millions to die and live in poverty, than to lose their grip on power.
Ottoman, Austrian, China, German, Soviet, and now the Vatican & American Empires are toppled by design. When too many people enjoy too much prosperity, they brutally reign everyone back in the soup kitchen line.
The PTB are escalating in Vegas, for sure. Overflowing county jails filled with public drunks and felony jaywalkers who can’t afford to pay their fines.
Most recently, a 4:20am shooting and accident gave them excuse to shut down one of the busiest intersections in the world for 16 hours, costing millions in losses for private casinos and tourist businesses.
Flocks of vultures and pidgeons, every last one of them.
Millions are inconvienced and imporverished because one vehicle got away from the scene of “a crime.” Nahn-uhhh-leven is still paying off for them, showing the “failure” of the private sector to deal with criminals.
What about the fact that our entire government is one giant “scene of an ongoing crime.” When is that going to appear in print?
Unless a sheriff can arrest a Fed for confiscating guns in his county, and it sticks, and the Feds don’t firebomb the Sheriff’s Office, it doesn’t matter what that sheriff says in public. He will cave. All the left wing and most of the right wing agrees that the right for Federal tyranny was settled in 1865.
Don’t short change our sheriffs, jharry. For many, it is more than simple talk. I could tell you more but won’t for obvious reasons.
I’d really like to see things from your perspective, Larry, but have you seen this take on things?:
Track records matter.
Reluctantly, I have to agree. With too few exceptions to make a difference, most sheriffs are tools of the central state and behave accordingly. The Richard Macks of this country are vastly outnumbered by porcine slobs who don’t even understand the legitimate function of a sheriff (that being to enforce constitutional law in their jurisdiction).
Sheriffs are to be preferred over the police department Obergruppenfuhrers with four stars on their shoulders… however –
I know of no sheriff who has announced he won’t cage/point guns at people caught with arbitrarily illegal “drugs” or who has stated he will refuse to enforce “buckle up” laws… and what does that tell you about their mindset? A peace officer would never countenance such things. But law enforcers don’t bat an eye.
And sheriffs are law enforcers.
Good post DownshiftFast5to1..
I would hope that the LEO’s around the country that have come forward in support of the 2A, and have declared that they will not enforce any unconstitutional law really mean what they say.
However, when I read info like this I hesitate to believe they mean it..
Don’t fall for the 2nd Amendment/Constitutional Rignt nonsense.
Is the 2nd Amendment a valid argument for owning a gun?
“Is referring to the 2nd amendment the best argument one can use to justify being “allowed” to own a gun? Not really. The Constitution is a piece of paper created by a few men a couple hundred+ years ago. It isn’t a “legal” document you are a party to, or that you even signed. So why would one look to it as a guarantor or grantor of anything? Did it grant any rights? Unfortunately yes, but only the “supposed” right for a small group to use force against a larger one. And it also granted the small group the right to steal from the larger one, somehow. But it didn’t, and doesn’t, grant you any individual rights you don’t already have. How could it? Rights are inherent and unalienable. They are part of being a human born into this world. The Constitution, ineffectively, supposedly tried to protect those rights from being encroached upon by others, especially government. If it would have worked we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
You, and every individual living, has a right to life, and that right isn’t defined by anybody but you. You are the sole “referee” of how that right will be protected and defended. Your rights are your responsibility. And yes, you are required to actively defend your right, if you value it. You have the biggest, vested interest in making sure that right is kept sacrosanct. As you have the most to lose if it is violated. Others will try to infringe on it and even dictate to you how you can protect it or exercise it. Those people are evil. They are bad people. You shouldn’t listen to them or allow them to influence you in any way. They will try to limit you in your efforts to safeguard your right(s). Ignore them. They want to harm you or use you. They want to control you. They will exploit you, if you let them.
As the sole protector of your rights it would be wise to use the best tool and or tools you can find, create or acquire, to safeguard them. The people who want to harm you, rob you or control you, almost always choose guns as their tools. Fully automatic machine guns or assault rifles, and semi-automatic weapons, are all tools they use. They also have tanks, missiles, warplanes, warships and bombs in their arsenals. In the last century more than 100,000,000+ people have lost their right to life at the hands of these kinds of people. They were fooled into believing they didn’t have the right to defend themselves. They believed, falsely, that others would protect them. That others cared about them and wouldn’t harm them. That others would defend them. They believed in lies.
They were wrong and they are dead. http://www.amazon.com/Death-Government-R-J-Rummel/dp/1560009276
Don’t look to a piece of paper for your rights. Don’t waste your time. It is a fraud. What one politician says is your right another can then take away. Laws are whatever the ruling gang says they are. They have no legitimate or moral power over you at all. They can only do what you allow them to. The only real power they have over you is what you think they have. Your submission gives them power. (Great little video about that here): Tiny Dot
A gun is the best tool in the entire world a person can use for self-defense. That is a FACT. It is the ultimate equalizer. An 8 year old kid who knows how to use it becomes superior to the 250lb, 6’6″ evil piece of crap who is trying to kill him. No other tool exists like it. A 95 year old woman in a wheel chair can also defend herself from that very same thug, successfully. What other tool could be used to do that? It doesn’t exist!
If your enemy has a gun you better have one too. If he has an “assault rifle” you need one too. If he has a large magazine on his semi-auto, rifle why would you want any less? Why think you are going bring a knife to a gunfight and win? Surely you are smarter than that.
Bad people exist. Evil people exist. They are armed. They will kill you without any regret. Why would you not arm yourself with the best weapon, that works for you, that you can acquire? Nobody has a right to tell you what that might be. I sure don’t and neither does anyone else. It is for you and you alone to decide. Don’t let somebody else dictate what you are “allowed” to have when they don’t play by the same rules. That makes you a sucker. It makes you a victim. And if you listen to them, you chose to do so and have nobody but yourself to blame when something bad happens as a result.
Screw the second amendment as your excuse for owning a gun! Arguing over what it means or what it allows is simply stupid. When you go down that slippery road you fall into the trap of the Hegelian dialectic and you will lose! Bad people use the willingness of reasonable people to compromise, for their own evil agenda. Hitler was pro gun control. So was Mao, Lenin, Castro and Pol Pot to name a few. And they all did what they did ‘legally’ because they made the laws.
Your individual right trumps everything else. Exercise it!”
Please keep in mind that the Constitution of the United States is a charter of rights that PROHIBITS government from passing laws that infringe on our GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS. As our “rights” are ordained by our CREATOR, and NOT “permissions” from government, these rights cannot be taken away.
Many other countries have Constitutions–NON OF THEM state that their citizen’s “rights” are ordained–they all state that their citizen’s rights come from government.
Most Americans do not understand the concept that the Constitution is based on–receiving their “education” (indoctrination) in “public schools”.
This is why the o’bama decried the Constitution as being a charter of NEGATIVE rights–Negative rights that (is supposed to) restrain government, NOT citizens.
I love that broken argument. If citizen’s rights come from gov’t, then where do those in gov’t get the right to bestow rights on other?
It just irritates the shit out of me how conditioned people are. They see gov’t as some sort of divine entity to which we are ALL subjected simply by virtue of its existence.
> It isn’t a “legal” document you are a party to…
If you have ever sworn an oath to the constitution then, yes, you are a party to it. I’ve sworn this oath when I entered the US military during the Viet Nam war. I again swore an oath to it the very first time I registered to vote (yes, at one time that was required when registering to vote, at least in the state that I lived in). I again swore an oath to the US constitution when I was deputized by the county sheriff. Don’t tell me that it is not a legal document I am not a party to. Maybe that is true for you but not so for me.
You bring up a very important point. Every soldier – and every elected official – has voluntarily taken an oath promising to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. Therefore, any who attack our constitutional rights as plainly enumerated therein are guilty of treason.
Supporters of the Second Amendment to the Constitution are the only group that is vilified, marginalized, and otherwise made pariahs of FOR EXERCISING A GOD-GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Mind you, not doing anything illegal, just the act of owning guns is enough for the gun-grabbers to get apoplectic. Make no mistake, the gun-grabbers want them all. A number of years ago, bolt-action hunting rifles were considered to be “sniper weapons” by the anti-gunners. “Saturday night specials” (pistols) were also considered to be fair game. Now, it is the owners of so-called “assault rifle” (actually there is no such thing) seems to be the weapon of choice to demonize.
Part of the problem is the fragmentation of many gun-owners. The duck hunters don’t care if “black rifles” are demonized. Competitive pistol shooters don’t care of the maching-gun crowd is restricted.
Folks, we must all stick together and protect ALL of our Second Amendment accoutrements, not just ones that you favor. All federal, state and local gun legislation by definition is illegal.
Yup, I’m looking for permits to own or operate a pencil, but I’ve yet to find one. Funny how pencils are treated so differently than self-defense tools.
We’re Not Gonna Take It – The Who – Tommy – 1975
Crazy how so many of us are now “pinball wizards” as was foretold, preferring even trivial technologic-electronic engagement to TPTB. I sure as hell aint gonna take it. Why not go all the way and join the games outside the grids?
Tommy – 1975 – The Who – Fu11 Movie
“I’m free, I’m free. And freedom tastes of reality/
I’m free – I’m free, An’ I’m waiting for you to follow me.”
I’m Free – The Who
Cancel all their newspapers & magazines. Block all their news channels. Hold their mail at their post office. Avoid all talking heads and stalking treads and walking deads and learn to get free.
“If I told you what it takes to reach the highest high,
You’d laugh and say ‘nothing’s that simple.’ But you’ve been told many times before Messiahs pointed to the door.
And no one had the guts to leave the temple!”
I agree that we are not going to take it anymore. And frankly I don’t see how it is possible that the government could confiscate any firearms easily. It would be impossible because it has to be understood that every single dwelling in the USA would have to be searched. And who is going to do that? Due to the 2nd Amendment it has to be expected that every household contains firearms. Imagine the resistance.
The other thing is that all of this gun legislation is supposedly in response to Newtown. And so far non of the legislation would have prevented the outcome in Newtown. There is much more at work here.
