Your Brother’s Keeper

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In Connecticut, prosecutors are beta-testing a new legal doctrine: That a person can be held criminally responsible for the actions of other's keeper picture

The case at issue (see here) involves two teenage boys who were out drinking with their friend, 17-year-old Jane Modlesky. After some hearty partying, the teens parted ways. Modlesky dropped the boys off at home and drove off in a 2008 Honda Pilot – and subsequently, drove into a tree. She was killed – and the boys have been charged with being accomplices to drunk and reckless driving. Another teen was charged for throwing the party at which the alcohol was served.

It is not alleged that the boys forced Modlesky to drink – nor to drive. The crux of the case seems to be the assertion that the boys had a positive obligation to prevent Modlesky from driving. In the words of James Kennedy of the Glastonbury, CT Police Department:  “They very well knew that she was intoxicated and should not have been driving.” He does not complete the sentence, which – if logic follows – would be: “And they had a duty to keep her from driving.”

A legally enforceable duty.Modlesky picture

It is an odd doctrine, to say the least. If the boys had attempted to forcibly restrain Modlesky – had put their hands on her – would they not have placed themselves in peril of being charged with criminal assault/battery? Perhaps sexual assault? Keep in mind – they are boys (plural) and Modlesky, a girl (singular). No boy in possession of his senses – drunk or not – puts his hands on a girl unwilling.

Not these days.

And two boys forcibly restraining a girl? Holding her down, locking her in a room? Rifling her pockets and purse to get her keys away from her? Imagine they forgot to get her cell phone. And that she had called the cops. Told them – tearfully –  she has just been attacked by two boys, who have locked her up in a room. Cue the SWAT team.catch 22 pic

If not restraint – what? The boys were obligated to call the cops? To narc on their friend?

This is a Soviet doctrine.

Imagine if it becomes accepted doctrine.

Instead of Big Brother watching you, everyone will be watching you. If you go out drinking with your buddies, your buddies will be eying you all night long (and you, they) for signs of potential (as well as actual) law-breaking. Keep in mind that the Modlesky case presumes the boys not only knew their friend was drunk but also that they knew she was going to drive recklessly.

Not that she might.

It follows, therefore, that you will be legally obligated to know just how much is too much, insofar as your friends’ drinking is concerned – and also (put your wizard hat on) what they’re going to do subsequently. Any possible criminal act they may commit becomes a de jure actual act – and you’re responsible for not preventing it!bar scene pics

This sounds crazy but in fact, it’s already the law.

Bartenders, for instance, are legally obliged to keep track of how much patrons are drinking – and to cut them of when they’ve had “enough.” If not – and the patron subsequently drives and wrecks, the bartender (and the owner of the bar) can be held legally responsible. Criminally as well as civilly.

How, exactly, a bartender is supposed to keep track of dozens of people in a dimly lit room – much less know who’s had “enough” (what constitutes “enough” for a 110 pound female may be a lot less than “enough” for a 200 pound male) is never spelled out. Because – short of Breathalyzing (or better yet, blood-drawing) every patron every hour and having them perform various tests to determine whether they’ve had “enough” – there is no objective way to quantify “enough.” It is a completely subjective standard. The barkeep can’t win – so we lose. Check Rebel Sport Catalogue and Amart Catalogue. He cuts everyone off after two or three drinks, just to be safe. This is exactly what the airlines do, too. You’re allowed two in-flight cocktails. No more.spying pic

We’re all in loco parentis.

But the real hairiness is this business about being held criminally responsible for what others might do. This is even worse than being held responsible for what they actually do do.

The boys in the Modlesky case had no way of knowing that their friend would drive recklessly – and into a tree. It was possible, certainly. But the old-fashioned notion that only actualities count is to be tossed into the dumpster of history – along with the equally anachronistic notion that each of us is responsible for our actions, but not for the actions of other people.

Now – if the principle is embraced – we are truly to become our brother’s keeper. By force, if need be. It will be in our self-interest to narc one another out.

And that’s probably exactly what they want.

Throw it in the Woods?

PS:This site is almost entirely reader supported now. No Google. (They blacklisted us – so we dumped them. See here for the full story about that.)

If you like what you see, consider supporting this site. The link to our “donate” button is here. You can also mail stuff our way – if you prefer to avoid PayPal. The address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane, SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079


  1. Gary Snyder – Beat Poet – Buddhist Anarchist
    There are those who love to get dirty. and fix things.
    They drink coffee at dawn, beer after work,
    And those who stay clean, just appreciate things,
    At breakfast they have milk. and juice at night.
    There are those who do both, they drink tea.

