Some Cases in Point

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Back when this was still a (mostly, or at least more) free country than it is now, lawmakers and judges actually defended individual liberties against abuses by the state – as opposed to systematically taking them away in the name of some vaguely defined “societal good.” 

Younger people – especially those who had not reached maturity before September 11, 2001 – when the curtain finally fell – may not remember this fantastic, distant, almost unbelievable world. So I thought I’d run through a few quotes from Back in the Day, when America wasn’t quite yet a flag-in-every-lapel “Homeland” peppered with cameras and checkpoints and costumed thugs everywhere and run by decree-issuing “Deciders.” Lets’ see now… .

On cops not being a law unto themselves:

“Common as the event may be, it is a serious thing to arrest a 
citizen, and it is a more serious thing to search his person; and
 he who accomplishes it, must do so in conformity to the law of the
 land. There are two reasons for this; one to avoid bloodshed, and 
the other to preserve the liberty of the citizen. Obedience to the 
law is the bond of society, and the officers set to enforce the 
law are not exempt from its mandates.”

-Town of Blacksburg v. Bean
104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916): Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11
(Wis 1924).

On being able to lawfully resist cops acting unlawfully:

“Where officers do not conform to the ‘law of the land’ they have
 no authority and the right to resist them exists. A Public Officer,
 as with a citizen, who unlawfully threatens life or liberty, is 
susceptible to be injured or killed; for by such acts ‘they draw 
their own blood upon themselves’ As stated in some cases, ‘where
 a peace officer has no right to make an arrest without warrant he 
is a trespasser and acts at his own peril.’ ”

– 6A CJS., “Arrest”
Section 16 page 30.

A sheriff who “acts without process,” or
“under a process void on its face, in doing such act, he is not to
be considered an officer but a personal trespasser.”

– Roberts v. Dean,
187 So. 571, 575 (Fla. 1939).

Heresy! It is incredible. Yet this was “the way it was” … once, a long time ago.

Wait.  There is more:

“A person has a lawful right to resist an arrest by an unlawful
 authority, i.e., an officer without a valid warrant.”

-Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903).


“What of the resistance to the arrest? The authorities are in 
agreement that since the right of personal property is one of the 
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, any unlawful 
interference with it may be resisted and every person has a right 
to resist an unlawful arrest… and, in preventing such illegal 
restraint of his liberty, he may use such force as may be necessary.”

-City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058).

Positively shocking!

And then we have this:

“It is not
 an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer,
 even though he may have submitted to such custody without resistance.”

-Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904).

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted 
to be restrained of his liberty has the same right, and only the same 
right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any
 other assault and battery.”

-State v. Robinson, 145 Me. 77, 72 Atl, 2nd.260, 262 (1950).

“What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An 
arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the
 person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance
is to be determined as in other cases of assault. Life and liberty are 
regarded as standing substantially on one foundation; life being 
useless without liberty, and the authorities are uninformed that where
 one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist 
the aggressions of the officer, to the extent of taking the life of 
the assailant, if that be necessity to preserve his own life, or
 prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm.

-State v. Gum,
 68 W. Va. 105, 69 S.E. 463, 464 (1910).

Yowsa! A doozy. Is it possible to imagine any sitting judge or lawmaker issuing a liberty-minded statement like that today?

And, then:

“The United States Supreme Court, and every other court in the past
 deciding upon the matter, has recognized that ‘at Common Law,’ a
 person had the right to ‘resist the illegal attempt to arrest him. ‘”

John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534-35 (1899).

Finally, we have the most subtly seditious quote of all – the one whose mere recitation alone is sufficient these days to merit one’s name being written down by an apparatchik, somewhere deep in the bowels of the Homeland Apparat, as a likely “enemy of freedom” and of course, “with them” … it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

-Thomas Jefferson, domestic extremist.


1. State v. Robinson, 145 Me 77, 72 Alt. 2d 260, 262 (1950)
2. State v. Gum, 68 W. Va. 105
3. State v. Rouseau, 40 Wash. 2d. 92, 241, 242 P.2d 447, 449 (1952)
4. State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 446, 83 S.E., 2d 100, 102 (1954)
5. Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711
6. Thomas v. State, 91 Ga. 204, 18 SE 305
7. Presley v. State, 75 Fla. 434, 78 So. 523
8. Burkhardt v. State, 83 Tex Crim 228, 202 S.W. 513
9. Mullis v. State, 196 Ga. 569, 27 SE 2d 91 (1943)
10. Owen v. State, 58 Tex Crim 261, 125 S.W. 405 (1910)
11. Franklin,118 Ga. 860, 45 S.E. 698 (1903)
12. Graham v. State, 143 Ga. 440 85 S.E. 328, 331
13. City of Columbus v. Holmes, 152 N.W. 2d, 301, 306 (Ohio App. 1058)
14. Adams v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904)
15. Robertson v. State, 198 S. W2d 633, 635-36 Tenn. (1947)
16. Roberts v. Dean, 187 So. 571, 575 Fla. 1939
17. The State of Connecticut against Leach, 7 Conn, Rep. 452 (1829)
18. Housh v. The People, 75 ILL Rep. 487, 491 (1874)
19. Plummer v. The State, 135 Ind. 308, 313, 334 N.E. 968 (1893)
20. John Bad Elk v. U.S. 177 U.S. 529 (1899)
21. People v. Hevern, 127 Misc. Rep. 141, 215 NY Supp 412
22. U.S. v. Cerciello, 86 NJL 309, 90 Atl.1112, (1914)
23. U.S. v. Kelly, 51 Fed 2d 263 (1931)
24. Bednarik v. Bednarik, 16 A 2d, 80, 90, 18 NJ Misc. 633 (1948)
25. State v. Height, 117 Iowa 650, 91 NW 935
26. People v. Corder, 244 Mich. 274, 221 NW 309
27. Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
28. State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo 54 119 SW 405
29. Town of Blacksburg v. Bean, 104 S.C. 146. 88 S.E. 441 (1916)
30. Allen v. State, 197 N.W. 808, 810-11(Wis 1924)
31. Adarns v. State, 121 Ga 163, 48 S.E. 910 (1904) Green v.Kennedy, 48 N.Y. Rep. 653, 654 (1871)
32. Hicks v. Matthews, 266 S.W. 2nd. 846, 849 (Tex. 1954)
33. Porter v. State, 124 Ga. 297, 52 S.E. 283, 287 (1905)
34. Mullins v. State,196 Ga. 569, 27 S.E. 2nd. 91 (1943)
35. Caperton v. Commonwealth, 189 Ky. 652, 655, 225 S.W. 481, 481 (1920).


  1. Ah come on you guys. You’re letting him get to you like that? You’re going to ban him? Why don’t you just ignore him? If he finds himself talking only to himself he’ll leave voluntarily eventually anyway.

    And what’s that expression? If you surround yourself only with people that agree with you, then you’ll never learn anything new. Not that there’s anything new necessarily to learn from this guy, but the precedent is kind of against all the principles you guys argue against: class warfare, isolationism, use of force etc…

    It’s your website, but you guys are smarter than that.

    In any case, I enjoy the discussions here. 😉

    • The thing is, it’s a turn off to a lot of people – worthwhile people who don’t want to have to wade through a dozen idiot posts full of illiterate, poorly spelled gibberish.
      Dom & I let a few get through once in a while, in the interests of science – but for today I’ve had enough.

  2. Eric, this guy has to be pushing your buttons now. He can’t be that stupid. :))

    I want to point out again for those who contend that anarchy is a theoretical construct that could never work, that if you believe that society is so uncivilized and unintelligent as to not be able to figure out the mutual benefits of living and working together peacefully every day then taking those same uncivilized and ignorant people and putting them in a ruling gov’t will not make them civilized or intelligent.

    It will do nothing more than what we have now: an uncivilized, ignorant gov’t that abuses every god given right we have on a daily basis and we are no safer than we would be without them.

    It may be the case that we just have to accept that we live in an uncivilized, ignorant society and the only way to change that is education, which means we have to get the uncivilized, ignorant gov’t out of the education business.

    • I think he is that stupid!

      Either that or he is one of those people who get paid by the government to clutter web sites like this with gibberish as a way to screw up the discussion.

      Regardless, I’ve had enough. I see no point in continuing to allow his posts through. It’s always the same gibberish; it’s like trying to teach a rock to sing.

  3. I’ve always laughed at the fact that the Supreme Court – which get’s its authority from the Constitution – gets to interprete the Constitution. LOL.

    Wouldn’t it be great if we could do that too?

    FYI boss: I redefined my job description and now you work for me. I gave myself a raise too.

    That’s pretty much exactly how the gov works. Sounds pretty absurd huh? Yet, millions of Americans don’t seem to have a problem with it.

    • Indeed!

      And, of course, the Supreme Court was never intended to be the final word as to what is – and is not – constitutionally permissible. States had – and practiced – nullification and threatened secession when no other remedy was available. Secession – in extremity – was considered an essential “check” on a usurping, over-stepping federal government. Of course, that all went out the window in 1865, courtesy of Abraham I – America’s first “constitutional” emperor.

      • During research for a current book project about the constitution, I have learned that the Supreme Court and its usurpations upon We The Individual was specifically intended by many “founding frauders.”

        State sovereignty and any true “check & balance” was out the window within the first few years as Hamilton’s plan was RATIFY, then conquer as designed…his battles with Jefferson in Washington’s cabinet are legion…Implied powers vs. the factual words & meanings of the CON-stitution. Sadly they, the federal and state governments, are all Hamiltonians now.

        As Jefferson said of the judiciary,
        It is not enough, that honest men are appointed Judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed, that ‘it is the office of a good Judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,’ and the absence of responsibility; and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state, from which they have nothing to hope or fear? We have seen, too, that, contrary to all correct example, they are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead, and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then, in fact, the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the states, and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government, in which they have so important a freehold estate. But it is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution, that good government is effected.