“The other thing is that all of this gun legislation is supposedly in response to Newtown.”
My wife told me that the first reports she heard on the news about the Newtown killings included a lot of language in support of total gun bans.
I don’t listen to radio or watch TV, but if my wife (a devoted TV news addict and Obama voter) noticed that, then I’d say it was really over the top, even for today’s mainstream news media.
“It would be impossible because it has to be understood that every single dwelling in the USA would have to be searched.”
Reality: Turn in you guns or you will lose everything. We will cut off your utilities, steal all your bank accounts, and the moment you leave your property you’ll be arrested. If you’re really prepared we will send in the drones to annihilate you since you are a terrorist.
Reality: Turn in you[r] guns or you will lose everything.
What guns? 😉 Those who own guns may have some that the government probably knows about (let’s forget the fantasy that applications for gun purchases are discarded after however many days), but I have a feeling that there are a WHOLE lot of guns out there that the government doesn’t know a thing about.
Once things get so bad that the government is going door-to-door confiscating guns, I see little incentive to be “honest” with the criminal government thugs.
> What guns?
Just because the tyrants know that at some point in time, you bought guns does not mean you still have those guns. Maybe you ex-spouse got some or all of those guns and maybe she sold them. Maybe you sold them in a bankruptcy and just kept one rifle. How are they to know? Just because your credit card shows you went to the latest die hard movie does not mean you are still sitting in the theater. Lists are meaningless.
I don’t mean any disrespect, but that’s rather naive. If they had you on a list as being a potential gun owner in the present because you had been one in the past, they wouldn’t treat it on the principle of being a criminal matter where they had to prove you were guilty. No, they would treat it just as they do anything administrative, where you have to do all the work – like proving you don’t owe tax according to their rules.
After all, if they had to do all the work of finding a potential gun owner, it wouldn’t make any sense turning him loose without a good reason, not after all that work, now would it?
I remember reading a Dennis Wheatley novel in which the hero thought he could avoid being killed by the bad guy by impersonating an innocent man, on the theory that the bad guy wouldn’t know which of them was the real one. So the bad guy decided to kill both of them, just to make sure…
The motivation behind gun registration legislation is not safety or even gun confiscation, although the registration lists might be used to confiscate firearms if it becomes politically viable for the government to do so in the future. The purpose is to harass law abiding gun owners. The government can not currently ban private firearms ownership out right. The next best thing is to make firearms ownership such a hassle that many current and would be firearms owners will decide that firearms ownership isn’t worth the hassle. There are currently proposals to require firearms owners to purchase expensive liability insurance. That legislation has the same goal as registration requirements. That being to persuade private citizens to abdicate their second amendment rights.
Next will be a tax stamp that isn’t issued.
Tax stamps are already required for suppressors. I think it’s like $200-$300 here in Virginia. FOR EACH ONE YOU BUY!
“We’re mad as hell – finally! – and by god, we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Who is “we”? My guess is that a lot of we’s, including many who frequently comment on this site, are indeed going to take it. It might be after loudly shouting about how much we don’t like it, after repeatedly contacting our representatives [sic] to tell them how much we don’t like it, and maybe even after not registering our firearms according to law. It seems to me that “we” can’t have it both ways: Non-Aggression Priciple (NAP) AND we’re not going to take it any more.
As the Creator said in Ecclesiastes chapter 3, “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven…[which includes] a time to kill and a time to heal [and] a time for war and a time for peace.”
The NAP worked well for Ghandi and MLK because they were appealing to societies that were still somewhat morally sane (British and American). The NAP would play right into the wishes of socities like Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R. under Lenin and Stalin, Cambodia under Pol Pot, the Hutus in Rwanda, and so many others, including, dare I say it, our own today.
I am guessing that someone who believes that the NAP has a snowball’s chance in Hell of restoring liberty in today’s America may not realize just how far gone this society is beneath the thin veneer of civility/civilization.
That said, I am not chomping at the bit for violence and would much prefer if violence could be avoided. It’s just that, if we’re serious about not taking it any more, well,…
NAP only works with those of us who observe and follow it. Give and take. Now when you’ve got some roid-ranger bashing on your kids head or shooting your wife for no damn reason then THEY deserve to die! Still, I constantly hear “well… you being dead doesn’t help them”…. You think?! Duh! But me being dead on the receiving end of a forced entry into my house doesn’t serve them either. My disdain for cops is so great now that its like that line out of Red Dawn… “It keeps me warm”.
The NAP does nothing more than formalize respect for the rights of others. It qualifies it and gives it a nice name and acronym. I think it’s problamatic because it gives the impression of passificism when defendng ones rights is not a passive endeavor.
When looked as respecting the rights of others, one has to ask what he would do if his rights were aggressed upon such as legalized highway robbery (traffic citations), income theft (taxes), arrest for growing a plant (drug war) etc…
All of these aggressions occur every day against people who believe in the NAP and they do not defend their rights. And they excuse it away: “it’s not the right time”, “I have too much to lose”, “I’ll be painted a lone kook in the msm and dismissed”.
The NAP has nothing to do with defending one’s rights so what are we waiting for?
“The NAP would play right into the wishes of socities like Nazi Germany,”
No, not really. The Non-Agression Principle dictates that its followers not INITIATE force. Defense by whatever means, even armed resistance is fully compliant with the NAP.
Once the Nazis (or whoever) starts the shit, even a hard core NAP follower should shoot back at their goons. That’s “the way it spose to be” as we said down home when I was a lad.
The question of whether to shoot at someone who is identified as the “enemy” but who is not at that moment threatening anyone, is a difficult one. Suppose, for example, that person X has, for the last 30 days, gone out at midnight and shot an innocent person. If you had a chance to blow him away at noon one particular day, would you? For the sake of argument, assume that arresting the person and bringing him to trial are impractical, because the entire “justice” system is corrupt beyond repair. In other words, imagine the U.S. today.
Good article Eric……But I believe its a little too late for defending privacy. The reason is that every April 15th,or earlier,you’ll spill your guts on your 1040 Form. We now live in an economic police state where its “mandatory” to use a Social Security Number for almost any economic activity,even though having a Social Security Number or even filing a 1040 Form is “voluntary.” Just try getting a job without a “voluntary” filling out of a W2 or W4 Form,let alone having a Social Security Number. Thanks to FDR’s New Deal almost everyone in America is now cataloged and recorded,by their Social Security Numbers,in several government and even private computers. Now with Obamacare we’re going to have our Medical Records available to the prying eyes of the state. After decades of going along with the tax system,even though their were individuals who have bravely challenged it’s Constitutionality and legality,we find liberty lovers fighting a rearguard action trying to protect firearms privacy. Brave words. But,I assure you that when a swat team comes to your house to forcibly take your guns over 95% of the gun owners will give up their guns and not risk themselves and their families being literally blown away. So much for the brave American gun owners. The fact remains that as soon as we got our Social Security(tax serf) numbers and started filling tax forms that was the end of not only privacy but liberty in America.
Greetings Eric (from a neighbor in the Alleghenies).
Since being stigmatized by the big “F” for a trumped up non-crime-I cannot stand the jackbooted thugs that live off the public dole. One thing I learned in prison was to lie,lie (it seems the truth is not respected or expected) and the so-called corrections officers were worse a lot of times then the “kids” they were asserting their bureaucratic license over.
Anyway perhaps it is time to stop throwing this crap in the “woods.” I grow weary of cleaning up these messes. It is time to stand up and stand together or stand alone, but for pity’s sake people make a stand. The state has taken away my right to have a gun and apparently my right to even have a job. It’s all about stereotypes and perceptions; don’t paint everybody with the same brush. It’s time to separate the sheep from the goats and bring the cringing Clovers into the light of scrutiny where they belong.-Kevin
And, very sorry to hear about your situation. I empathize, because it damn near happened to me.
Back in college, I grew some pot plants. Well, about 100 pot plants. In my dorm. I was 19 – and a dumbass (not for growing it, but for where I grew it). Naturally, I got caught. And – arrested. Taken to the clink. Charged with felony production/manufacture with intent to distribute. But – luckily for me – this was back in the day, when the “drug war” was just starting to get serious and when pot was still a lesser offense. It was reduced to a misdemeanor – and “went away” after a year of “good behavior.”
But I came this close to being branded a convicted felon – to being sent to prison – to having my life ruined….because I grew some plants. It was one of the events that led to my political-ethical awakening.
And, like you, I have grown to hate the jackbooted thugs and all they stand for.
You naughty boy! Don’t you know that smoking pot will turn you into a sex-crazed demon? 😉
Kevin–sorry to hear your bad news. It used to be after a guy got out of prison, they’d hand him his guns back–because he’d already been punished.
Today, the PTB keep people on the plantation for good and Massa don’t want’em armed.
@Eric–I barely dodged that bullet myself. I was making MDMA (“ecstasy”) for my friends in college, never selling it. A scum-bucket ex-boyfriend of my girlfriend tried half a dozen times to entice me to make enough for sale to him.
I found out a few years later, he had dodged his own conviction by turning into an “informant”–one of those low-lives who wreck other people’s lives to enrich themselves.
“It used to be after a guy got out of prison, they’d hand him his guns back–because he’d already been punished.”
Punnishment forever: it’s the new american way.
That experience (the pot bust) was formative for me. I have been instinctively anti-authoritarian as long as I can remember, but that brush with “the law” got me to thinking deeply about legal vs. wrong. I thought: I have been arrested and put in a cage by armed men – and face the possibility of spending possibly several years in a cage. I will be thrown out of college. It will be much harder, if not impossible, for me to find employment other than dead-end and menial due to a “felony” conviction upon release. Yet, who have I harmed? My “crime” was to grow some plants. I certainly intended to consume said plants – and share with others. Some I probably would have sold for pizza money and so on. But who has been harmed? If anything, I’ve helped people – to have a good time. “The law” does not put wine-makers in cages. Or brewers. Yet it has decided – arbitrarily – that I (and others similarly “guilty”) are “criminals” deserving of life-ruining consequences.
It made me very angry.
That was perhaps the moment I went from being mildly anti-state to despising it in principle.