    I pledge allegiance to the soil
    of Turtle Island,
    and to the beings who thereon dwell
    one ecosystem
    in diversity
    under the sun
    With joyful interpenetration for all.
    – – –

    A handsome smokey-colored brown bear standing on his hind legs, showing that he is aroused and watchful.

    Bearing in his right paw the Shovel that digs to the truth beneath appearances; cuts the roots of useless
    attachments, and flings damp sand on the fires of greed and war;

    His left paw in the Mudra of Comradely Display — indicating that all creatures have the full right to live to their limits and that deer, rabbits, chipmunks, snakes, dandelions, and lizards all grow in the realm of the Dharma;

    Wearing the blue work overalls symbolic of slaves and laborers, the countless men oppressed by a civilization that claims to save but often destroys;

    Wearing the broad-brimmed hat of the West, symbolic of the forces that guard the Wilderness, which is the Natural State of the Dharma and the True Path of man on earth: all true paths lead through mountains —

    With a halo of smoke and flame behind, the forest fires of the kali-yuga, fires caused by the stupidity of those who think things can be gained and lost whereas in truth all is contained vast and free in the Blue Sky and Green Earth of One Mind;

    Round-bellied to show his kind nature and that the great earth has food enough for everyone who loves her and trusts her;

    Trampling underfoot wasteful freeways and needless suburbs; smashing the worms of capitalism and
    totalitarianism; he will protect those who love woods and rivers, Gods and animals, hobos and madmen, prisoners and sick people, musicians, playful women, and hopeful children:

    Indicating the Task: his followers, becoming free of cars, houses, canned foods, universities, and shoes;
    master the Three Mysteries of their own Body, Speech, and Mind; and fearlessly chop down the rotten
    trees and prune out the sick limbs of this country America and then burn the leftover trash.

    Wrathful but Calm. Austere but Comic. Smokey the Bear will Illuminate those who would help him; but for those who would hinder or slander him,

    He Will Put Them Out
    – – –

    Lay down these words
    Before your mind like rocks.
    placed solid, by hands
    In choice of place, set
    Before the body of the mind
    in space and time:
    Solidity of bark, leaf, or wall
    riprap of things:
    Cobble of milky way,
    straying planets,
    These poems, people,
    lost ponies with
    Dragging saddles—
    and rocky sure-foot trails.
    The worlds like an endless
    Game of Go.
    ants and pebbles
    In the thin loam, each rock a word
    a creek-washed stone
    Granite: ingrained
    with torment of fire and weight
    Crystal and sediment linked hot
    all change, in thoughts,
    As well as things.
    – – –
    As a poet I hold the most archaic values on earth . . . the fertility of the soil, the magic of animals, the power-vision in solitude, the terrifying initiation and rebirth, the love and ecstasy of the dance, the common work of the tribe. I try to hold both history and the wilderness in mind, that my poems may approach the true measure of things and stand against the unbalance and ignorance of our times
    – – –

    No one today can afford to be innocent, or indulge himself in ignorance of the nature of contemporary governments, politics and social orders.

    The national polities of the modern world maintain their existence by deliberately fostered craving and fear: monstrous protection rackets. The “free world” has become economically dependent on a fantastic system of stimulation of greed which cannot be fulfilled, sexual desire which cannot be satiated and hatred which has no outlet except against oneself, the persons one is supposed to love, or the revolutionary aspirations of pitiful, poverty-stricken marginal societies like Cuba or Vietnam.

    The conditions of the Cold War have turned all modern societies — Communist included — into vicious distorters of man’s true potential. They create populations of “preta” — hungry ghosts, with giant appetites and throats no bigger than needles.

    The soil, the forests and all animal life are being consumed by these cancerous collectivities; the air and water of the planet is being fouled by them.

    The practice of meditation, for which one needs only “the ground beneath one’s feet,” wipes out mountains of junk being pumped into the mind by the mass media and supermarket universities.

    The belief in a serene and generous fulfillment of natural loving desires destroys ideologies which blind, maim and repress — and points the way to a kind of community which would amaze “moralists” and transform armies of men who are fighters because they cannot be lovers.

    The mercy of the West has been social revolution; the mercy of the East has been individual insight into the basic self/void. We need both.

    They are both contained in the traditional three aspects of the Dharma path: wisdom (prajna), meditation (dhyana), and morality (sila). Wisdom is intuitive knowledge of the mind of love and clarity that lies beneath one’s ego-driven anxieties and aggressions.