  4. Agreed Eric. So many times whenever I ask someone about something the first words out of their mouth is: “well, legally…”
    I don’t give a shit about the law, I want to know what YOU think. That’s where their train of thought usually runs out of track.

    People say: Coop, you have no respect for the law. To which I reply: correct, but I tremendous respect for other people’s rights, which is more than I an say for the law.

    People will also behave morally decent because it benefits them economically to do so. If there are two people in an economy, one produces bread and one produces milk and they trade with each other then what incentive does one have to harm the other? He would only be making life more difficult for himself if he did. A free (as in no gov taxation or regulation) market of production and trade provides the incentives for moral behaviour. That’s the beauty of the free market.

    • In my writing, I try to get people to ask the questions I ask:

      Is “x” right or wrong? – Not illegal or legal.

      Does this law make sense? If not, and if there’s no harm involved in ignoring it, why not ignore it?

      If “x” is morally wrong when an individual does it, can it be moral when a group of individuals – or an entity claiming to act on behalf of some group – does the same thing?


      These are not especially difficult ethical questions. But once you ask them – to answer them is to take your stand on one side of the line or the other. Either you’re in favor of using violence against others who have done you no harm, of throwing people into cells (and much worse besides) merely for refusing to obey you, or provide you with money… or you find such action repellent.

      There is no middle ground.

      No gray areas.

      One thing – or the other.

  5. This thread manifests the biggest problem in our society: grown god-damn adults don’t know the difference between right and wrong!

    Did we not learn that in kindergarten? If it doesn’t belong to you than you have no “right” (as in “rights”) to take it? If it doesn’t belong to you and you don’t have the owner’s permission then you have no right. How fucking hard is that to understand?

    As for a bad driver: if you don’t trust the driver than get the fuck away from him. Who’s holding the gun to your head forcing you to drive next to him? He pays taxes; he has just as much right to the road as you and if you don’t like the way he drives then change lanes, exit and take a piss, whatever.

    YOU and only YOU are responsible for what happens to you. Sorry, scary, too much responsibility I know, but it’s the truth. You can choose to be a victim or choose to be a survivor.

    If somebody mugs you and you are not prepared, don’t blame me or society. Did you not know that there are bad people who might mug you? Did you think you lived in utopia? Reality is harder work than the mall, I know, but to force me and others to be responsible and pay for your security w/o our permission is a violation of our rights.

    • Sorry doncooper but you take the simplistic view of driving. The fact is on many interstates there are only two lanes and you have no control of a driver flying up behind you. On two lane roadways you have no control of the person coming your direction to stay in their lane. A driver has some control but it is minimal if someone else does something wrong.

      • Poor ol’ sparkly little Cloveroni! He just doesn’t get it; always puts the cart before the horse… .

        “The fact is on many interstates there are only two lanes and you have no control of a driver flying up behind you”

        Ever occur to you to use your mirror and move over? Of course not. The faster-moving driver is speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeding! And you are “doing the limit.” Etc.

        Der tag kommt, Clover. Der tag kommt….

        • It does no good to look into a mirror if the person behind you is SPEEDING and loses control. What are you supposed to do see him coning and pull off the side of the road to give him a wide birth? There is a good chance that speeder is drunk if it is at night over the weekend because as you say, we should do nothing to keep them from driving. It is their right to drive drunk and out of control.

          Use your mirror? Yes you have to. According to all studies ever done though the vast majority of accidents are caused by difference in speed. In an ideal world you would not have to look at your mirror on the interstate because cars should be driving the same speed for maximum safety or at lest within a few mph.

            • No, respect other people’s rights every time – and, leave other people alone unless – and until – they have caused you some harm.

              Every time, Clover.

              But you’re into violence. You like to threaten others with force, merely because they’re doing something you don’t like – or because they have something you want. Dress it up all you like. It comes down to threatening your fellow man with violence, including murderous violence…

              How does that make you feel about yourself?

          • “According to all studies ever done though the vast majority of accidents are caused by differences in speed”? Which studies are those. I can’t find even one. I have found a lot of these though:


            Speed has NOTHING to do with causing accidents. The only role speed plays is in how much damage is going to be done when an accident occurs, but the accident is caused by poor decisions on the part of driver.

            If speed were a sole cause of accidents and death and slower was better then I could drive my car off a cliff at 1 mph and not have to worry whereas the shuttle that travels at 17,000 mph would be have been destroyed and all aboard killed.

            And what is “speeding”? Simply traveling faster than the gov posted limit? How does the gov know what the one and only safe maximum speed on every road is? Those guys in gov are nobody special. Just people like you and me, so if they know what the safe speed is then so do we.

          • Well this explains the half dozen times someone changed lanes right into my path yesterday.

            A society of plunder where a large percentage of the population is so lazy they pass off the responsibility on to others to think, avoid, or otherwise take action to prevent disaster.

      • I may have a simplistic view of driving but you seem to very clearly
        have an excuse for anything bad that might happen to you. You sound
        like my ex-wife: nothing is ever your fault or your responsibility.
        It’s always the other person that did something wrong.
        Everyone else should watch out for and take care of you.

        I think you over estimate your importance in society.

        I kid you not. My ex-wife ran over a big old rock in the road that
        every car in front of her managed to aviod. Blew out two tires.
        She says to me: it wasn’t my fault. Somebody put a rock in the road. LOL

        I swear if she ever got into an accident her excuse would be: it’s not
        my fault, there were other cars on the road. *sigh*

      • Clover, there is both written law and established driving protocol that requires slower moving traffic to move to the right lane in the U.S. The right lane is for cruising and the left is for passing. If you stay to the left essentially “lane blocking” to “enforce the law” on your own, you are not only breaking your precious law, you’re also driving dangerously. Many people (myself included) will take the earliest opportunity to pass you on the right and get as far away from you as fast as possible. I don’t slow down for people like you for very long and don’t intend to. If you’re that uncomfortable on divided highways (many of which were designed on the Autobahn model) with high speed traffic all around you then take the secondary roads. If that doesn’t work for you hire a cab, take the train, ride the bus, or stay home! You’ll be doing everyone a favor, yourself included.

        • You forget one thing Boothe, yes the left lane is for passing. It is not there to drive 20 or 30 mph over the speed limit! Do you think guys like Eric ever move right? No. They stay in the left lane because they say they are always passing. What if a semi in front of me is driving 60 mph in an interstate with a speed limit of 65 mph. Do I have to wait for you to pass before I can move into the left lane just because you are a few hundred feet back and driving way over the limit? You would say let the fast guy have the right away and make everyone else slow down and wait for you. I have been in the right lane many times and let the idiot in the left lane by. He may have pulled a gun on me otherwise because as you say you are driving slow so get the hell out of the way.

          • Clover, your specialty is hyperbole and emoting.

            Your write:

            “yes the left lane is for passing. It is not there to drive 20 or 30 mph over the speed limit!”

            Why not, if the speed limit is set absurdly low? In fact, it is routine for traffic to be flowing at close to “20 or even 30 over the speed limit” when the speed limit is set absurdly low. The 55 MPH limit is an obvious example, and even though that law was repealed, there are numerous roads – including Interstates – where this ridiculous limit still obtains. In such cases, doing “20 over” is a mere 75 MPH – which in VA puts you in danger of a “reckless driving” charge. Which is ludicrous.

            Next item. You write:

            “Do you think guys like Eric ever move right? No. They stay in the left lane because they say they are always passing.”

            Just another of your fact-free asserting (and emoting). You know nothing about the way I drive, but just so you do know, I always move right and stay right except when I am passing. And I always move right/yield to faster-moving traffic. This is basic driving etiquette but people such as yourself don’t get it. You believe that so long as you are “doing the limit” you have no obligation to yield, ever. Which is why driving in a Clover fuxxated land such as this is so frustrating – and dangerous.

            Then you go in full Clover Warble:

            “He may have pulled a gun on me otherwise because as you say you are driving slow so get the hell out of the way.”

            It speaks for itself.

    • I couldn’t agree with you more don. But the people that bitch and whine about our driving, want lights on the ball field at our expense (never mind the ball field itself, what the hell does sports have to do with education?) and every other robbery, ursurpation they impose on us, know good and well the difference between right and wrong. They write laws, pass ordinances and promulgate regulations to shove their brand of “right” down our throats, no matter how morally wrong it is.

      Accepting that victim status is usually achieved by someone that didn’t use common sense to begin with doesn’t create a dependancy on the system for security. Dependancy is essential for the system to survive; if no on needs it and they realize that, the system goes away. You are quite right, individual responsibility scares the hell out of most people. I’m afraid that won’t change any time soon.

    • Hey Don,

      My take on this is that, for many people, “written law” is synonymous with moral law. They are not capable of grasping that the latter predates (and supersedes) the former. Hence, they cannot imagine a world in which people behave decently simply because behaving decently is moral rather than “against the law.” Unfortunately, as you know, “written law” often is at odds with moral law – but because people do not understand the distinction, they accept as moral that which is evil if it is done under the color of “the law.”

      Where does this asleep at the wheel mindset come from?

      Probably it has several antecedents or causes, including low intelligence (a depressing fact about humanity is the Bell Curve) and a “just because” upbringing. Parents who do not foster critical thinking and encourage the child to ask why – and develop the habit of mind that you and I and most of the people here take for granted. Instead, the child is taught to defer to Authoritay – reflexively. Government schools and society do their part to cement the mindset of obedience and passivity. Just Do As We Say. It Is For Your Own Good. Believe. Have Faith. Etc.

      • Correct Eric; the majority of people that want to impose yet another law on the rest of us, don’t seem to be able to comprehend cause and effect relationships. I work with a clover of the demoplican / unionist / environmentalist stripe. He’s been going on about the Kochs’ involvement in the BEST study and how it proved AGW was real. I explained to him that atmospheric CO2 levels increase after global warming has already occurred due to seawater out-gassing. He balked and I told him to quit relying on newspaper political commentary and read some actual scientific research. To start with, try some studies on the Antarctic ice record or the cloud chamber experiment at CERN.