All these years later, I continue to think of the millions of innocent people whose lives were utterly ruined over similar non-crime nonsense.
And my anger only waxes.
Eric, I think the actaul “crime” the gun-vernment sees in these examples of non-crimes is primarily two-fold. On the surface people who are entrepreneurs in alternative and recreational pharmaceuticals cut into the alcohol-income-tax-sales tax revenue stream. Can’t have private citizens, “the people”, starving the beast, now can we?
Yet under the surface we have the CIA (and very probably other alphabet soup agencies) actually running drugs to fund “black ops” and other unsavory things that even the whore’s in congress can’t stomach. So a private pharmaceuticals dealer is doomed to run afoul of system because he dares engage in free market competition cutting into the shadow gun-vernment’s covert revenue stream.
But those are just the “official” players who stand to directly lose some of *our money* when people decide to exercise their right to self medicate. We also have all of the downstream law enforcement recipients of that revenue stream (and the value of any “guilty” property they can confiscate) with their hands out. And they are granted the power to essentially ignore the Bill of Rights and even common decency and compassion while prosecuting this so-called “War on Drugs.”
The drug-court-prosecutorial-prison-unicor-rehab nexus siphons off a tremendous amount of the people’s wealth annually as well. Then there are all the private actors; the contractors, manufacturers, accountants, privatized security and prison firms, car dealers, police and prison suppliers, etc. with their hands in the till.
We know from a 1970’s study conducted at the Medical College of Virginia that cannabis not only eases the side effects of chemo therapy and nuclear medicine, but in fact can regress some brain tumors. But there’s a problem with this for the key “drug” players; no major pharmaceutical company can patent a naturally occurring plant (as opposed to Monsanto patenting unnatural plants). So there’s very little money in herbalism and naturopathy because wise people will simply grow their own remedies and drive market prices to the lowest levels.
Therefore, the only viable answer for big pharma to maintain their stranglehold on “healthcare” (and that of their wholly owned gun-vernment toadies) is to vilify the various pharmaceutical plants and deem their cultivation and possession a crime. Thereby the threat of free market competition is all but eliminated. Prohibition also creates a risk to reward ratio generating obscene profits for the underground players the world over who either have gun-vernment sanction (like the CIA) or a big enough set of Cajones to put some skin in the game (like the average street dealer).
So…we have the very same laboratory (the various levels of gun-vernment and their corporate owners) that created the poison (prohibition) offering us an antidote (the war on “some” drugs) that apparently must be taken in perpetuam since (according to them) there is no “cure.”
The parasite class learned a lot from their experiment in alcohol prohibition it would appear. And I would argue that alcohol prohibition was at least partially a false flag to distract the public from the international banksters’ real intent which was to implement the modern equivalent of the opium trade / opium wars we are now forced to live under.
Let’s face it, the increase in opium production in the “Graveyard of Empires”, the upsurge in heroin use in Amerika’s inner cities and the U.S. military presence in the opium fields can hardly be coincidental. Everyone from the local courthouse to the state department knows the “War on Drugs” is as much a farce as the “War on Terror” is. Washington State and Colorado have finally reached sufficient public critical mass to take some minor steps in limiting the stupidity. But California and other “liberal” states are still facing an uphill battle because the growers and dealers stand to lose their collective ass if pot prohibition falls by the wayside. We do indeed live in interesting times.
You need to broaden your horizons, meant without offence.
Family law / divorce, and “sex offender registry” are two things to examine a bit.
I’ll let you find out what’s happening rather than hijack the thread; short story, one results in penury, one in lifelong punishment, and neither requires an actual CRIME. Statutes are all that matter in several cases, and the result is total devastation. To the point where people have immolated themselves.
I well aware of the abuses subsumed under such things as divorce litigation and the “sex offender” registry. That – for example – a 19 year old can be convicted of “statutory rape” for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and be branded a “sex offender” for life – and so on.
All victimless “crimes” are oxymoronic – and outrageous affronts to human liberty.
Marriage – and interpersonal relationships – are no one’s business except those involved. All the problems associated with both arise from the state (organized violence) inserting itself as a party to these things.
Only when someone is coerced – or injured – have anyone’s rights been violated. And only then does the victim have a basis for asserting a claim against the person who injured him.
Our employees – housemaids and gardeners, i.e., politicians and other government EMPLOYEES, have taken over the “homestead”, and now, because of their ongoing abuse of us, are concerned (afraid) of the consequences.
All the resources, stolen from We The People, are being brought forth for the battle.
What better “solution”(final?) than to disarm these uppity citizens.
“Our employees – housemaids and gardeners, i.e., politicians and other government EMPLOYEES”
Fuckin’ A! These assholes aren’t our leaders or our rulers. They’re the damned hired help and they need to learn their place. I remember one old curmudgeon who used to say that we ought to storm into their chambers from time to time, and drag a dozen or so of them out and hang them from lamposts, never explaining what they had done wrong.
There’s no risk of hanging an innocent politician when you grab a dozen at random. No risk at all.
Fuckin’ A! These assholes aren’t our leaders or our rulers. They’re the damned hired help and they need to learn their place.
I dare say that this notion of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” is as much of a myth as that of “checks and balances” and “limited government.” The political class that rules over us here in Amerika has never been subservient to Us The People, all the rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. The reaction to the 1793 Whiskey Rebellion by King George Washington* was but the one of the first examples of this myth being put to rest. That We The Sheeple didn’t see the charade for what it was back then should give us pause to ask ourselves why we think things would change in the ensuing two hundred-plus years since. The grossly misnamed “Civil War” served as the final nail in the coffin of the “government of/by/for the people” charade. Again, if an event with such obvious implications didn’t force the majority to see the light, it’s doubtful anything else will.
(^A man without the moral resilience and integrity court historians have given him credit for, by the way. Just consider the fact that he allowed his conniving Secretary of the Treasury, the despicable centralist/monarchist Alexander Hamilton, to talk him into military action against farmers justifiably rebelling against an oppressive and unlawful tax. But then again, Washington and Hamilton were both Federalists [arguably the precursors of both Abe Lincoln and today’s neocons], so this shouldn’t surprise anyone at all.)
Words seem to have meaning.
Government means they rule over us, they govern us.
They should called something more appropriate. Like ‘board of managers’. They may manage but they are then accountable to the owners.
This will force the discussion of who the owners are.
“Government means they rule over us, they govern us. ”
But, but… they’re PUBLIC SERVANTS!
Don’t you even get it? 😉
“Words seem to have meaning.”
Why do you think the gov’t keeps changing the meaning of words. If gov’t does nothing else, it changes the meaning of words to suit the outcome they desire. I’ll toss out a word, actually two, that used to have meaning: indentured servitude. What do those two words mean today vs. when it was ‘common’ knowledge?
Mr. Peters, your articles from the past several months have been absolute gems of reason and enlightenment. Thank you and keep it up.
Thanks, Brian –
I wish I didn’t have to write them. But I feel compelled to do so…
I wish I didn’t have to read them. But I feel compelled to do so…
I find it useful to take my blood pressure meds before reading.
molon labe, MF’s, molon labe 🙂
a thought…working within the system is what you the slave is expected to do…begging for the right from you masters(politicians) to exercise your natural rights,that no one can deny you of…so if you OBEY and ask PERMISSION..you are a slave…you are not free and never will be…But remember we all have been trained to OBEY authority… now is the time to become re-trained and DISOBEY authority….yours and your families freedom and lives depend on breaking the chains of authority…no one has any right to rule you NO ONE….if it is moral you will do the right thing you do not need a LAW to tell you to do good…Larken Rose will set you free….a u tube treat
dan, I couldn’t agree more, BUT…
If one decides to disobey, one must give serious and copious thought to how best to go about it and how to prepare for the repurcussions. Got militia?
“And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart.”
No, wrong question.
Got cash, and mobility?
Willingness to kill?
Then exercise them, NAP can be re-instituted after the parasites are removed. At this point, we’re like a dog that’s covered with ticks: generating fresh blood just in time for the parasites to drink it. Barely alive.
But sit in the water for a few hours, drown the bastards, and be done with it… That has value.
Three cords, BTW, would be adequate. One pops the EMP (disables video and most electronics), one is a distraction, and one makes a lead deposit to the target;s head. High or low velocity is incidental.
And no evidence is left, nor is a witness left. Nor could the target radio for help.
There is no reason to tolerate these cretins.
We just need to start as high up the food chain as possible, and be diverse in targeting: C-levels are just as valid as NCO and up. Careerists should be top priority.
Never tolerate evil.
People like me? We’ll need to leave afterwards, no doubt. I doubt many would want to stay, though. As it is, I look around and can’t identify my home any more – too much has changed, literally and figuratively.
It is critical that we not give them the excuse they are looking for. In keeping with that, please refrain from urging such things as “targeting people high up in the food chain.” That they are targeting us is certainly true. But let them be the ones to act on that.
Do you want to win? Or go out in a blaze of futile glory?
If you want to win, then work to awake people. Advocating violence only serves their purpose.
I disagree that violence can ONLY serve their purpose(s).
That being said, I DO intend to win.
If the vast majority of people want to be “safe,” or “left alone,” or (in whatever way they phrase it) free to indulge in their “bread and circuses,” this will be fairly peaceful, even its worst times.
But even if we were talking near-instantaneous, violent replacement of all the Gov’t cretins – we wouldn’t be changing the puppet-masters.
I believe in playing the long game, yes. Eduction is part of that. A Blaze of Glory – isn’t. Glorious, OR effective, OR long-term.
But the occasional forced retirement at the right time, with the correct tools… THAT could work miracles. “Something” happened, no one knows WHAT… But Mr. X the Almighty is to be buried today. Only an assassin could’ve pulled off that shot / poisoned that drink / known where he’d be to set that bomb / etc.
In reality, it was someone who had a tool at the right time, and happened to notice the High Value Target. Today it’s Jim, tomorrow it’s Julie, next week Wan Fei is in the right place at the right time… You get the idea.