    Meditation is going into the mind to see this for yourself — over and over again, until it becomes the mind you live in. Morality is bringing it back out in the way you live, through personal example and responsible action, ultimately toward the true community (sangha) of “all beings.”
    (anti-property language ignored. disagree with his hatred of personal property, agree that there can be an unhealthy over-emphasis of wealth and material accumulation)

    5 Poems By Gary Snyder

  2. Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Inc

    What Is the Relationship between Faith and Works?

    How should we understand the relationship between faith and works in salvation and how does the Book of James’ teaching on faith and works relate with that of the apostle Paul?

    The apostle Paul presents faith as the alone instrument of salvation, apart from works. He writes in Romans, “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (3:28). Paul is especially ruling out religious rites as a way to become right with God. In Romans 4:4-5, Paul extends this to works of any kind, writing, “To the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”

    We may sum up Paul’s teaching on faith and works as follows: 1) We cannot be saved by works, because all our works are corrupted by sin, but Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and offered his perfect works to God for us; 2) By faith in Christ, we are forgiven of our sins because of his death on the cross, and we receive by imputation his perfect fulfillment of God’s Law. Whereas we cannot be saved by our works, we are saved through faith by the work of Jesus Christ; 3) Having been saved by faith alone, we are called to do good works, living in accordance with God’s law and serving him with our lives. This is all laid out in Ephesians 2:8-10, “By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

    The apostle James writes about faith and works differently. One reason is the difference in the type of letter and purpose of writing. In letters like Romans and Ephesians, Paul presents a doctrinal treatise. His concern is to systematically lay out certain truths. James is writing what we call “wisdom literature.” His Book in the New Testament is analogous to the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. His concern is to pastorally exhort his readers. Because of this James says things about faith and works that some people think contradicts what Paul teaches. One of them was Martin Luther, who therefore all but rejected the Book of James and once called it “the epistle of straw.” In fact, James does not contradict Paul, but speaks about faith from a different point of emphasis.

    James’s concern was to preach against empty, formal belief, which he says is really not a living or saving faith. “What good is it, my brothers,” he asks, “if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?. . . Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (2:17-18).

    James’ point is that for faith to be alive, it must produce works. Using the example of Abraham, whose faith was finally proved by his willingness to offer his son, he writes in a way that seems to be even more challenging to Paul’s doctrine of faith alone: “A person is justified,” he says, “by works and not by faith alone” (2:24). This verse is celebrated by those who oppose or want to change Paul’s teaching on faith alone. But James’ point is made clear by his elaboration on the matter by, for instance, verse 22, which says, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” That is something Paul would have strongly affirmed, that a living faith, which alone saves us through Jesus Christ, is only one which proves itself through good and obedient works. As John Calvin famously put it, “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that really saves us never is alone.”

    James, like Paul, distinguishes between faith and works. Paul emphasizes that we are saved through faith apart from works; James emphasizes that the faith that really saves us is a faith that does works. Together, they provide us a well-rounded New Testament teaching on faith alone as that which saves us to a life that is characterized by good works in living worship unto the Lord.

  3. Divergent – A Matrix/Anthem/1984 for Believers. I really can’t praise these three novels, four short stories, and film series high enough. If you like your God, you can keep your God.

    Finally a red pill antidote your family’s wrongthink that doesn’t require abandoning your current beliefs or philosophy. A solid intro to Aristotlean Virtue Ethics packaged in a YA story.

    Divergent is an upcoming American sci fi film directed by Neil Burger, based on the novel by Veronica Roth. It stars Kate Winslet and Maggie Q. The story takes place in post-apocalyptic Chicago, the film will be released on March 21, 2014.

    first look at Divergent

    audiobook – 11 hours

    Acknowledgments by author Veronica Roth

    Thank you, God, for your Son and for blessing me beyond comprehension. Thanks also to: Joanna, my badass agent, who works harder than anyone I know. – God mentioned in one sentence, badass in the next sentence. Always a good sign.

    divergent wiki

    Veronica Roth Quotes:

    “We believe in ordinary acts of bravery, in the courage that drives one person to stand up for another.”
    “Becoming fearless isn’t the point. That’s impossible. It’s learning how to control your fear, and how to be free from it.”
    “I have a theory that selflessness and bravery aren’t all that different.”
    “Sometimes crying or laughing are the only options left, and laughing feels better right now.”
    “A brave man acknowledges the strength of others.”
    “I am selfish. I am brave.”
    “Cruelty does not make a person dishonest, the same way bravery does not make a person kind.”
    “People, I have discovered, are layers and layers of secrets. You believe you know them, that you understand them, but their motives are always hidden from you, buried in their own hearts. You will never know them, but sometimes you decide to trust them.”
    “Politeness is deception in pretty packaging.”
    “Fear doesn’t shut you down; it wakes you up”
    “Like a wild animal, the truth is too powerful to remain caged.”
    “One Choice. One Choice, decided your friends. One Choice, defines your beliefs. One Choice, determines your loyalties – Forever. One Choice can transform you”