        His response was “You know what comes out these smokestacks (we work at a power plant) and car exhausts isn’t good for you! So I feel that’s what’s causing global warming!” I immediately countered with “You FEEL, huh? How about the “inconvenient” data that show there has been no increase in global surface temperatures for 13 years?” He just turned his back on me and walked out of the room. In his mind there is no way that solar energy and natural climatic cycles that have been working for millions of years (in the absence of power plants and SUVs) are the primary drivers of a global temperature changes. In his own words “We’re all justa’ buncha’ human rats gnawing away at th’ planet dude.” In other words, all of mankind is evil and must be destroyed. Talk about package-dealing….sheesh!

        Most clovers seem to believe that wet sidewalks cause rain and snotty noses cause colds. Speed causes accidents. Marijuana use leads to heroin addiction. Guns cause violent crime. Where does this end? Do we turn the whole world into a maximum security lockdown so Gil and Clover can feel safe and secure? Life is risky. Some people die prematurely, others are injured and some of the biggest risk takers survive unscathed. Is it fair? NO. But it sure is interesting and often a lot of fun. Don’t like excitement Clover? Go hide under your bed. Never had a serial rapist break into your house, so you don’t think I need a gun? I have and my wife most certainly needed that gun. Think the cops will protect you? Think again.

        There are those of us that realize we need to be resourceful, self sufficient and use our wits to survive and thrive in spite of the system. Clovers want to be protected, provided for, coddled and blissfully ignorant of anything other than their own opinions and personal experiences. They want this at their neighbors’ expense, because it’s “for our own good” and “everyone” agrees. Everyone except a few hard headed libertarians, anarchists and other sub-clover life forms that should “just leave”. Sorry Clover, ‘I ain’t going nowhar’ and I doubt Eric, dom, methylamine, don, fritz or mithrandir are either (sorry if I missed anyone). We’ll drive against the lines in the parking lot, pass your slow moving arse in the right lane and carry a gun while we do it! If you don’t like it, I suggest you move. How about Clover Utopia: North Korea. I understand they’ll provide everything you need to feel safe and secure there. I’ll bet we can even take up enough of a collection to buy you a ticket….one way of course.

        • Just interviewed Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the Atmospheric and Earth Sciences Department at Georgia Tech University. She says,unequivocably, that the science is most definitely still OUT on the affects of man-made CO2 and Methane on the climate. She said, as common sense would imply, that the environment is a far, far too complex entity for anyone to claim they understand it so well as to say that they know with 100% certaintly the affect man is having on it and 100% what needs to be done to “fix” it. And therefore, the questions raised about gov policy are meaningless and nothing but political theater.

          So, one can just simply say that Dr. Curry and her 30 years of experience in climate research doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but just saying that doesn’t make it so. She does know, and she puts all the tree-hugging, progressive/liberals who think they are so smart and have some right to tell the rest of us what to do, in their places.

          Delusion is a disease and can be treated. Ignorance is a choice.

          • You know what will make me pay ANY attention to the global warming/climate change fearmongers?

            Tell me accurately if it’s going to rain five days from now.

            THEN I’ll lend credence to your 100-year forecasts.

            Until then, STFU and enjoy CO2–it’s good for plants.

          • Yes Don, I’d already read what Dr. Curry had to say. There was also the ugly little matter of Dr. Richard Muller releasing his “findings” prior to peer review. Even more conveniently, he did it right before another major climate group-grope took place! Imagine that. Okay, so he was more “transparent” than the CRU as we all found out with their little e-mail debacle. It’s still pretty obvious he had to work a fairly hard to “hide the decline.” It didn’t hide very well, now did it Rich?

            Methyl, I’ve been asking these AGW / IPCC gropies for some time now to tell me what the weather is going to do tomorrow, let alone next week. Of course they go on and on about how evil humans are for driving cars, eating meat and keeping warm. I love to tell them that cannabis growers introduce CO2 directly into the greenhouse to speed growth and increase yield. They’ve been doing that at least since the late 1970’s. CO2 is plant food, which yields more plants (food) and oxygen. We learned that in 6th grade.

            I think the real push is to limit cheap energy so some the population will die off. That will save the government thieves trillions in social security, medicare, etc. Possibly even save them a slave revolt. It’s a good thing for these so called scientists they have Boobus to rely on, otherwise they’d probably be scrubbing pans in the back of The Greasy Spoon.

  6. Buy American and buy local.

    Tell Congress that they could greatly reduce U.S. imports if they would be to revisit the “Buy American” requirements that are imposed on federal agencies. After all, government spending represents 19 percent of the U.S. economy. The rules should be extended to lower levels of government as well, by making it a condition of federal aid to states and localities.

    What’s more, no exceptions to the Buy-American rule should be allowed for products made by U.S. trade partners, even those countries that are currently entitled to nondiscriminatory treatment under a World Trade Organization pact on government procurement. Given the urgent need to right the trade imbalance, America’s own needs and the imperative of stabilizing the global economy must be placed ahead of the short-term interests of U.S. trading partners.

    In fact, exemptions to the Buy-American rule — including those for foreign-made items that are significantly less expensive or more widely available than their American-made counterparts — should be strictly limited. And compliance with the rule should be monitored much more closely. (In recent years, according to U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois, more than 20 percent of purchases by the U.S. Commerce Department have been imports.)
    Next-Generation Spending

    The Buy-American rule is especially important when it comes to public seed money spent on next-generation industries — high-speed rail systems, for example, or advanced batteries and other fuel-saving devices for cars – – which have the potential to become highly profitable.

    In cases where the government needs to buy things that aren’t made in the U.S. — many electronics products, for example — foreign suppliers should be required, wherever practical, to build factories to make the goods in the U.S.
    Finally, the U.S. could limit future trade deficits by practicing more selective trade diplomacy. It still makes sense to have free-trade agreements with countries that share our critical free-market values. But such market- opening deals shouldn’t be made with flagrantly mercantilist powers. And those that have been made should be suspended, or at least rewritten, to strengthen America’s defenses against mercantilist practices.

    Changes are also needed in pacts such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, which were designed not to increase net U.S. exports but to enable U.S. and multinational companies to supply the American market from production facilities in low-wage countries with few business regulations.

    More sweeping import restrictions might still be needed, as well as new efforts to lure high-value production to American shores. The U.S. could, for example, emulate China in requiring foreign manufacturers who acquire U.S. real estate or companies, or create factories here, to use large percentages of American parts and components in their products, and to share their most advanced technology with American partners.

    At the moment, the specific mix of new rules matters less than simply coming to a decision to act forcefully. The trade deficit is so large and growing so rapidly that, if unaddressed, it will eventually reduce living standards for all Americans. It’s best that the U.S. move quickly, while it can still assert its advantage.

  7. Maybe if we work from the bottom up.

    Consider no national, state or local rulers (gov). Someone breaks into my house. I apprehend him and do as I see fit. Let’s say I hold him in my basement until I decide what to do then I take all his money, tatoo “I’m a thief” on his forehead and send him on his way. I know exactly what happened, I know for sure who did it, and it was my rights that were violated. 100% evidentiary certainty.

    Now let’s consider a local ruler (gov). Someone breaks into my house. I call the local cops. (gov henchmen). They arrest him and hold him in their county jail. I now have to prove to a bunch of strangers that I know absolutely nothing about, and who have absolutely no right to make decisions about me and my family and our property, that this person broke into my house and violated our rights. They might see it my way, they might not, but these people are so far removed from the situation and the system is so convouted that it’s a coin toss that justice will be served.Even if they find him guilty what will happen? They will fine him, give him a criminal record so everyone knows he’s a thief and send him on his way. Same outcome as me.

    And so it goes on up the governmental ladder to the state and federal levels. Each level being further and further removed from the community and the individual.

    The justice I dole out given it was my rights that were violted is just as valid, more so I say, than what a bunch of strangers decide to do sitting up in their ivory tower. From where comes their divine wisdom?

    Now some will say: but what if I decide that my punishment for breaking and entering into my house is death! To which I reply: why does the victim of a crime not get to decide on the punishment, even death, but some far removed governmental panel gets to decide on the punishement, even death?

    Gov reflects society, so if you have a gov that advocates the death penalty then you have a society that advocates the death penalty.

    I guess the point I’m trying to make is that there is not some mystical separation between the gov and the people. Take 100 random communities and see what kind of morals you have and that will be the morals of the gov, only the larger the gov entity, the more bureaucratic, inefficient, abusive, corrupt and disfunctional.
    So justice might as well be dealt out at the community level.

    Also, when justice is left to such a far removed, inefficient gov, the system is manipulated – as Eric often points out how to do – and so criminals know they have a good chance of beating it. Justice at the community level would be more exacting, harsher and no doubt send a much stronger signal to those wanting to victimize it.

    Bottom line in my book: NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO! Any level of gov is doing just that and is therefore violating my rights, also known as committing a crime. If I want to voluntarily associate with others in my community to provide security, than I can. If those in my neighborhood don’t care about security then I can move and associate with those that do.

    • I just have one question. Name me one large group of people on this planet that has no rules or laws and are able to live together in peace and happiness. I am waiting.

      • What is with you and your insistance on this “no rules” policy? Of course there are rules, and those rules equate to everyone’s rights. Are you really that thick or are you pretending? Do you need a “rule” to tell you that it’s wrong to kill another human being? So there’s your rule right there, whether it’s written down and codified by some “ruling body” or not.

        Ignorance is just boring.

        • OK doncooper, so you say that someone does not break a rule until they kill someone. Drunken driving is fine with you as long as there does not happen to be another driver in their way.

          • Clover (being a Clover) is fixated on the wrong thing.

            Note that he does not sweat impairment. He is upset about people who have an arbitrary percentage of alcohol in their systems, irrespective of their actual driving.