Moral High ground doesn’t matter to someone like me; results do. Consistent removal of the human excrement over a period of time. No rhyme or reason; one day a Senator, one day a mayor, one day a foreign diplomat, one day a staffer.
That’s the total war we’re headed for. If we wait until they aggress, they may have their whole house of cards ready to fall on OUR heads. They’ve been agressing already; we’ve been retreating, because no sane man (and even some lunatics) dno’t want the war. But THEY DO, because they’ve played all the angles, run all the simualtions, have contingency plans for A, B, C, etc to Z to AA to AZ etc. to ZZZZZ. And yes, they are PLANNING on someone on “our” side making the first move. They are not above creating such a person, and making an example of that person. But rather than wait until they are all ready and think they’ve got it all set up to implode on US while they look on from far off, we should proactively snag “targets of opportunity.”
A False Flag operative will be Expended; those who don’t just parrot the “official story” will be removed.
But a handful of irregulars, without a plan, without “intent” per se? Impossible to overcome.
Further – to bookend this – INACTION, or passivitiy, on our part – is currently serving them QUITE WELL.
For some reason, this actually reminds me of a two panel cartoon I once saw of an inventor who developed the perfect bullet proof vest. In the first panel,the inventor hands his wife a revolver and says,”This bullet-proof vest will stop anything. Here, shoot me.”
In the second panel, the wife shoots him in the head.
Tyrants should take note.
“Whereas in years past – especially in the years before nahnlevven – the typical person could for the most part go about his business without being continually subjected to hassles and degradations.”
Well, living in Idaho and being old enough I remember the folks coming in during the Ruby Ridge siege. They saw the waking up moment amongst the ordinary mundane and then there was Showtime followed by Oklahoma City. After that, things quieted down for awhile. Then we had our ‘Pearl Harbor’ moment as predicted/predicated in the Project For A New American Century (PNAC).
The people are aware and have reacted in the past. The problem is that the government controls the language/media and therefore controls the outcome of public opinion. Today, like so many years ago, they are finding their control of language/opinion being strained on many fronts – one of which is your blog. They will continue with this strategy until it works – then we are all ‘boiled’. Our only hope is dismantling the PTB and I doubt we are there yet.
I know it is bad form to reply to my own post, but Thank you Eric for sharing your perspectives. I’m sure I’m on a ‘list’ somewhere as I went to a meet-up at a Boise park and signed a petition against the Ruby Ridge siege. The country formerly known as America needs people who speak well and speak out.
Damn, I just read the whole deal:
Now read the PNAC, I’m sure it is archived somewhere though I doubt the AEI still has it available online. Signatories include Condolezza Rice, Karl Rove, William Krystal and Dick Cheney. It is not just the Obammy left seeking control, the Shrub right are just as bad . . .
“It is not just the Obammy left seeking control, the Shrub right are just as bad . . .”
Exactly! The critical thing is to see through the false left-right, Republican-Democrat paradigm. They are all on the same side – their side. The side of authoritarianism and collectivism.
” It is not just the Obammy left seeking control, the Shrub right are just as bad . . .”
True, and a good point. Ruby Ridge was the GHW Bush administration and The Branch Davidian massacre and OKC bombing were done by the Clinton gang. W’s administration pulled off the biggest one since FDR’s Pearl Harbor setup. Seems the Reds and Blues just take turns assaulting us and assuring us that they’re doing no such thing.
The two parties merged right out in public a long time ago, and we’re expected to believe that there’s a difference between them.
Another Idahoan here. I’ve finally come to the point where I call it “hard” or “soft” statism. There isn’t any left, right, liberal or conservative. That’s all BS. In other words it’s THEM against US and that’s it. Everything else is an illusion meant to keep people off kilter and angry at “those… (fill in the blank)” while getting screwed on your dime. It’s a sick game.
Different sides of the same coin. You can call them Demlicans or Repubocrats. Their mascot is the Elephonkey.
The country formerly known as America needs riflemen.
The country formerly known as America has riflemen. That is what scares the PTB shitless
Isn’t interesting how Mr. Biden recommends shotguns for self defense. After all, everyone knows that semi-automatic high capacity firearms aren’t suitable for self defense; that’s why the police and military carry them…for self defense. In many places where civilians can legally own registered firearms (South and Central America come to mind) they are restricted to handguns, shotguns and rim-fire rifles. If they are “allowed” to own “hunting rifles”, they are usually restricted to “civilian” calibers only. So what does this mean? What should we take away from this?
So called “assault weapons” are typically styled after their military select fire counterparts and therefore (in this day and age) the most suitable firearms for the unorganized militia (that essentially means all of us that are able bodied) to possess. What a shocker that the PTB would come after legitimate militia weapons first. History proves that dictators and police states overwhelmingly prefer unarmed victims.
But wait, there’s more! The AR-15, AR-10, M1-A, HK-91, SCAR, etc. are all relatively compact, reliable, field serviceable and capable of intermediate to long range accuracy. In the case of armed revolt or civil war, other than being semi- versus fully automatic, these weapons put the unorganized militiaman on essentially equal footing with any of the standing army’s cannon fodder. In fact with an imperative to defend hearth and home combined with the knowledge that they can’t just “spray and pray”, the militiaman will be more inclined to pick his shots, aim carefully and disproportionally target officers.
Mr. Biden and his ilk know this. They also know, just like any good Latin American dictator does, that you have to get pretty close to someone to shoot them with a shotgun or a handgun; very difficult to do with modern surveillance and security surrounding most politi-whores these days. But the odds are much better with a rifle even of intermediate power. Five hundred yard kill shots are not unreasonable at all for a seasoned rifleman of decent competence with a rifle chambered in .308 (7.62 NATO). An expert marksman with a good scoped rifle may even effect immediate political change at ranges as far out as 800 to 1000 yards. This makes official parasites bloody nervous I’d dare say.
The the real issue now as it was on April 19, 1775 is getting rid of the American rifleman’s weapon of choice. And rifles, particularly those that fire bottle neck cartridges are the deciding factor in any conflict (or unofficial assassination). The gun control “usual suspects” have poked and prodded the Second Amendment from every direction to that end. First it was machine guns, sawed off shotguns, destructive devices and “any other weapon” that didn’t meet the approval of the PTB back in the Twenties. They weren’t “mainstream” and were considered gangster guns, so Joe Average didn’t see it as an infringement when he couldn’t buy a Tommy Gun or a silencer off paper anymore.
Then they went after mail order firearms and imposed the closest thing they could (dealer records) to registration in the the Sixties. In the Seventies through the Eighties they went after Saturday Night Specials and made concealed carry all but impossible in many places. Then it was handguns in general. After that it was “assault weapons” in the Nineties as well as now, but with a broadened definition. Find a chink in the armor and attack there; incrementally of course.
I am convinced the ultimate goal, through what ever circuitous route they have devised and attempted, has always been to take away American civilians’ rifles. In order finish the royal screwing the PTB have been giving us for the last 150+ years without suffering tar, feathers and worse, they know that have to take the rifles. That is why it is so important that we bring the argument back around to the legitimate defense of our hearth, home and families from all enemies foreign and domestic.
What this really means is that the unorganized militia, which is everyone of us who is able, be armed with a serviceable main battle rifle, have adequate ammunition on hand, know how to use it, maintain it and be proficient with it. That’s what scares the the Pee out of the PTB more than anything else. So let’s make sure we not only preserve the right but exercise it openly and regularly. Here’s a good place to get involved: http://www.appleseedinfo.org/
Anyhow, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed. Who are the criminals and terrorists? Who are the targets exactly?
I’m mean.. Seriously?
The “terrorists” have always been the american people.
The divide is always the rulers and the ruled. Everything else is just an illusion to distract the people from seeing it.
I gave Eric a ring on the phone while driving home tonight (hands free of course). First off, every time I talk to him on the phone he scares the shit out of me. He got me thinking that something big is going to happen in the very near future (perhaps before summer). Something that will enable the PTB to toss out the Constitution. Had me asking God to give me the foresight/luck to have decent notice so I don’t go to work that day, send the kid to school, or let the wife run errands. Or even have the time to send them back to Japan. That’s all I ask. Hope it’s not too much!
Dom, I’ve thought the very same thing. Lord, give me time to get things straightened out and to the friends and relatives in Japan. Ironic, eh?
It is.. Even more so though, I received a call last night from my buddy in the service (USMC Officer). He didn’t sound so good. He was one of the most cheerful happy go luck people I’ve ever known. He hasn’t been the same since his Silver Star. He wants to get the families together he said. I’m going to try and meet up with him this weekend over by Quantico. After I talked with Eric I called my buddy Dan in South Carolina. He said everyone down there is singing the same song and that he just hopes he’s off the grid enough to not feel the ripples. I told him wishful thinking is nice, but he should still prepare.
“First off, every time I talk to him on the phone he scares the shit out of me.”
Heh,… Ahh, so far, only text and nuerons do that to me. But that was funny as all get out.
And so real.
I can imagine everything is quite amplified hearing it with a Voice. … It’s like – ouch – that contraption Really does work, Snap! … Snap! …Bzzt! … Ka-Pow! … Shhazam! even.
Now you know.
… Stand – The Fuck – back.
Or take cover or something?
Yep, you never can be to careful when meeting people off Craigslist! HA
I’m a bit fatigued of the coming big event that’s always just over the horizon. As I see it there will be no overt planned constitution suspending event soon as I see it. It makes no sense to me.
There may be an event of economic manipulation of size but that’s just how things always are these days. Nothing special there.
The slow boil and social manipulation will continue. They will back off and then slowly come back after people think they won.
I hope you’re right. The combination of Eric’s coffee drinking habit combined with my tobacco/coffee/red bull habits and hyperactivity makes for an interesting dialogue.
I wonder, Brent…
We have the object lesson of nahhnleeeven. Consider that. What it took – the mindset – to drop skyscrapers and kill thousands of innocent people. It does not take much, as I see it, to extrapolate from that to something much worse. Because the people capable of doing that are literally capable of anything.
The problem is we’re not psychopaths. Therefore, it is hard – almost impossible – to even conceive of the things psychopaths are capable of doing without batting an eye.