            He does not advocate Senior Driving Checkpoints to “get dangerous seniles off the road.” Nor does he believe that cops should be out patrolling, looking for drivers whose actual driving suggests they are impaired (for whatever reason). Instead, he fixates on making sure that no one has more than the arbitrarily prescribed percentage of alcohol in their system, by any means available, including subjecting drivers who have shown not the slightest indication of actual impairment to an East German Stasi-like “check” …

            I wonder whether we ought to set up checkpoints for Low IQs and impaired critical thinking skills? Perhaps we ought to look into it.

          • Eric you do not understand. It is people like you is the reason for the percentage of alcohol is needed to show you that you are wrong. Yes the cops can give you impairment tests but you would say that the test was too judgmental by the officer. In fact they do give these tests. It is people like you that need proof that someone is intoxicated so they came up with a test that give you a number. Along with these numbers are hundreds of tests and reports that show that with a certain amount alcohol in someone’s system their driving is affected negatively. If you feel that this is still not correct then you come up with your own reports and tests that show BAC means nothing. Your never ending statements that there is one person out there that can drive with a high BAC is not enough for me without some tests that back that up.

    • doncooper, I completely understand your position. I had the benefit of a history teacher who was a very wise man. He taught us two things that stick in my mind to this day (38 years later). 1) If you violate someone else’s rights you forfeit your own; 2) The Second Amendment is the final check and balance in our system of government. Simple, logical premises at least to me. So I have no problem providing my own security and after learning how the police and courts really work, have done so for a long time.

      You state that Eric points out how to manipulate the system. If he indeed does, bravo! He’s doing something to counteract these people that are telling you what to do. I’ve done the same on more than one occasion myself. “The System” is here, now, in your face, like it or not. Anarchy, true individual liberty is a theoretical construct; it can only exist in our minds. Why? Because as Eric has so accurately warned you: human nature. Humans are irrational, emotional, horny, greedy, tired, hungry, thirsty, sick, ecstatic, drunken, euphoric, drugged and lethargic (and on and on and on) creatures.

      As fast as you set up your non-system and I move in next door to enjoy absolute freedom, a bunch of our dumb-ass neighbors from up the road will show up to tell us about this wonderful system they’ve set up for all of us. So you and I will tell them to *&#% off! We’re happy with things just the way they are and we have weapons. Now git! Shortly thereafter they will show up with a bunch of their friends, with guns, kill us, enslave our wives and children and take our stuff. This scenario has played out time after time, down through the ages in various cultures. That my friend is human nature and it’s a bitch.

      So to avoid that situation we will have to enlist the help of like minded people and organize for our own defense. Pretty soon someone will want to be in charge because there are those people who suffer from power lust. There will be a struggle perhaps and the group may split up. Or the strongman will take over. Either way you will have some type of organization identifiable as government. If you have the rule of man, you will have tyranny immediately. If you put together a defining document you will have the rule of law temporarily.

      In any event you will end up once again with the rule of man. The men that will rule will be amoral and will use whatever means they have available to them to attempt to control the masses. Because the men that will gravitate to these positions will have no conscience along with an elevated sense of self worth, they will have a significant advantage over the rest of us that did learn that it’s wrong to take things that belong to other people.

      They will start passing laws to allow them to take our stuff (just as they’ve done). They will send men with guns in funny clothes to take our stuff by force if we don’t just hand it over. They give these men protection and an elevated sense of self worth (thin blue line, officer safety, etc.). They will enlist the assistance of our sons and daughters, promising them benefits, to take other peoples stuff and killing them in foreign countries. That’s why this government has approximately 900 military bases in 137 different countries at our expense, as we speak.

      The root problem is that this system is firmly entrenched, paranoid of anyone that dares to attempt to reign it in and defends itself violently. How do you propose we fix it? I mean actual nuts and bolts, here’s a procedure let’s get moving “fix it”. You’ve obviously given this a lot of thought, so what’s your proposal to get government out of our lives?

  8. Doods, this excerpt was taken from a sweet article over at shftplan.

    A Survival Q & A: Living Through SHTF In the Middle of A War Zone

    “Oh yes it changed my perspective on life, i know now that bad things can happens, and on more important thing, actually i believe it is most important: I don’t anymore believe government and authority, not at all. When they really doing their best to assure you that everything going to be fine, you can be sure that something bad is happening.

    Do not just believe, research.”

    • Thanks Dom. Great article. It goes to show what happens without government. Total kayos. He did thank the US for dropping food. The US GOVERNMENT came to the rescue. Yes without any type of government it becomes a war zone. Is that what you are looking for?

      • Undoubtably yes. A harsh environment will quicly punish the stupid and reward the sharp. It would be like the frontier days – create a filter to weed out the crap out of society.

  9. I have become cynical that proof, of how things were ages ago, has any effect. I have found confronting people with the fact they were lied to doesn’t work. They choose to believe the lie.

    People have been conditioned by the government schools and mainstream media for a very long time. I bought into the lies as children. They are invested into the lies in that they don’t want to admit they conned. They don’t get angry with the con-men their anger is directed at the person who shows them the truth.

    That doesn’t mean not to put the evidence in front of people. Only perhaps that it should be done a different way. People have been manipulated socially for a long time into this condition by those of poor ethics. They don’t even understand what they’ve been cheated out of. Yet. When the system clearly doesn’t deliver as promised, when the excuses and lies can’t cover that up any longer, then they may be a little more receptive or remember.

    • We’ll educate them in the camps! THEN they’ll be receptive!

      Sorry for the sarcasm BrentP–it’s not aimed at you. I’m just feeling every bit as frustrated as you seem to be; I can’t even convince my own siblings or cousins.

      The problem is, 90% of the infrastructure–physical, legal, and psychological–for absolute tyranny is in place. But it’s craftily concealed, unless you a) know history and b) aren’t afraid to see it.

      Alex Jones is right; the people are in a trance. It’s the most effective mass brain-washing ever achieved.

      • “The problem is, 90% of the infrastructure–physical, legal, and psychological–for absolute tyranny is in place. But it’s craftily concealed, unless you a) know history and b) aren’t afraid to see it.”

        Spot on.

        In my darker moments I wonder what would happen if, tomorrow, the government simply announced the Constitution was null and void and henceforth we’d be ruled by decree… no wait, they already do that! But, in a brilliant move, they do it without actually saying it, allowing us to keep the forms of “democracy” and “freedom” – which we (many of us) accept because, after all, we can vote….

    • Some people are worth trying to reach; some people can be awakened. Maybe only one out of 100. Or one out of 1,000. But that may be enough. Maybe. I think it’s worth trying, at least. This web site alone has managed to gather together a lot of like-minded people. I know I feel better knowing I’m not the only one who sees it – and gets it. How about you?

      • I keep trying different things to reach people but it seems the only reachable ones are those who were able to think in the first place. That is they just need to be made aware of an alternative.

      • Eric, YES it does give me hope hearing such erudite arguments for liberty from so many on this site.

        It’s the Great Game afoot again; the sociopaths have again erected the framework of world tyranny, and the liberty-minded are again awakening to the danger.

        World government has never worked before, and I suspect this time will be no different.

        The overall march of human history has been toward more individual freedom: the Roman republic, which fell, leading to the Magna Carta, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and culminating in the American Republic–which is falling.

        Each time we better codify the strict logical and philosophical justifications for human liberty, and each time the rebuilding yields a new expression of freedom.

        Just sucks during the transitions, doesn’t it?

    • BrentP, the least you could do is explain yourself. Explain to us what government schools have done to us? Explain yourself. I have no idea what you are talking about. What lies have been told to our children? What is the truth that you are talking about? What is this manipulated socially? A lot of words without any type of detail or explanation.

      • I’ve discussed it so many times and to fully explain it is quite literally books worth of information. If you actually want to understand the best I can do is to lead you to two books:
        Or if you prefer something easier to digest, watch the various interviews of the two authors on youtube. For example: Is the latest Charlotte Iserbyt video I’ve run across. It’s a little deeper than just the government schools, describing more where it all comes from rather than what its doing.

        • Thank you very much BrentP. Bull is what I say.If you believe all of that garbage there is something wrong. I liked the one that said private schools are so good and can do it for $1000 per student. Explain that one to me. I will not wait. Teaching a kid for $1000 a year involves a teacher doing it for free or less than minimum wage. It involves someone donating the classroom. That is against all libertarian ideals. They do not donate anything either time or money from what I have ever heard.

          Your links said our school system only turned out robots that can not think for ourselves. Bull.

          The dumbing down of America was one of the worst things I have ever read. I did not read it all because I thought for MYSELF and realized they are not talking about the schools of today but someone’s statements to back up their agenda.

          Do some thinking for yourself BrentP and ask yourself if what they are saying is done at your local school system. You are like many people in this country that believe anything that backs up their viewpoint and search out more of the same even if it is not true. Truth does not matter?

          • Clover, for heaven’s sake, you can’t even string together a few grammatically correct sentences free of multiple grade school-level spelling errors … and you’re criticizing people who criticize government schools?

            You could be the poster child for government schools!

          • Eric I do not get paid for my spelling, I get paid for my common sense and critical thinking. How much money do you make for being a speller?

            • It’s not merely your horrendous spelling, Clover. It’s your garbled, sloppy, incoherent “arguments” – if they can be called that. You emote rather than reason; you package-deal rather than deal with one specific thing. You set up straw man arguments – then change the subject.

              Probably the government has paid you quite well!

          • Eric explain all of your discussions on the government beating us all up and coming to our houses at gunpoint and on and on and on. I have not seen that. Hundreds of millions of people have not personally seen such things but you say they happen all the time. You and your friends take a video out of context of what all happened and repeat the incident millions of times to make your case that is nonexistent.

            • Clover, this item has been dealt with already – multiple times, in fact.

              But, just an example or two to refresh your memory:

              Smith has a paid-off home; he owes nothing on it. He lives on his land, in peace – harming no one. He does not collect any government “benefits.” He declines to pay the personal property tax, since he doesn’t feel he owes the county a red cent. He has no kids in the government schools. Etc. What will happen? Will he be left in peace, in his home, on his land? Or will men with guns ultimately come to pay him a visit?

              What if Jones – a Mormon who never drinks – is driving home one evening and sees a “checkpoint up ahead.” Jones has done nothing; he merely wishes to avoid having to deal with a cop for no reason at all – as the Fourth Amendment specifically states he has every right to do. So, he executes a lawful U-turn and heads the other way – breaking no laws in the process. What do you suppose will happen next, Clover?

              Boothe and I and Brent and numerous others here have explained that the circle of liberty grows smaller each year – but to you, there’s no problem, so long as you Submit and Obey. But even then, you’re not safe – as others have pointed out. There are literally scores of well-documented cases of police abuse/government abuse of people who tried mightily to Submit and Obey – and still got the wood shampoo (and worse).

              Someday, it might just happen to you, too – and when it does, you will blink and gape uncomprehendingly at your Father Figure/Savior/Hero … with a big, all caps BLANK running right through yo’ haid.

          • Eric, Mr Smith as you say should have know beforehand that the area that he was buying had property taxes assessed. If he did not what school did he go to? If you do not like an area because of property taxes you do not buy in that area. Pretty simple for someone as dumb as even me.

            Where in the fourth amendment does it say it is OK to drive drunk? Where in the fourth amendment does it say that a safety stop is against the law?
            What rights do I have to drive on a safe roadway with safe drivers around me? None is your answer. I have no rights is what you say. The constitution says that I have the right to safety.

            • Clover, there is no place left in this country (courtesy of Cloverism) where a man can own anything beyond the clothes on his back and whatever items he can carry in his hands, courtesy of ubiquitous taxes on real estate, personal property an income. You put the cart before the horse – as usual. The fact that there are evil laws in place does not justify the evil laws -or mean those victimized by such laws “should have known better” or “deserve it” because, after all, the laws are there. The issue is whether such laws – things like endless taxes on real estate that make it impossible for a man to ever freely own his own home/land – are morally legitimate. You think they are. I do not – because I loathe aggressive violence by people like you, who think you have the right to deprive others of their property and liberty at gunpoint and put them in jail if they resist your depredations. The fact that a “law” was passed or “voted” on does not make the action n question moral. The Nazis had laws – and police state USA has laws, too. As Rebel pointed out, slaves once had no legally recognized rights, either. This was duly sanctioned and voted on. It was “the law.” But it was it right? Blank Out.

              The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure.” It is the essence of unreasonable to stop people for no specific reason (that is, no action of theirs), to subject them to an official interrogation and search, in order to possibly catch “someone” who might be doing something unlawful (which may not even be harmful, as for example having some pot in the glovebox or a little liquor in one’s system).

              You don’t get it. I know. I’m not going to try to explain it again. It’s pointless – and hopeless. You’re a statist; you reverence The Law – any law – simply because It’s the Law. Submit. Obey. Repeat.

              Go away. I’m done with ya.

          • I do get it Eric. The Supreme court said it was reasonable to stop someone to talk to them to see if they were safe to be on the roadway and save thousands of lives. What part of that do you not get? Where does an unlawful search come into question? There is no search involved unless there is an arrest or just cause. You have not shown me anything different.

            • Clearly, you don’t.

              If the Supreme Court said it’s “reasonable” to throw critics of the government in jail, no doubt you’d clap like a seal awaiting a piece of mackerel – but it would not be reasonable. Neither you nor the Supreme Court get to change the plain meaning of words to suit your needs, like that character in Alice in Wonderland who announces that a word means whatever he chooses it to mean at that moment, nothing more or less. You have to be an imbecile to read the Fourth Amendment and the words, “no unreasonable searches or seizures” absent probable cause that some specific harm has been committed (or clearly seems about to be committed) absent a warrant issued by a judge, specifically naming the person or place to be searched and the items being searched for – and say it comports with the 4A to randomly stop people and force them to submit to an interrogation and search. Or that such is “reasonable.”

              You are an exemplary product of government schooling. A perfect totalitarian. I doubt you’d have the guts to do your own dirty work, though. So you vote for it – and support pols who order it done on your behalf.

          • Eric there is only one solution. If you do not agree with any part of our government and do not bother to vote and disagree with everything the police do the only solution to satisfy you and make you happy is to leave. Sorry but I see not other options. To disagree with everything in our country and to offer no solutions to what you complain about that will ever happen then you need to leave or live with your unhappy state. If you get so furious and mad about things that do not happen I feel sorry for you.

            • No, Clover. We’re not going to leave. That would be akin to accepting a home invasion or street mugging as inevitable.Well, we’re not going to sit back, relax and enjoy it. We’re going to do all we can to expose what you are and what you and your kind stand for – violence and predation of the most loathsome and cowardly sort imaginable. Small-minded little busybodies and control freaks who enjoy forcing others to conform – and hand over their money – but who are too chickenshit to do the actual wet work themselves. I have far more respect for the lowest street thug than I do for such as you, Clover. Because at least the street thug does his own taking – and doesn’t pretend to himself or his victims that he is anything other than what he is.

              That is, a violent predator.

          • There are other solutions Clover. Wait, here is just one idea.. How about Eric create a website and vent all his thoughts and ideas there! Maybe he can find some like minded individuals, I mean who knows. Of course there will always be the site crappers, but what can you do there are rats and bottom feeders everywhere. Good idea?

          • There are other solutions Clover. Wait, here is just one idea.. How about Eric create a website and vent all his thoughts and ideas there! Maybe he can find some like minded individuals, I mean who knows. Of course there will always be the site crappers, but what can you do there are rats and bottom feeders everywhere. Good idea?

          • OK Dom,
            He has a half a dozen backers who ignore facts. Only a few hundred million more to go. I still do not have an answer of where in the world an example of this type society is without any rules or laws? Is it the handful of Eric backers that are going to create the first society of no laws or rules and everything goes?

            • Clover, if you knew any history, you’d know it’s almost always a “small handful” who make the difference; who sometimes change a nation – perhaps even the world. If this were 1770, no doubt you’d be a smug little Royalist, snuggled ddep into the man tits of the English oligarchy. You’d have no worries about the “small handful” of rabble rousers who’d had it with the arbitrary edicts of the control freaks in parliament.

              Give us time, little Clover. There are more of us out there than you know.

          • Clover, it is quite clear you didn’t read much of anything and even clearer what was read was not read for comprehension.

            The two books are rather long so it’s clear you didn’t read them given the time scale.

            The deliberate dumbing down of america deals with policy. Policies that were put into place to manipulate the beliefs and thinking of children. It’s not an author’s agenda, she merely describes the agenda that has been on going for roughly a century. It is well documented.

            Gatto’s book, which is whre you probably got the cost figure was written quite some time ago. But the point is that real education is cheap and will continue be so.

          • I was going to ignore your insulting and cheap shot comments of immediately dismissing any line of thought outside the status-quo belief system. I have grown tired of bothering with such things. However it is not bull.
            Not to mention your horrible interpetive and comprehension skills. Your insertion of onlys and alls and other such crap. Some people get through government school only damaged, others however can never think again and will dismiss anything that challenges the system they are invested in.
            As someone who never followed the herd I experienced quite a bit of what Gatto decribes. Both books helped me understand my government school experiences.

            Gatto’s proposal is to use the educational practices that are used at the private schools the ruling class sends their children to. He applied them in ghetto areas of New York City and achieved what is considered impossible. He did so at little expense and often out of his own pocket. Because of this he was attacked by the system. He focuses more on the institution of government school. What those working in it are motivated by.

            Combining the two texts shows the system from top to bottom. Isrbyt deals with the high level policy and planning. Gatto with the in the trenches teaching. They fit together perfectly. They explain my experiences in the system.

            I suppose I am the Benjamin to your Clover. Though I have a nasty “I told you so” streak.

          • Brent P, I read enough of the garbage to know not to continue. Hundreds of pages of repeated statements like “dumbing down of America”. These statements were repeated dozens if not hundreds of times. I am smart enough to know you do not need hundreds of pages to give out no facts. I know you can state your point and facts very easily in one to two pages. The book that I looked and the video went on and on about nothing. It reminded me of Seinfeld. The book about nothing. I guess to sum it up is that learning or brainwashing but be all about repetition becase that is what the book and video were all about. Explain to me in one paragraph how is our education system “dumbing down America”. Do not give me high level statements that mean nothing but facts of how this is being done in your local school system.

            • You still haven’t mastered basic grammar, spelling or punctuation… and you’re asking about the “dumbing down” that government schools perform? Tremendous!

              Or perhaps you just came that way from the factory?

              Poor ol’ Clover! He’s all over… .

          • Like most Clover does not produce anything to the contrary, it is simply dismissed with a few words to discourage others from reading. After all we couldn’t have illusions spoiled now can we?

            This is where I am supposed to defend the authors and lose track of the point, that the ruling class developed and guided the government schools for their best interest. If government schools were in our best interest there would be no federal department of education. If they were in our best interest control of the schools would be *VERY* local. There wouldn’t even be big city boards of ed. It would be on the neighborhood level.

            • Clover’s been thrown in the woods. He’s not capable of discussion, so why bother? It’s tedious and it’s pointless. He “knows” that government is benevolent, keeping us safe. And he wants it enforced at bayonet point. He won’t man up and confront the essence of what he advocates. He just drones on and on and on about “safety” or “speeders” or “our schools” and “getting dangerous drunks” off the road.

              Oil and water. Us – and them.

              Trying to reach a Clover with an appeal to reason or morality is like trying to reach the Moon by jumping as hard as you can. You can spend a lifetime trying, but you’re not going to get very far.

          • The funny part of Clover’s post is his statement “Your links said our school system only turned out robots that can not think for ourselves. Bull.” Just because a lot of kids come out of the child prison system and find their way back to critical thinking and the truth doesn’t change the purpose of the centrally controlled education system. So it’s only about 80% effective Clover; that’s more than enough.

            We homeschooled our youngest son and took him to the Virginia Dept. of Education for a field trip. We had been studying Outcome Base Education and the Common Core of Learning (which was being implemented by the communist-wealth of Virginia at the time) so we thought it would be good for him to see how bureaucracy looked up close.