Hell, just consider these new civilian targets. Pregnant women. Old people. Little boys. What sort of sick mind would come up with that?
It gives you some insight, does it not?
Even after nahhnleeeven there was no sudden step change. They gathered a bunch of failed Clinton era police-state legislation and passed it. They started a couple of wars.
A step change wakes people up. There won’t be a step change. The worst we can expect is an event they can exploit to get failed legislation to pass. We just saw one in December.
The targets are just another incremental step in a process that has been ongoing for decades. The conversion from police officers to law enforcers to occupiers. They are now training in the tradition of occupiers. This has been plainly evident since those who served the empire in the occupied territories started returning and entering ‘law enforcement’ and other domestic departments of various levels of government.
A step change might get people to figure out us “konspiracy kooks” were right all along. Instead they must slowly condition the public to respond ‘but it’s a good thing’ when we say ‘we told you so’.
The desire is for the general public to be in a prison and think its a good thing. To be too scared, too institutionalized, to live outside its walls.
Dom, you failed to post my favorite — the grandmother in her bathrobe, defending her kitchen (wow – obviously a terrorist!
BTW: These targets are manufactured by
Law Enforcement Targets Inc
Address: 8802 W 35W Service Rd NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
The grandma is a good one:
Pay close attention the the description for NMH-4. It reads in part, “Non-traditional threat dipicting a hostile older woman in her home.”
Damn right she is hostile. Here she is in her own home, in a bathrobe, in her kitchen, defending herself against home invaders (AKA you friendly neighborhood SWAT team). If she were in dark clothing, standing before a bank teller then maybe we could define her as a Non-traditional threat. I’m calling bullshit on our renegade government. Organize your neighbors because if they come for you, you will be boxed in your own home and the only recourse will be your neighbors surrounding the invaders, placing them in a pincher movement.
Will Grigg already posted an article about this. Pretty damn sick:
I was just thinking about this last night. It’s “sick” that these things are being sold but who in the hell, and I’m talking about the ones making them, has the unmitigated gall to even create, market, and sell these damn things in the first place?! Who has bought them? It’s so shameful it’s mind boggling. A firm that approves their manufacture should be shunned out of business and their owners treated as pariahs.
> … who in the hell, and I’m talking about the ones making them, has the unmitigated gall to even create, market, and sell these damn things in the first place?
Law Enforcement Targets Inc
Address: 8802 W 35W Service Rd NE, Minneapolis, MN 55449
Has anyone started a harassment and shaming campaign against this company? It’s probably time some of us did.
Has anyone started a harassment and shaming campaign against this company?
For what it’s worth, it looks like someone started a Facebook page: Boycott Law Enforcement Targets, Inc
E.P. have you heard about the company supplying paper targets of children, a pregnant woman, old man and woman, to DHS and other LEOs? It is all over the interweb tubes but here is a recent link I found:
Clearly, the purpose is to desensitize “law enforcement” (as if they weren’t already) to the idea of shooting civilians. Very troubling.
And when are “law enforcement” persons going to come across such “unconventional targets?” When they do one of their favorite quasi SWAT “no knock” invasions on a residence, where they have raided the “wrong address.” They “mistake” addresses so often, one has to wonder if they take joy in such “mistakes.” It gives them the pleasure of terrifying innocent residents. And since the “law enforcement” people didn’t knock, the innocent residents believe they are being invaded by criminals and may take steps to defend themselves.
The police philosophy is “it doesn’t matter if we attacked you for absolutely no reason, and without identifying ourselves. We feel ‘scared..’ so we get to kill you.”
‘look what you made me do’
The creedo of the occupier.
Everybody is a target for cops. They work for the state and the state is in business to rob and control its subjects. If you challenge that you are a target.
They always sold us the idea that registration of certain things such as children, cars and guns allowed useful census information to be gathered so policies could be aligned for our benefit.
We’ve known forever that’s not exactly the case but now they’re just becoming blatant about it.
The Victoria police badge (also emblazoned on the side of our cop cars) says “Uphold the Right”. Whenever I get pulled up I ask them exactly who’s Right is that about, mine or his? I have the Right to travel freely around my country unencumbered. I get funny looks.
Whenever they try and book me for “unregistered”, it fails because my car and bike are on a “register of vehicles”, so the charge is incorrect. They hate that.
I’ve been hoping for years that everyone just throws away their number plates, but that wish is constantly stymied by the clovers. I’d love to see the day when the billions of our money they spent on speed and toll cameras are rendered entirely useless.
It just takes some outrage, and then courage to follow it through.
good point, on the surveillance gear. I’ve often thought, mindlessly cruising down the motorways and seeing them, that when the ship hits the span (remember the Second Narrows Bridge, back about 1978? and it all comes flying apart, I think a worthy endeavour would be to stealthily take one’s long gun and systematically “disable” then, one item at a time. A direct hit to the side of one of those round cans housing a speed camera, RFID chip reader, etc, would render it useless. No more Big Brutha nosing after you.
“The Beat-era author/philosopher William S. Burroughs once quipped: “After a shooting, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
Wouldn’t it be refreshing if, after a shooting or “terrorist” event, the American public made a genuine effort to determine who REALLY “did it?” And I’m not talking about Adam Lanza, or the “19 Islamics with box cutters.”
Even today, the average American is not stupid enough to buy the media lies about who the real perpetrators are, or are not. Most Americans are working very hard to stay in denial.
It’s not difficult to identify most of the evil entities that have manufactured these “tragedies,” and then used the events they created to destroy our Constitution. The only way we’re going to keep any freedom is to identify the evil ones, and deny them the power to keep manufacturing more crises.
If Americans are not willing to face the realities behind these “precipitating events”……..they no longer deserve liberty.
If Americans are not willing to face the realities behind these “precipitating events”……..they no longer deserve liberty.
True, but people who ARE willing to face reality live amongst the ignorant, and they (we) DO deserve liberty. If we’re not to be swept away by tyranny, we have to keep up our efforts to educate others, and to resist evil government whether or not the sheep understand.
I would drop the whole amerikan thing it doesnt mean anything to a real freedom lover other than geography. Its a label that restricts ones thinking to a us and them mentality. We are all just humans on earth and we must strive for freedom in this land and then all others. I thought growing up that was what amerika was all about. Peace to all man kind showing the way of prosperity to all. Take or leave it and live and let live is the only hope for the future. Until then we desperately need to develope the means to be able to stand up to our local leos and send a message that we truly arent going to take it no more. It is paramount that we have the bodies to stand side by side. That is all they have so why dont we do the same thing free human justice league AKA local militias.
“…AKA local militias.”
Music to my ears. Click on my name.
First time poster. I am 31 years old. I started paying attention just before we invaded Iraq. I thought myself a republican at the time. Since then I have felt myself a conservative, then a conservative libertarian (if that makes sense), and for the last 5 years I feel much more aligned with your description of the NAP, natural law, and Libertarianism. I have come to truly hate republican and democrat politicians, but more so the democrats. I just wanted you to know who was asking these questions.
At what point is a domestic terrorist, who has not yet committed any actual act of terror, committing a crime that you can justify taking forcable action over? Someone in the planning stages. Before or after they buy materials or make physical moves to try to achieve their goal. This question also applies to the house wife plotting her husbands murder etc. etc. Could you point me towards any reading material, books, etc. that go into all of these subjects that you write about on your website? I would appreciate it very much.
To something you posted about the other day, I don’t think it’s a very good idea for people to be shooting guns up into the air at celebratory events. But if I am sure of anything, it’s that I do not want to be subject to what other people might think are good ideas, and have those laws enforced at the point of a gun. I also don’t feel I have the right to enforce what I think are good ideas upon others that are not committing force or fraud.
I’m on your team here I think, I just want more sources of information.
Thanks guys! DocTshirt on Neal Boortz website pointed me towards your website many months ago and I’m grateful for it.
In the eyes of Leviathan your “guilty” whenever they say you are. So nowadays just “thinking” it qualifies us for their special cattle cars. Damn them all!
Welcome, first of all!
Ok, on your question:
“At what point is a domestic terrorist, who has not yet committed any actual act of terror, committing a crime that you can justify taking forcable action over?”
First, let’s drop the “domestic terrorist” verbiage. There is simply crime – violating the rights of others by causing them injury.
“Someone in the planning stages”… “This question also applies to the house wife plotting her husbands murder etc.”
In that case, if you have proof of intent to commit harm – not thoughts, not suppositions but actions that clearly demonstrate the person is getting ready to commit harm consciously and deliberately – for instance, contracting with a hit man – then you have a case for defensive action.
But that’s rather different than the Clover Standard – according to which mere possibility (and not any specific possibility, just “someone” might….) is sufficient to exercise prior restraint against innocent people. People who haven’t done anything to harm others, or manifested an intent to do so.
And that’s the difference.
Thank you very much Eric for this post and your below posts. Much appreciated.
You bet, Preacher!
I look forward to your thoughts in reply.
Glad to see you are on the right path. Some great resources (a million times better than Boortz):
Free Talk Live
School Sucks Podcast: Education Evolution
Storm Clouds Gathering
Those should keep you busy for a while.
Thank you very much for these links ! I shall go through them this evening and add them to my favorites.
First, if you haven’t got one, get and read/study the Constitution. Pay particular attention to what it says in light of what we see “out there: today. Pay special attention to the first ten Articles of Ammendment, also the section on the legislative branch which details the duties and functions of the central government. Then, weigh things like the EPA, FDA, FBI, DofAg, Ed, DHS, our structure and function of the military… DEA, the Federal Reserve, fiat money, interstate commerce….. those ought to get you pretty hot by the time you’re done with them.
As for further reading.. get a copy of the Federalist Papers, browse through them, they are the record of discussion between some of the men forming the Constitution. Next, read Thomas Paine’s Common Sense… find it online for free. 70 pages, and a good read.