            The first thing every bureaucrat we met wanted to know (and they shuffled us from one to the next as rapidly as they could) was “What group are you with?” We told them that we were simply concerned Virginians that wanted to know more about the Common Core of Learning and we brought our son along so he could learn too. They were pleasant, but bewildered because they couldn’t label us. We didn’t fit neatly into any group or individual paradigm that might show up at their bureaucratic enclave.

            They finally shuffled us all the way to the assistant to the Virginia Secretary of Education. This lady was very nice, but also very nervous. She showed us documents marked “Not for public distribution”. She gave us a thorough explanation of the group learning concept they were about to implement. She didn’t know who the hell we were or what was going to come of this meeting. It was weird to see someone that was normally in control of her little world so bumfuzzled by a young couple and their kid. She was obviously shaken and sweating!

            I noticed a couple of pictures of two cute little blond girls probably 12 and 14 years old in her curio cabinet behind her desk. I asked if they were her daughters and she said they were. I asked where they went to school. She responded that they went to…no, wait…here it comes…..private school!!! She wasn’t about to send her daughters to school to have this touchy-feely group-grope b.s. shoved down their throats. Nor was she going to risk them potentially breeding with a mutt or cur of the mundane variety. When the officials running child prison send their own kids to a private institution that should be all we need to know.

          • “When the officials running child prison send their own kids to a private institution that should be all we need to know.” I would say that sums it up pretty well.

          • Boothe, you do not know the modern world of business. You look down on the group concept. I have been at different companies and they never ever put you on a huge project by yourself. It may take you years to do something by yourself that they need completed in a very short time. Guess what happens with the person that can not work in a group or work with others on an assembly line? He gets fired.

          • Clover, first of all you do not know me or my experience in business. Let me enlighten you: I have worked in “modern business” for over 30 years. I have probably worked on things you don’t even know exist. But I have also done time studies on assembly lines, justified capital projects and allocated funds, procured equipment and seen to its installation in factories, out in the field and in power plants. I done a lot of other things too, but I won’t bore you with that. Let me suffice it to say, I don’t consider myself all that smart; just persistent and determined. Now tell us Clover; exactly what is it that you do for a living?

            I can assure you that there is a tremendous difference between training children to accept supporting dead weight on the job versus actively participating on a team to ensure its success. Outcome Based Education ensures that some of the students will succeed based on the work of their peers instead of their own effort. This is done supposedly to improve their “self esteem”. Genuine self respect and self confidence is born of challenge, effort, failure, persistence and finally, accomplishment. An elevated and misplaced sense of self importance is the product of being praised for and accepting credit for other people’s work. It is a form of cheating and that is now considered acceptable in “modern business”.

            School or rather, education, should produce a well rounded individual that is literate, numerate, well versed in history, art and his native language; but more importantly, an individual capable of critical thinking and problem solving. The modern school system produces good little worker bees, soldier bees and bureaucrats trained to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. If they show initiative and imagination they are declared ADHD and drugged. On their own or on a team, bright, energetic and imaginative people outperform drugged zombies. Wake up Clover.

            If you support the current system Clover, you are part of the problem. BTW, the modern world of business has moved to Asia in case you haven’t noticed. It’s interesting that their students outperform our students. Let’s see here: Cloverite taxes, Cloverite regulations, Cloverite Keynesian inflation, Cloverite education system, Cloverite police state, right here in the USSA. All brought to you by the influence of Cloverite schools and Cloverite media! Who in their right mind would want to keep their factories here when they can move them to the relative liberty of communist China? You should be proud!

          • Boothe, I just have a few questions? Do you even know what is being taught in local schools? Are you part of the system or just read what someone wrote in book that is not happening today? So with all of your business experience you disagree that employees have to work together on major projects? That is not my experience.

          • Clover, did you even read my previous post? Or was it too long for you? If you actually had, you would have seen that I referenced the difference between carrying dead weight (i.e. people that are on your team and letting you do all the work, for the same pay you receive) vs. actively participating in a successful team. I’ve participated in numerous teams over the years. A few were genuine cooperative efforts where everyone pulled their share of the load. Most were driven by a core group that did all the work while the rest of the members went along for the ride. In some cases I did all of the work and other people that were actually hostile to me took all of the credit. I actually had one engineer sloppily white-out my name on the bottom of MY drawings, scribble in his name and file them with his project. He got promoted behind that! Oh yeah Clover, the group-grope concept works great…..for the parasites.

            The OBE / Common Core of Learning principles of having one child that is artistic do the drawings, another that is good at research go to the library and yet another that writes well do the essay portion sound great in theory. But a good friend of mine just experienced this whole ball of wax while completing his MBA. He ended up doing most of the work and the other team members took credit and got a good grade for it. That’s how it works in real life. People take the lines of least resistance. They will take advantage of you and your work if you will let them. It’s human nature Clover. It is socialism, collectivism, whatever –ism you want to call it. But it is dishonest in practice. It is cheating. It is parasitic against the productive. These practices are now considered acceptable and in some cases even necessary in business.

            So where was this bad behavior, this loss of moral integrity, inculcated as a social norm? Well the school system of course. Copying your term papers off the internet (or paying someone to write them for you) is now commonplace. The sail fawn and “texting” have replaced crib notes. I read a poll taken amongst high school students a couple of years ago that proved a large percentage believed that cheating was necessary to get ahead. These are your “modern business” leaders in the making Clover.

            Lying is so commonplace in business now that people are shocked if you refuse to do it. Back in the late 90’s one of my coworkers got in trouble (while I was off) for something I’d done. When I got back to work on Monday and e-mailed everyone in my corporate chain of command that the issue was my fault, they were shocked. I received three e-mails thanking me for being honest. Think about that long and hard Clover. When I was young, honesty wasn’t something people thanked you for; it was what was expected of you. Now lying is what’s expected in many cases and honesty seems to be anomalous.

            No, Clover I am not part of “the system” (never have been for that matter, even though I have often had to work in “the system”. I know what’s being taught in school these days because I make it a point to talk to young people every chance I get. I ask them simple historical, political and scientific questions. Their dearth of knowledge or worse yet, their unfaltering belief in misinformation often astounds me. Occasionally I run into high school age children that are very knowledgeable. Guess what? They are invariably home-schooled or private school students. So in answer to you question: I know what’s not being taught in public schools these days. Thanks to your wonderful US Dept. of Ed. I am relatively sure that these are the same things that are NOT being taught nationwide.

            So what I do (much to the chagrin of your ilk) is I educate them. I point these kids to books and essays that speak the truth and to websites (like this one) where Liberty, honesty, critical thinking and intelligent discourse are highly prized. They get it. And they like it. You recently even wrote a backhanded approval of one of my other posts. Do you know why Clover? The truth resonates with everyone, even you. Be afraid Clover. Be very afraid. Your precious statist system is dying. And I will be one of the first to happily throw a shovel full of dirt in its face.

          • Boothe, you do not have a clue. Schools do not teach you how to cheat and steal. Morals is what you are talking about. Morals are for the most part taught at home. People that are home schooled I would bet for the most part teach their kids more morals and care about their kids more and spend more time with them. It is not the school system that is at fault for all the stealing and cheating that you speak of. Kids that have a good home life have better morals and cheat and steal less and it makes no difference if they are home schooled or not. The same thing you are taking about is why some inner city schools are so poor at keeping the kids in school and advancing. They tend to have a poorer home life.

            You are putting too much emphasis on problems that are truly not a school problem but a parents problem.

          • To say someone shouldn’t have to pay property taxes is akin to someone rents out a shop in a mall then decides to stop paying rent because as far as they’re concerned occupancy equalds ownership or that because the mall owner may have gained ownership of the mall illegally then his ownership is invalid therefore the renter ought to be legally allowed take ownership of the shop space. It’s not “your” country any more than paying off an apartment gives you more rights than landlord regardless of how much a jerk he is.

          • Boothe probably watches that movies and TV shows about violent, run-down public schools and thinks that’s how all public schools are. It’s doubtful to say whether abolishing public schools in favour of vouchers is the answer as the troublemaking students from the public schools are now intermingling with the smart children that their parents paid top money just to avoid this siutation.

            Then again, society requiring factory drones is at least two centuries old whereas public schools are about a century old. So much for the dumbing down of scoiety. Rather it’s a case that society needs factory drones not factory drones with tertiary degrees. I’ve worked in places where primarily school education suffices. You can fill out a timesheet? You’re in. Perhaps the answer Boothe want is to make only primary schooling compulsory. And let the ne’er do enter the workforce at around twelve years of age so they can flip burgers sooner. Not to metion will they be five to ten years ahead in the workforce but they’ll have savings in the bank instead of student debt.

            • Well, Clover, do you suppose it’s a coincidence that by every objective measure the performance of the typical government school graduate has been in decline for years? That the typical American is largely ignorant of even the grand events of history, is functionally illiterate (see Clover’s posts; see yours) and innumerate?

              Read the letters written by ordinary Americans (such as Civil War-era correspondence) or the speeches given by politicians during those years to mass audiences to get a sense of how educated ordinary people once were – that is, how well they could reason – before there were government schools.

              The stated object of government schools is not to develop the conceptual faculty; it is to “socialize” people. That is, to impart sufficient skill, some rote capacity – along with acceptance of arbitrary authority – so as to make them docile machine minders.

          • Clover, just because it isn’t a defined subject doesn’t mean it is not taught.

            Modern american institutions largely reward lying, cheating, and having the right friends. Government school is the earliest of these institutions a person has contact with.

          • Actually Clover I am very much aware that schools don’t teach children to cheat or steal or defraud. People do. You are quite correct about home life contributing greatly to a person’s outlook on life as well as their moral integrity. But if you were truly paying attention, you would see that one of the ugly heads of this hydra we call government is actively dismantling the traditional family. The irony is the very mechanism being used to do this is referred to as “family court”. Under our current system men, have no rights. Women are incentivized to dump the father of their children in favor of the leadership and protection of the state. Men are stripped of their property and it is redistributed to the now single mother. These same men are effectively stripped of their parental rights as well, with involvement in their children’s lives curtailed or even eliminated. The single mother is venerated; the male is vilified, unless he’s a homosexual.