For a modern work, find David Hackett Fischer’s amazing book Paul Revere’s Ride. It details what was going on in the colonies, what the Crown were doing, the specific events leading up to the Lexington confrontation, and the events of that first day of the war, 19th April, 1775. It is VERY readable, grips you like a novel, and will open our eyes and heart to who those men were, on both sides, )great character sketches of the individuals of the time) and the decisions they made and how they affected the times. You will never see history in the same ilght again. THEN, it is an easy thing to consider what we face today, the maneouvrings of the central government, and compare that to then. The solution is, I fear, the same that was necessary then. The “straw” that will finally break the camel’s back is, as well, the same. If our response to that “straw” is not the same one they employed, I fear we truly are done. It has not yet come to a direct confrontation… many have been either asleep or very patient. The time may well be drawing close. The issues are the same, as well. Study that period in history and YOU will be prepared… and can thus influence others, as many of them did in that day.
Society — and individual human action and motivation — is very obviously a complicated subject; there is no way to codify every possible situation and all variations on crime. One of the reasons why we (as a culture) are in such a massively screwed up state is that we have allowed law after law after law to be passed, each one ostensibly an attempt to clarify what is permitted and what is illegal. Now we are at a point where no one even understands what the law is. We are at the point where the average person is a multiple felon each day even without meaning to be. A better approach to law and to regulating a society is to have clear principles — such as the non-aggression principle — and clear definitions of such things as “damage” or “property”. Then we can go forward and have understandable laws on clear cut crimes like forceable rape, or unprovoked murder. So what about the not-so-clear-cut crimes, the times when the situation was debatable? That is the purpose of jury trials. A group of your peers will decide (based on community standards where the event took place) whether a reasonable person would have done what the defendant is charged with. If everyone on the jury thinks you have committed a crime, that is a pretty strong indicator that you have not just somewhat violated local standards, you have clearly and unambiguously gone wrong.
OK, I know that leaves things a bit fuzzy — but that is about as good as the law can ever get. We will never codify every possible human action, but we CAN state our principles, and we CAN outlaw the obvious. For the gray areas we rely on the judgement of peers, local people of good standing who are free to apply their best understanding. It might be scarey to think that you are dependent on the judgement of your peers, but I would much rather depend on them than on a black robed judge whose paycheck comes from the state.
Very well-said in re establishing clear principles – which obviate the gray areas. An action was either demonstrably harmful – there’s a victim; there is injury to persons or property – or not.
Some actions may be inadvertently harmful (no intent to harm; merely the result of poor judgment, etc.) in which case there is still responsibility but to a lesser (and perhaps merely civil) extent than when an action is deliberate/malicious (which may amount to criminal conduct).
Probably the most difficult action to fit into the NAP is intended (but not yet realized) harm. But here again one must (I think) differentiate between an interpretation of intent to cause harm (e.g., anyone who “speeds” intends to commit harm, or at least, is committing an act that entails imminent harm) which may or may not be true and so cannot justify intervention/prior restraint (because “speeding” is by no means necessarily harmful or dangerous) and clear, objective evidence of intent to cause harm (e.g., a woman attempting to hire a hit man to have her husband killed). In the case of the latter, if we have objective evidence of the woman discussing the details of her husband’s murder, making arrangements to pay the hit man, etc. – then we have an objective basis for establishing intent to commit murder – a violation of the NAP – which is harmful – and so, it is justified to take action to prevent it/punish it.
“Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.”
The thought police think they are God, and can know what you are thinking. But even if they were right 100% of the time, that is NOT in the purview of civil government. God has reserved that judgment for Himself. (If you don’t believe in God, then you have nothing to worry about.) But no human is either authorized or equipped to judge the thoughts and intents of another’s heart. Reserve that for yourself.
If everyone on the jury thinks you have committed a crime, that is a pretty strong indicator that you have not just somewhat violated local standards, you have clearly and unambiguously gone wrong.
That’s how it’s supposed to work, but American citizens have become such sheep in the last few decades that they’ll pretty much convict anybody if the prosecutor (who MUST be an honest person, right?) says he’s guilty. An endless parade of examples of prosecutorial abuse seems not to have penetrated the consciousnesses of most people.
“If everyone on the jury thinks you have committed a crime, that is a pretty strong indicator that you have not just somewhat violated local standards, you have clearly and unambiguously gone wrong.”
I disagree with this strongly.
For example: In my hyper conservative,”good Christian” area, I guarantee a majority believe a “crime” has been committed when someone grows/smokes/sells pot.
Obviously, that is not so.
I do not want guilt to be a function of majority rule.
You either harmed someone, or their property, or you did not.
If not, then no crime has been committed.
The challenge is to construct a society in which genuine crimes are punished, but mala prohibita (aka “victimless crimes”, aka “not crimes at all”) are not meddled in by nosy assholes. Without a clear consciousness by at least a sizable minority of the populace, the best we can do is try to hold back the worst offences of the ravaging state.
While I agree with you about crimes needing to be defined based on someone being a victim, I keep thinking about how do we handle situations which fall (in my opinion) into a gray area.
For example, suppose you live next door to Old Man Calley, the crazy guy. Every time you mow your lawn, he sits on his porch with his shotgun aimed at you. What tangible damage has he done to you? Hurt your feelings? Perhaps that should not be a crime. To me, having someone place you in his shotgun sights is threat, even without stated intent to injure, even without physical damage being done. On the other hand, marijuana or alcohol usage is not a threat. Speeding, per se, is not a threat. For me, even without physical damage, intentionally placing someone in a situation where they no longer have a reasonable ability to defend or protect themselves is a threat. We need to have some sort of way of dealing with that. Maybe jury trial is not the answer, but we need some procedure. In my opinion… 🙂
The premise behind your post is that a perfect world is possible. It isn’t. The question isn’t whether bad things will happen. They will. It’s whether they’ll be random/occasional (individuals doing bad things) or systematized and official (government doing them to anyone/everyone).
I’d rather run the risks that come with too much liberty rather than suffer the certain consequences that follow from too little liberty – as per Jefferson.
Also, your old man with shotgun is an easy case. He is threatening you with deadly violence. He has pointed a lethal weapon at you. You’d be within your rights to respond to that with defensive force.
maybe the ol’ coot knows, and you don’t, that his twelve bore is not loaded…. he’s jes’ “messin with ya” to be ornery. Didja ever think of walking over there one fine afternoon with a beer, or a lemonade, sitting down and having a chat? Maybe asking him some curious questions about his ancient, damascus barreled side by each rabbit ear duck gun? For him to be a messin with ya thet a way, ye musta done, er not done, sumthin he didn’t tek kindly to. Maybe keepin yer own nose on your side the fence, rather than beinn neighbourly and askin him how he’s a doin, in maybe the first week you were living there. Folks have different ideas about what’s “proper”, and can git uppity if you aren’t the way THEY think you should be… like you railing on him for “being dangerous” by pointing his unloaded ol rabbit ears at ya. Do you KNOW he’s being “dangerous”> City folks sometimes git skeered at the dangest thangs….. but then ,so do country folk.. on’y a diff’rent batch a thangs…..
I hope you were kidding… .
The thing is, it’s not up to me to divine whether a person pointing a lethal weapon at me is “jes’ messin’ ” around. I’d be furious even if I knew the guy and considered him a friend. What if the gun is loaded? What if the imbecile “accidentally” pulled the trigger? He could easily kill/maim me – or someone else. Or blast my house/car, etc.
And if I didn’t know the guy, then I’d have to assume he was either deranged or criminal – and looking to kill me. Who in their right mind gives the benefit of the doubt to a stranger pointing a gun their way?
First rule of gun safety: Don’t ever point a gun at something you don’t intend to shoot.
Guns are not toys. You don’t play with them. Especially when it involves other people’s lives.
I will defend our right to bear arms to the death. But I will also denounce people who handle guns idiotically or criminally. The man in your example would be guilty of both.
Remember that, currently, very few cases ever go to a jury anyway. Between new “rules” that limit it, to the insanity of coerced “plea bargains,” the potential good of any jury is extremely limited.
If you are interested in finding out more about how juries should function and their history, take a look at the Fully Informed Jury Association. http://fija.org/
Contact your state coordinator for literature and to participate in reaching out to those who may be called to serve on a jury. Be part of the solution while you wait for the revolution. 🙂
I am the Wyoming contact person for the Fully Informed Jury Association. If your state doesn’t have one, consider volunteering for that as well.
Once the Global Counterfeit Money Mafia got control of money, education, and the broadcast mainstream media, it was only a matter of time before they owned everyone. Did you really think Democracy was going to keep you “free”? What we have is literally mentally retarded children voting for violent and psychopathic mommy and daddy apes-in-pants.
Americans really, I mean really, believe they are free! Sure they’re free. Free to choose from among the options the gov’t gives them. Just like a monkey in a cage. The monkey is also free to choose from among the options the zoo keeper gives him.
And like a monkey, Americans are prisoners. You need the gov’t’s permission slip (Passport) to leave your country (cage).
I envy you, being in the early stages of Awakening. You’re Neo, freshly brought onboard the Nebachudnezzar, being shown the REAL nature of the Matrix!
Here are some of my favorite sources from my early awakening…and that I still read:
Stefan Molyneaux (YouTube) (dear GOD why can’t the French use fewer letters–they don’t pronounce half of them, why not save the ink??)
Will Grigg at http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/
As for books–
Murray Rothbard (any of them, all available at mises.org)
Ludwig von Mises
FA Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”–not perfectly libertarian but easy reading and great anti-Keynesianism
Gee Eric, a police state ain’t so bad — if you’re the police.
LOL! Sure it is Rich. Don’t you know that being a cop is the most difficult job in the country? Followed closely by being a mom.
doughnuts are willy creatures slippery and hard to track. its a dangerous job hunting done coffee shops and pastry.
You know, it’s really just a few bad cops that give the other one percent a bad name.
“You know, it’s really just a few bad cops that give the other one percent a bad name.”
If only that were true, Rich.
No such thing as a ‘good’ cop. They are all thugs who make their living by robbing, beating, intimidating, lying and killing. Cops are scum and should be treated as such. They aren’t hero’s and they don’t ‘protect and serve’. The day will come when the people turn on them as they have turned on the people. I look forward to that day. “Payback is a bitch.”
You’re right, Eric, I’m being too generous with one percent.
Ah yes, the mythical “good cop”. I think you would have a better chance of finding unicorns.
The Catch 22 as regards cops is simply this:
The laws are bad – evil, arguably. What sort of person enforces bad – much less evil – laws?
And he (the cop) must enforce them – if he wishes to remain a cop.
Ergo, cops cannot be “good.”
They may think they’re good – or doing good – but then, so did most Nazis.
Harsh? Certainly. Unfair? Not at all.
“If only that were true, Rich.”
I think he’s right, eric. He puts it a little differently than I did: the 98% of them that are bad cops give the other 2% a bad name. 😉
So only 99% are bad? That seems low.
“We’re mad as hell … and by god, we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Great! What are we going to do other than sit behind our computer’s and bitch about how mad we are?
Because whatever it is, I’m in!
I know you believe that there will be some sort of a natural trigger – like a collapse of the dollar – that will put change in motion, and you may be right. But why must ANYONE wait another day, another month, another year, another generation for change to happen?
Why can’t we affect change now? Why can’t we be the change we want? I think the answer is still that we have too much ‘stuff’ that is more important to us than all the liberty, freedom things we say are so near and dear to us.
If change were as easy as “opting out” of the gov’t then everyone would have done it already. But when change means a fundamental change in one’s way of life, then it becomes too expensive.
Here’s the irony: the whole liberty movement is about changing the fundamental (governmentally controlled) way of life in this country yet nobody is willing to change (sacrifice) THEIR way of life, even though the country’s way of life is the sum of its constituent parts.
That’s why I ask people, “Well, did the founders say to each other “hey…. let’s just bitch and moan until the king dies and let’s work within the system”.” Clearly they didn’t did they? And so when I hear the mewling “We have to work within the system I want to reach out and slap them good”
Correct. You cannot use a corrupt broken system to “fix” that corrupt broken system.
Action is needed. Education is necessary but not sufficient. Actions have to be put behind those words.
Every individual can act locally to be the change he/she wants and before you know it, the whole has changed.
I think anything anyone does now against any level of gov’t is defensive. To argue otherwise would be like saying: just because so many Catholic priests molested so many children is no reason to believe that Catholic priests molest children. Only the most perverted interpretation of the current situation could see it differently.
We are making tremendous progress!
I’ve addressed this before, but in brief: Before physical action can be successfully taken, psychological (ethical) action must be taken. A sufficient critical mass of people must be cultivated – who will support physical action, if it comes to that. Without such support, any physical action is doomed to failure. It will be an individual martyrdom here – another there – each dismissed as the actions of a “disgruntled kook” or “domestic extremist.”
The founders showed us the way to do it right. They spent years patiently making their case and spreading the word – all the while bending over backwards to be conciliatory toward the crown… if it would only return the favor. When it didn’t – when it escalated in the other direction – people began to see. As they are beginning to see now.
I am convinced, more than ever, that if they push even a little bit more, there is going to be push back. Not isolated individuals, but thousands of them. Perhaps millions, in time. And once that ball gets rolling, it will be impossible to stop. Because – as then – right (and reason) is on our side.
Hello Eric. I agree with your words, “I am convinced, more than ever, that if they push even a little bit more, there is going to be push back.”. One way that may help change the gentle push back to a shove is by spreading the knowledge that the DHS are buying “no hesitation targets” for training purposes. These targets are of pregnant women, grandma’s and children holding guns. The idea is to get the coppers to shoot without hesitation. I find this 100% repugnant (what we need are lifelike targets of DHS and TSA goons). At any rate, if enough people see these pictures normal people being used for targets then maybe the nudge with become a shove. The link: http://www.infowars.com/law-enforcement-requested-shooting-targets-of-pregnant-women/
It’s absolutely sick. WTF is going on?
Dom – spread the link with pictures to everyone you know. If enough people want to throw up over this then maybe the gengle push back will become a shove.
I located the terrorist and posted images of them here:
Can you imagine the shit-storm that would break if some company ginned up shooting targets of cops? Of TSA blue shirts?
There would no-knock SWAT raids and serious hell to pay.
But targets of six-year-old kids, pregnant women and old white guys?
What’s not to like?
A local, indoor range used to sell targets of a turbaned, bearded man but eventually stopped selling these as insensitive. Targets of pregnant women, children and grandmothers is not too insensitive? WTF?
Yup – doublethink on display.
The fact that there would be an eruption of outrage if someone made/sold cop target practice stuff dramatically points out their hypocrisy… and worse, their psychopathy.
Now, if someone were to come up with targets of blue-gloved zombies, badged and uniformed zombies, helmeted and SWAT-emblazoned zombies, it would all be in good fun, right?
One thing I found especially nauseating was the descriptions of the old guy or grandma in a bath robe as ‘in their own home’.
I’d say that’s all in good fun, Ferret. How could anyone say otherwise after the recent DHS-zombie exercises? I’d be willing buy a few targets like that. 😉
well this explains why they havent been hesitating. I was trying to figure out why they would shoot people in there own beds but now i see theyve been training to do just that. We are in a war boys weather you know it or not you are already designated enemy combatants. USA is already designated a battle zone. Don the only thing that can be done properly is to team up with other like minded ppl like ypou said sacrificing your stuff for the freedom of us all but nobody is willing to give up there precious heating and air or TEE VEEs or any of the shit that weighs us all down. Then the day comes when your a refugee and you have to leave behind all your shit anyway. I dont understand ppl maybe its bc im poor and dont have alot of shit to deal with? If any of you guys want to start making connections maybe Eric can facilitate a meeting room here or something, and remember non aggression is key but you have to be willing to stand up for your neighbor to the death so think hard on it.
The PTB aim to impoverish us and control us. We want liberty to prosper. I don’t see how impoverishing ourselves in the hope of living outside the radar screen of the PTB accomplishes anything.
The state control freaks are now harassing people who have fled to the most inhospitable corners of this country to be left alone. They have accepted the poverty that comes with that to be free but now find themselves looking down the gun barrels of the ‘code enforcers’, the epa, the fda, and countless other government departments of all levels.
Accepting poverty to be free is no longer an out the control freaks of the state accept. That poverty now makes a person a target for their sadistic pleasure of causing pain and grief to others. The pleasure they get from bullying people. Nobody who isn’t part of the club is to be left alone now.
Funny how liberal TV and movie script writers invoke “cop killer bullets” in every cop show or movie, and expect audiences to nod in sheeplesque approval.
The clear implication?
The death of a cop is far more outrageous and intolerable than the death of a mere mundane.
So much for these liberals’ “liberalism.”
However, I’ve come to accept the fulsome horror of the effectiveness of the conditioning that has rendered so many people this reflexively thoughtless. I myself did not break through completely until I was well into adulthood. The truth is – I suspect – that it takes a lucky combination of intelligence and exposure to contrarian notions before the light of reason begins to flicker. Many unfortunate millions are never exposed to contrarian ideas – so they remain ethical-intellectual automata, operating according to reflex and rote. Some are permanently broken, of course. But by no means all of them. The ones who can be reached are worth reaching out to.
And the rest are to be pitied, for they are lost not just to us but to humanity.
Has anyone here actually had to fire a gun at a human being? I have. I’d never had any training before, so my decisions and actions were driven by one thing only… fear of death.
You can’t go back, of course, but I’m not sure any amount of practice shooting at ANY kind of target would have made any difference to what happened or my ultimate decision to pull that trigger. It might have improved my aim, just not my decision making process. At that point, it was very cut and dried. Shoot or die.
The only purpose I can see for these photo targets is exactly what they said… to condition the cops to be more comfortable shooting at people they would normally not want to harm. And being in fear of their lives is obviously not going to be any part of that.
The only purpose I can see for these photo targets is exactly what they said… to condition the cops to be more comfortable shooting at people they would normally not want to harm. And being in fear of their lives is obviously not going to be any part of that.
I guess if there can be said to be any kind of silver lining to this situation, it is that any hesitation or qualms I might ever had about shooting a cop have gone right out the window.
Someone needs to market targets bearing TSA images and SWAT images. They would sell very well indeed around here.
“Before physical action can be successfully taken, psychological (ethical) action must be taken”
Why can individuals not take psychological (ethical,moral) action while physically defending their rights against the state?
You see it as a collectivist solution, I see it as an individual solution and the sum of the individual solutions is a whole solution. It’s a market solution. Just as the whole market benefits from individual actions.
Individuals morally and physically (if necessary) defending themeselves against the state will also cultivate people through example.
How could anyone morally criticize you for pushing a cop off of someone who he’s got handcuffed on the ground and he’s beating? How could they criticize you for refusing to allow them to arrest you for feeding the homeless in Orlando (which is against the law)?
If individuals are engaged in moral, peaceful activities and the state comes to abuse you and you give them every opportunity to cease and desist their abuse and they refuse, who could criticize you for defending yourself?
If they do criticize you then the problem is the morality of our society and the cause is lost. You’re an excellent writer Eric but I don’t think even you have the ability to turn an immoral man moral with only your words.
Somebody referenced MLK and Gandhi related to the NAP. I think the fact they were both assassinated says something about the NAP: it skews the concept of defending one’s rights – even if physical action is required. I personally am not willing to die without a fight.
I think the psychological action is beginning to take hold.
As the “liberals” have so aptly demonstrated, when you control or redefine the meaning of words, you can shift public perceptions. In the 1800’s a “liberal” was what we would now call an anarcho-libertarian. The word “liberal” was hijacked first by the socialist party, then the “progressives” and today a liberal is someone who freely spends other people’s money in the name of “social justice”.
I make it a point of referring to all government (federal/state/local) employees as tax-parasites.
Cops sitting at the side of the road are road-side-tax-collectors.
The current actions of the cops and military are losing them whatever public respect they have at a rapid rate. I loved hearing that Chris Dorner was “Waco-ed” by the LAPD and I have been using that term since. Always good to remind people of how the government was quite willing to torch US citizens in the past.