            This particular situation, regardless of class, has contributed greatly to the decline of morality in our society. This is the same methodology employed in the USSR to break the parental / child bond at birth. The child was taken from the parents, wrapped in tight swaddling clothes and returned to them a week later. The mother- child bond never forms and this is the start of a “good” citizen. Here in the USSA the parents are separated; the father is isolated from his children and vilified by the courts and social services. The public schools simply finish the job. The public schools are set up to indoctrinate rather than to educate. This is why folks like the Clintons and Obamas send their children to private schools.

            One of the things that modern schools teach is moral relativism Clover. Cheating and lying aren’t necessarily wrong you see. What may be wrong for you may not be wrong for me. It’s not up to you to judge me. I may believe differently and after all, “you can’t legislate morality”. Combine that philosophy with most of the day spent away from your parents (if they are still together), a heavy homework load and both parents working (due to inflation and excessive taxation) just to make ends meet and who’s raising those kids? The school is of course.

            You telling me I have no clue does not change the reality that our nation is in decline. Clover this nation produces more pornography than anywhere else in the world. We have a higher incarceration rate than Red China. Our corporate income tax rate at 39% is the second highest in the world behind Japan (that’s from CNBC, hardly a bastion of libertarianism). Between that, the unions bleeding our companies from one arm, unscrupulous management bleeding them from the other and the EPA hamstringing them, it’s no wonder our companies are leaving for foreign shores. It’s also no wonder that the job market is cutthroat and dishonesty seems acceptable; the end justifies the means does it not?

            We have high school graduates that need help filling out their draft card (I know this because our small town Post Master was appalled by it being so common). That indicates functional illiteracy. A kid that graduates high school unable to complete his draft card got cheated. He got cheated by his teachers and the school system itself! American public schools are hardly the only problem, but they are a major problem whether you like it or not. Clover, in Atlanta they just fired a bunch of teachers and administrators for cheating on the national standardized tests to give their schools a better image. That image isn’t looking so good now, is it? You can rest assured this problem isn’t confined to Atlanta.
            Clover I’m an Instrumentation & Controls technician. My specialty is troubleshooting and root cause analysis. I take factual evidence, analyze it and draw conclusions from it for my living. I’ve asked you this before and I want an answer. What is your profession?

          • Boothe I still say you do not have a clue. You say all the problems with society and then you go back to the school problem. It is not the school problem. The school is not responsible for the father not living at home. The school is not responsible for the TV shows that are on. The school is not responsible for a kid seeing his parents cheat on taxes, break all traffic laws. Boothe it goes on and on and it has nothing to do with schools. How about the libertarians that say is fine to break laws, cheat the government, cheat on taxes, steal from his neighbor or a store with the excuse it is making too much money. It is libertarians that promote no morals. Kids have very little influence in school compared to what is happening outside of school.

            • Sigh.

              No, Clover – it’s you that has no clue. Anyone who thinks statutory law and moral law are synonymous is a moral idiot.

              Libertarians are people who deal in (and respect) ethical principles. They – unlike you and your fellow Clovers – do not robotically accept the imbecile notion that “legal” and “right” are ipso facto that same thing, nor that “illegal” and “wrong” are the same things.

              But there’s no hope reaching you. Cloverism is its own reward.

          • Eric you do not get it. You are the one that says it is fine do what you want to do and it does not matter if it kills or injures others. You say it is fine to lie and steal and cheat and threaten the life of others just because you add the word liberty to back it up. It is someone like you that if you are in a company and working with others to be a slacker because that is decision. You make your own decisions and decide for yourself if you are going to work for any company that you work for. You have no morals. You want to do everything possible to keep drunks on the road. You want drunks on the road but you want to get older drivers off of the road that slow you down. Where are the morals in that?

            • Asshole – in every case I have been arguing precisely the opposite. That it is never moral to cause anyone harm, ever – for any reason (other than self-defense). And that those who do cause harm should be held fully responsible.

              It’s you who constantly advocates harming and even killing people, if they don’t do as you (and your kind) demand. If they don’t Submit and Obey.

              It’s you who posits that some abstract, theoretical, generalized “risk” or potential (as you define it) “harm” entitles you to violate the rights of individuals who have not done a fucking thing to harm anyone. It’s you who won’t leave others alone who have done you no harm. It’s you who live by force and violence.

              It’s you who cannot comprehend the concept of morality.

              I’ve had it with you, shitehead.

              You are living proof that is it impossible to reason with the unreasonable.

              Listen to it quack:

              “It is someone like you that if you are in a company and working with others to be a slacker because that is decision.”

              Hear it shriek and emote like a mildly retarded 14-year-old girl:

              “You want to do everything possible to keep drunks on the road. You want drunks on the road but you want to get older drivers off of the road that slow you down. Where are the morals in that?”

              An exemplar – the apotheosis – of government schooling!

      • Simple specific answers to Clover’s ostrich interrogatories…not that I expect it will help…

        **What lies have been told to our children?**
        My children were taught the right to tax citizens was in the Bill of Rights in their first grade “Constitution Day” education.

        My full letter, detailing this and the other MULTIPLE errors, to the “teacher”…

        …we were homeschooling within four months and I stopped being a “constitutionalist” a few years later.

        **What is the truth that you are talking about?**
        Truth is fact.

        Fact…public education is very successful at its actual goal.

        From the father of American public schooling, Horace Mann, “Education is our only political safety. Outside of this ark all is deluge.” Might there be correlation to the steady decrease in political knowledge in the society?

        Fact…American education destroys individual initiative and curiousity to benefit the collective. To get you started, a 2006 ABC 20/20 show…

        **What is this manipulated socially?**
        Social: pertaining to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations.

        When and where else in our entire lives are we forced to be somewhere surrounded by people our same age doing things we don’t care to do? Never…it is anti-social.

        Manipulate: to adapt or change another to suit one’s purpose or advantage.

        Education turns individuals into un-thinking cogs for the collective gears benefiting teachers, bureaucrats, big business, big government, and other “experts”. E.g., see “Clover.”

        **A lot of words without any type of detail or explanation.***

        Your bloviated questions to Brent…63
        My detailed explanations…130 or so. Too much for ya?

        • Forgot to add a few more answers under:
          **What lies have been told to our children?**

          They are told Lincoln, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc. are “great” presidents…why? Because they expanded federal control and power. How great is that working out for us now?

          They are told slavery is a great evil, while being enslaved themselves.

          Do you treat a vehicle you own or a rental car better? It is natural for the majority of folks to take care of their “property.”

          However, children (& us) have been turned into “rental” fodder for the collective…and thinking we are “free” makes us more productive and less troublesome on the plantation.

          [Note: I do not advocate slavery in any form, most especially today’s covert version as the slaves now forge their own chains and don’t even try to escape the cage.]

          They are told their “required” reading lists are examples of “great literature.” While rarely picking up a book again…how great is that?

          I could go on…but what’s the point?

  10. What laws are good laws? Only the ones that you agree with? Who gives you the right to decide what to obey? Is it not better to have laws that are voted on my ourselves or our represtatives or is it better that everyone should decide for themselves what is good? What if someone decides they should be able to drive totally plastered and drunk or on drugs? What if someone decides they should be able to walk around with a loaded gun pointing it at other people? Who should decide what is legal?

    • Ah, Clover – I knew you could not stay away!

      Poor ol’ Clover!

      Simple lesson: Laws are legitimate when they proscribe immoral action; what is an immoral action? An action that causes harm, where there is a victim. If there is no harm, no victim – then there is no crime and no legitimate need for a law.

      Ergo: I don’t obey a law just because it is a law. If it is morally wrong – I don’t do it, irrespective of the law. But if it is just an administrative law – that is, illegal but morally neutral (for example, “speeding”) then of course I ignore it, evade it and so on. Why not? Should a person mindlessly Submit and Obey… simply because there is a Law?

      Wait, don’t bother. I know your answer already….

      • Yes I know exactly. Since it harms no one, usually, then it is OK walking around with a loaded gun pointing it at someone. It is OK to drive drunk and we should be fine with it until they kill a bunch of others and then put them in jail.

        It still goes back to don’t touch me until I kill or injure others which will happen often when people drive in a dangerous manner.

        I on the other hand put gas in my tank before it runs dry. I replace my brakes before they go out and I get out of control. I replace my engine oil before my engine in my car dies an early death.

        I believe it is better to decide what is right and wrong as a group rather than an individual deciding how dangerous they should drive or act.

        You say that things like speeding is OK. You are right most of the time. Thousands of times throughout the year that is not true though. Excessive speeding does often kill. You say it does not do it all the time so it is fine. Yes driving 50 thousand miles on an oil change may be fine also once in a while but it can significantly increase the chances of an early death to your engine.

        It still comes down to it is what you decide is correct. You on the other hand do not even agree with others in your group of backers. You say that things like tailgating is bad. Is it not better than driving very drunk? The chances of death and injury to others is not significantly different.

        I see speeders every day do dumb things. I see them passing in blind spots and it saves them 5 seconds in travel time! I see them fly past me only to slam on the brakes at the red light ahead. I see the fast drivers tailgating behind a car which saves them 1 to 2 seconds of travel time. Tell me about all the smart fast drivers.

        • A “law” has never saved or protected anyone, anytime, in any place.

          In fact quite the opposite…at intersections, the “law” put up a stop sign/light for the other driver so I will proceed without caution…the “law” will stop them.

          Driving late at night…the “law” catches drunks so I will hug the centerline and NOT assume every driver coming towards me is coming into my lane.

          Personal protection…the “law” makes it illegal for somebody to do _____ to me or my family, so I will NOT have a plan to kill everyone I meet…just in case.

          The “law” controls slaves and frees the “masters”…which category does a Clover fall into?