I wanted to cheer when I overheard an old guy telling his buddy that the US military has forgotten how to win. All they do is blow stuff up these days.
Whenever someone tells me about some government promise or proclamation, I just ask how they can believe that given that everything the government has announced over the last decade has turned out to be false? I never tell them they’re wrong, I just ask them to question the source…. Folks will defend an idea if you claim it’s wrong and yet if you question the source, you invite them to question as well.
The fact that Mordor-on-the-Potomac fakes the CPI and unemployment statistics is a fertile field for encouraging people to question the veracity of any and all government proclamations. i.e. if the government consistently lies about inflation and employment, why should anyone believe anything the government has to say??
Recent score was talking to an ardent anti-gun guy about Newtown. When I suggested that maybe they should pass another law making murder illegal, he stopped to think. And after he agreed that more gun control laws won’t stop maniacs (I asked how much murder and mayhem a maniac with a 5 gallon bucket of gasoline could cause in a school).
When the gun grabbing argument was re-framed to be like taking cars away from law-abiding motorists because a drunk plowed into a schoolbus, he saw the light. Now here is an anti-gun individual asking the right questions…. finally…. His answers? Armed school guards or armed teachers. I refrained from cheering and instead solemnly agreed that those ideas seem like they would at least minimize the damage a maniac could cause.
Not all “progressives” are brain-dead. However, you need to challenge their assumptions in a way that leads them to form better opinions on their own.
When they form the idea, they own it and will then defend it.
Frame your words to assist them….
No, Shazaam, you are just being US-centric. That simply isn’t true anywhere in the English speaking world apart from the U.S.A. and its cultural possessions. As a case in point, here in Australia the Liberal Party is the main right wing party.
psychological is what the state is. Without it, it has no real power. It’s acts of violence require the psychological conditioning of the population to work and not cause a backlash.
Thus when the individual fights back the mass sides with the state not the individual. So it has been for some time. The state lies to keep the masses on its side. But now what happens?
People bust out their recording devices. They still think they can shame those of the state. It’s not working to cause the state to reform. It is breaking down the psychological faith in the state. Thus the state attacks recording making more people question their faith.
At some point part of the crowd will record and the other part will come to the aid of the individual.
A fiction of the mind cannot be fought with physical force. An individual fighting back physically will ultimately lose every time when most everyone else believes the fiction.
When the battle of the mind is won, the physical is just a mopping up exercise.
“When the battle of the mind is won, the physical is just a mopping up exercise”
Yea? And when in the U.S. has that ever worked? I agree that the people have to be “deprogrammed” but I do not discount using any means necessary to defend our rights as a means to that deprogramming.
I refuse to believe that if a crowd of sheeple saw a man defending another man from the goon squad with physical force if necessary, that they would not find his actions moral and courageous and feel shame that they did not intervene themselves. That someone in that crowd woudl not be inspired.
If that is not the case, if people are so conditioned as to just stand around and cheer for the state agent beating the shit out of the pregnant woman then what we’re doing is a waste of time.
The mighty USSR collapsed when the illusion collapsed. So did eastern european governments. The whole thing runs on illusion. So killing the illusion has worked.
Americans by and large still side with the cop in any struggle. The cop lies. They believe the cop. People have stood aside while cops murdered people who were not even fighting back. And ones that were. But the change is now they take video of it. The cops still lie, they still get away with it. But the video is destroying faith in the state.
To secure power the abuse has to become SOP, just the way things are done, people have to get used to it. That means slow. It’s who wins the mind. We can sit by as the state conditions people to accept being beaten, which then it’s lost or keep planting seeds that bring about doubt.
Every time I am called names, insulted, labeled a conspiracy theorist or worse I have planted a seed of doubt. A person who lashes out does so because his worldview has been questioned.
I don’t see fighting a cop in the street turning out well for me at present. So I will keep on with my use of jedi mind tricks. It’s kept me from arrest so far.
Have you read, The Moon is Down?
It’s very short.
Brilliantly said, Brent!
“A fiction of the mind cannot be fought with physical force.”
That’s a keeper.
Don–THAT’S what I’m trying to impart. Start a fight now, you lose. But every passing day we’re winning hearts and minds–until the day comes when the quote above is true, and half the people jump in to restrain the pig while the others record the evidence.
In your post, you allude to this–that they might do it now even.
In a month, or two, a year or two, they WILL.
And then we can go on the verbal offensive, and start arresting the PTB who are behind all this.
Don’t shoot the enforcers. It’s what they want, so badly they’re doing everything in their power to push us into it, because we will lose the moral high ground.
StormCloudsGathering on re-committing to the NAP
And the most convincing:
So You Want To Overthrow the Government?
Simply put: NOT YET!
Of course it’s up to you if you resist when they specifically target you. If they’re coming for my kids, my guns, or my gold–I will.
But do anything now, and it massively strengthens their position, and weakens ours.
We’ve done nothing wrong. They have done, and continue to do, everything wrong.
Those two facts must sink into a large minority, or even the majority, before active resistance will be seen as anything but “terrorism”.
We own the moral high ground. Let’s keep it; the sniping is best from up here.
I have read elsewhere that the critical mass is actually only about 3%…
And a non-aggressive populace. More would be welcome, of course, but if there are only 3% willing to deal with the problem, and then go back to their lives, it will be basically successful.
In that case, we’re even closer than I thought!
Reason to cheer, eh?
The critical thing is to awake as many who can be awakened. And to avoid being placed in the position of firing the first shot, literally and figuratively.
The PTB continue to peel back their lips, revealing their fangs. This only helps our cause. It is increasingly incredible (original meaning of the word) to deny the obvious – that a police state is being erected; that the government is about domination and control – not “helping” or “protecting” the people.
We are gaining traction – more so every week.
All we need is time enough and things will take care of themselves.
Well, one thing we do is thoroughly monitor every damn vote these control freaks have. We collect information and lots of it regarding which of our elected representatives PROTECT our constitutional rights and which ones vote to VIOLATE our rights. By the time the 2014 elections happen we should have a very thorough chart prepared for all the constitutional issues that were voted on and how ach elected representative voted. If a representative voted to violate our constitutional rights EVEN ONCE then they will face the. Most god awful fight they have ever had if they are running for reelection. We must go door to door to talk with our neighbors about the violation of rights that each of these scum voted for. We must get involved at the most fundamental level of the electoral process, enmasse, so that none of these scum can ever again get a job in public office. We CAN DO THIS. We can be hell on wheels if we put our hearts and souls into this. We can confront the living shit out of these traitors at every turn of the road. We can literally make their remaining public life MISERABLE and we can do EVERYTHING humanly possible to get so deeply involved at all levels of politics that this government won’t know what hit them.
THAT IS WHAT WE CAN DO………AND THAT IS JUST FOR STARTERS.
Why waste your time? Give up the superstitious belief that another individual can be granted rights neither of you has to begin with, and the mythical authority of the state disappears. The more individuals who do this, the less relevant the state becomes.
right on fuck the state we dont need them they are parasites why wont ppl wake up
Exactly. Nobody has any moral or legitimate right to control another person. The belief in government and the belief in authority are the chains which enslave you. Once you realize you own yourself you will see the state for what it is: evil institutionalized.
Stop complying with its thugs and its laws. And show other people why they should do the same. When enough of us quite complying it will die quickly.
“THAT IS WHAT WE CAN DO”
Yeah, that’s what’s been done for a couple hundred years and it hasn’t accomplished anything. Working within the system is working FOR the system, ultimately.
What I decided to do for myself is to ignore the political process. I don’t vote. As Clyde Wilson wrote a few years ago, maybe voting isn’t actually evil, but it’s still an act of cluelessness, like habitually chewing gum.
I’d rather watch my family and do what I can to provide for them than to watch the antics of a bunch of assholes who claim to be in charge. Fuck politicians. Ignore their asses and they’ll have no power to help or harm anyone.
voting is evil its promotion of the state I.E. aggression against your neighbor.
Working within the system is working FOR the system, ultimately.
Ed, this needs to be forged in giant gold letters on a mountainside somewhere. It just boggles my mind that, despite hundreds of years worth of examples, the sheeple majority still haven’t awakened to this self-evident truth.
” It just boggles my mind that, despite hundreds of years worth of examples, the sheeple majority still haven’t awakened to this self-evident truth.”
I’ve been saying it for years, including the saying that you can’t kill a snake by living in its belly, but….
I still fell for the siren song twice lately. Once in ’08 when Ron Paul tried for the nomination and again last year when he did it again.
Maybe I really learned this time. I amaze myself with my own stupidity sometimes, goober that I am. ahaha
I like to backpack… ever try to get a fire going when the wood is wet?
The “wood” in America is very wet indeed. But it is beginning to dry out. Ron Paul is one of the people most responsible for this – because he got the message – not all of it, not perfect – to millions of people who otherwise would likely have never even considered that maybe there is an alternative to Democrat-left authoritarianism and Republican-right authoritarianism.
It took generations to turn the average American into a Clover. But in the space of only about 10 years, millions have been converted to the ideals of liberty.
I understand the frustration – believe me. But at the same time, I understand that it will take time and much more importantly, progress has been made and continues to be made.
I’m far from ready to give up – and hope you haven,’t either!
“nobody is willing to change (sacrifice) THEIR way of life,”
I know several people, like me, who have indeed changed their lifestyles to promote their own personal liberty.
Those I know, like me, have foregone the supposed benefits of working for an employer and have entered the market economy as small business owners.
We don’t use credit and limit the use of banking in our businesses to maintaining small checking accounts with debit cards for transactions that require card usage.
Living this way has many more procedures than the two I listed, but just because we don’t write a lot about it on internet forums, doesn’t mean that we don’t exist and/or are doing nothing to promote our own liberty.
I work for my own liberty and expect other people to do what they decide to do on their own. The idea of a “liberty movement” is pretty much beside the point to me. I’m not a joiner and have learned that movements promoted through most media is pointless to my own situation.
Call it selfish, but the free market operates like that, with each actor pursuing his own ends. Attaching myself to any politician or spokesman, or becoming part of any group doesn’t appeal to me.