          • Correct JC. The law introduces moral hazard and stupidity into the populous. How many times have you seen someone cross a street at a crosswalk when the light turns green and never even bother to look and see if a car is coming? Why do then need to look? The “law” says it’s their turn to go and if a car hits them, boy are they going to be in trouble! Pfft.

            It creates that old “dead right” scenario.

            And oh yea: the next time TSA tries to violate just about every right protected by the constitution, hold up a copy of the constitution and see how well it – the rule of law, the law of the land – protects you.

          • True – but laws can provide remedy after the fact.

            I’m thinking of both criminal and civil laws. For example (and this is assuming a generally functional system, as ours once was): Someone beats you up and steals your car. Do you chase him down later? Or your privately paid-for strongman? What if he (the guy who beat you up) is stronger, or has his own crew of strong men? Let’s assume you do catch up with him. What do you do with him? What is objective justice (again, as close as we can get to that in actual real life)? If we have no objective laws, applied equally (as equally as humanly possible) then my idea of just deserts vies with your ideas – and the ideas of every other individual, since there is no governing, generally agreed-to standard.

            You and Don have written that all government is essentially corrupt because all individuals are essentially corrupt – or prone to corruption by human nature, at any rate. I agree. But does not the logic of this apply to anarchy as much as a limited government? Indeed, rather than one imperfect authority, as under a constitutional republic, under anarchy we have multitudes of imperfect authorities, each claiming the same right.

            I see this as chaos – and chaos is the enemy of liberty as much as too much control.

            Maybe I just don’t get it. I’m just calling it as I see it – and as it makes sense to me.

          • Eric…if the “government” (individuals with licensed approval to lie, steal, cheat & kill to further their own self-interests due to their employment) disappeared tomorrow, the only thing to disappear is the approval.

            Centralized sovereignty in one unaccountable “entity” is the problem…getting sovereignty back as close as possible to its only true source, individuals, is the solution. The closer the more accountable.

            If that is called anarchy, then o.k…but as a good friend of mine says…Anarchy doesn’t mean no rules, just no rulers.

            In fact we all practice anarchy everyday when you make the choice of whom to associate with or freely give your money to.

            If “government” disappeared tomorrow, how many people do you know will begin robbing, cheating, raping, and killing?

            The social rules (natural law) will only be violated by government-created, er, more accurately, diseased individuals with no conscience or morality…of whom there is a finite amount.

            Time, their personal decisions, and the actions of moral individuals will cure them of their disease…no respect for themselves nor others, as individuals associating in mutually beneficial relationships governed by natural law.

            Or am I just wearing rose-colored glasses?

          • Laws do nothing? Believe it or not seat belt laws have saved hundreds of thousands of lives since it was put into place. Speeding laws save thousands of lives each year. A crack down on drunken driving has saved thousands of lives. Those are the facts boys. If you want to look out for the other guy at a stop light that is your option and in any driving course that I have taken they tell you to do just that.

            No laws on our interstates what would we have? Horses and bikes on the road then the guy trying to drive 150 mph. Laws mean nothing?

      • I disagree with the “need” for laws. What generally happens is that one person, or one group of people will commit a criminal act and – since gov never lets a good crisis go to waste – “lawmakers” will pass new laws penalizing everyone for what a minority of people might possibly do at some point in the future.

        Then these laws are never enforced with the intent in which they were written. They are always enforced “to the letter” with little to no thought on the part of the enforcer. That’s abusive and irresponsible and the norm.

        As you implied, in immoral criminal act is one in which someone’s rigts are violated or a credible threat to violate their rights is made.

        Laws don’t deter anyone anyway. If it’s a law against something you wouldn’t do anyway then it doesn’t deter you. It didn’t deter all the people who are in prison for breaking it and it won’t deter the criminals who haven’t broken it yet, it’ll just figure into their decision making process as part of the cost of committing the crime, but they are still criminals by nature and will still commit the crime. They might wait for an easier target, a wealthier target, do it with a gang whatever, but laws don’t turn criminals into moral people.

    • Clover you won’t understand this response but other (educated) readers will:

      Clover, YOU walk around pointing a gun at people and robbing them for money and kidnapping them for having done nothing wrong. Well, not you personally, but your hired agents.

      Because, you see, when we depart from common law and natural rights, we descend into a system of barbaric plunder. As Bastiat said, “government is the fiction by which everyone seek to live at everyone else’s expense.”

      You, seeking to live at my expense, hire agents to point guns at me and rob me.

      You, seeking illusory “safety” at my expense, hire agents to point guns at me when I do things you consider immoral, unsafe, unsavory, or even just bad for my health.

      Were we to return to common law and respect natural rights, you’d be forced to recognize my right to do as I please–as long as that did not infringe on your right to do the same.

      Simple precepts, is it not?
      In the affirmative:
      “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

      • methylamin if you do not like any laws then move to an island that you own outside of any country. If you live in a country you need to abide by their laws or you get penalized. If you do not like the government then you are the one that has to live without roads, cars, cities and thousands of other things because without a government you can have none of these. Without a government it is not possible for millions of people to live together in a peaceful way. If you like to walk around with a loaded gun without anything but things you can steal then you would like living without a government.

        • Methyl’s decides he owns the country and can make his own rules. He’s the sort of fellow you’d be stupid to invite to live in your place.

          • Methyl has at no point said he believes he can make his own rules. You sound like my ex-wife: you hear what you want rather than what’s said. He advocates everyone being resonsible for their own actions and if you violate anyeone’s rights then you are also responsible to answer for your actions. Is the difference really so difficult for you to understand? Anarchy is not a lack of rules, it’s a lack of rulers. If you are not capable of taking responsibility for your actions and do not know how to get along in society on a daily basis w/o violating other’s rights, then I suggest YOU move somewhere else where there are others who are willing to take care of you because we don’t want to be forced by your gov to do it.

          • doncooper, explain how it is that a person is supposed to know if they violate someone’s rights? A law? who is going to enforce the breaking of the rights? Is driving in a dangerous manner a violation of my right to drive on a safe highway or does the person need to kill a bunch of people first?

            • Clover, it’s like this: You only violate someone else’s rights when you cause them harm. If you have not caused them harm, then you have not violated their rights. It’s a simple concept. You, unfortunately not only don’t get this – you upend it. You actively want to violate other people’s rights – fining, regulating, controlling people with threats of violence – people who have done you no harm at all. You think they may – as in the case of people who drive faster than you arbitrarily feel they should. But your feelings, your private neurosis, does not justify assaulting other people by assaulting their right to be left in peace.

              I know, as usual, that you will not understand this – and will instead slough off another mush-mouthed agglutination of non sequiturs.

              It’s what Clovers do, after all.

          • We agree to disagree on this one Eric. I say we need to stop the person that is driving in a dangerous way before they hurt someone and you say wait for the deaths to happen or the 10s of thousands of dollars in damages and then tell them they should not have done that. Do you ever change the oil in your truck?

            • No, Clover – we don’t agree on this (or anything else, I suspect).

              You state as fact that “they are driving in a dangerous way” but this is just your opinion. Your feeling.

              I, meanwhile, have argued that it’s only right (morally-speaking) for a cop to stop a driver if his driving indicates he’s impaired – whether by alcohol or senility or some other thing. You simply do not comprehend the concept of rights – or just don’t care.

              My position is the one in accord with liberty and respect for individual rights. Yours is the embodiment of the suffocating nanny state that respects no one’s liberty, acknowledges no rights that are inviolable – just limited privileges granted by the government (that is, by those Clovers who run the government, who believe they are entitled to do violence to others who have done them no harm).

          • Eric where in the constitution does it say that it is your right to 30 mph or more anywhere? There is nothing on it because such a thing did not exist at the time. It is not a right to be on the highway. The privilege is even taken away from you if you drive in a dangerous manner. I believe and the government officials believe that we need to make our roadways safe for everyone. They set up laws to help do this. There has even been a supreme court decision approving states to have safety stops on the roadways . The court decision has been made. “The Centers for Disease Control, in a 2002 Traffic Injury Prevention report, found that in general, the number of alcohol related crashes was reduced by 20% in states that implement sobriety checkpoints compared to those that do not”

            I can guarantee that if you were doing some something dangerous at the time the constitution was written that you would have been stopped for it and put into jail or worse.

  11. This will be my philosophy when they finally try to arrest me for daring to drive as a free man and w/o the gov’s permission, also known as a valid driver’s license.

    Stasi agent: your paper’s please.
    Don: your warrant please.

    • Hey, on that score I am in 100 percent agreement. The idea that one ought to be “licensed” to travel/use roads you’ve paid for is noxious and many other things besides!

  12. The final unraveling of “freedom” in this land is accelerating.

    If only those pesky Anti-Federalists hadn’t enabled the USSA with the pesky Bill of Rights, we’d be well into True Freedom Guv 2.0.

    The current iteration owes its longevity to those ten, finally ignored, specific things the national government “can NOT do.” The ones that they still don’t do yet, ex., quartering troops, have been outsourced to the bribed subservient “states.” The internal warrant-less search checkpoints, up until the past few years, were done for DUI “public safety”…now the pretense is gone, SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!! YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT!!

    The pot has been heated to a boil, and still the frogs don’t even notice.

    Thanks Eric…keep up the posting!!!

  13. These laws are still on the books yet they are completely ignored. Here’s current Texas Penal Code, for example:

    (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

    (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    “Our” government has been hijacked by a criminal mafia. It’s not America any more; we’ve been overthrown from the inside, and the massive crimes at the top are now trickling down through the ranks.

    As the saying goes, “a fish rots from the head down”; now the corruption and sense of omnipotence has penetrated all the way to your local traffic court.

    This unbridled power attracts sociopaths and repels normals; over time, the ranks of cops, judges, and other stasi will be completely replaced with psychopaths.

  14. Keep it coming! Hopefully people are starting to see what is being done in the name of “freedom”. Repeal the Patriot Act, abolish the department of Homeland Security and the TSA.

    We are dishonoring our forefathers that fought for our freedoms by giving them up without a whimper.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here