  4. Star Wars Scene filmed in Montevideo Uruguay.

    Top Uruguay News Site (open in chrome browser, right click any page for google translate)

    Uruguay is 3.3 million people, 2 million who live in metro Montevideo. It is 90% white European, descended from Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Britain.

    Annual production per person is $16,000, which is the third of an average American. It has a trade agreement with the US. One UY peso = $.05. Prostitution is openly legal for everyone over 18 years old. Age of consent is 15.

    A full time made costs $350. It is the most secular nation in the Americas – 30% believe in a god but don’t belong to any religion, 14% are Atheist or Agnostic.

    President José Mujica rules from his own small home on the outskirts of the capital, Montevideo. Dubbed the world’s “poorest” president, Mujica and his wife keep house on a small farm surrounded by other tiny homes and guarded by only two police officers and Manuela, a three-legged dog. “I may appear to be an eccentric old man, but this is a free choice. I’ve lived like this most of my life, I can live well with what I have.”

    Mujica donates 90 percent of his $12,000 monthly salary to charity organizations benefiting the poor and small businesses and his means of transport is a beat-up 1987 Volkswagen Beetle worth about $1,800. That is also his the entirety of his annual personal wealth declaration.

    1 Uruguay is Less Corrupt than Other Latin American Countries
    “Here in Uruguay the residency process is so much more clear cut. Not simple or perfectly smooth but easier. No corruption. If you have a handle on Spanish you can breeze through.

    I did not so my Uruguayan friends have helped me immensely. The residency process has taken over a year. I chose to go the cheap route (canje) and was told upfront that it would be a long wait for the card,” explained one expat living in Valdense, Uruguay who have previously lived in Argentina.

    2 Life is Good in Uruguay
    “Lower cost of living, many benefits for seniors who get residency, friendly native people, quietness, stability of gov’t, great public transportation, no need of a car, no need of expensive insurances, local “organic” meat and produce, slower pace of life, flourishing small businesses, hard-working honest family oriented native people, beautiful birds, great highways, wonderful beaches, simple life pleasures: people walk instead of jump in a car, women hang out clothes instead of using a dryer, families wear layers of clothes instead of turning up a thermostat, people buy small cars, use propane for cooking, have small homes so spend much of leisure time out of doors.

    The air here is clean, water potable throughout the country. The Solis Theater in Montevideo supports classical and innovative musical groups, both world famous and local talent. There are adjustments to make, yes. But in a nutshell, Uruguay is ideal for me,” said one expat who retired in Uruguay.

    3 Must Learn Some Uruguayan Spanish
    Another expat in Punta del Diablo, Uruguay recommended, “if you don’t speak a certain amount of Spanish, you’re lost. They take you more seriously. Nobody speaks English. Prepare yourself. Buy Rosetta Stone if you must, but be aware = it teaches Mexican Spanish, not Uruguayan Spanish… But why am I cheating you of a few laughs? Strike up conversations in fledgling Spanish whenever you can – at the bus stop or market. Word of mouth is how you will find houses to rent, year-round or during the season, cars for sale or rent, the best deals on firewood, etc. TALK to the locals.”

    3 The Best Thing about Uruguay – The People
    “The people here will bend over backward to help you get along, give you recommendations for laundry service, firewood vendors, whatever you want. The key is to keep your heart open to the people. Be open to the people of Uruguay. Trust in the natural goodness of humankind here. Nobody is out to fleece you. Visit the provinces & learn about the country people, not just the city of Montevideo & cities.

    4 Wine in Uruguay
    “Yes, we are drinking a bit more – red wine – tannat grapes. We probably consume about a gallon per week, between ourselves & visitors… It’s winter now & it helps to warm the blood.”

    4 Cost of Living in Uruguay
    “Realize this is not a cheap place to live. Prices are similar to the United States; however, there is much more freedom to be found here,” said one expat. Another expat said, “Montevideo is one of the most inexpensive cities to live in the world, as are practically all other cities and towns in Uruguay, but Punta del Este is just as expensive as any US resort city or international resort in the world, if not more. I would strongly recommend coming to Uruguay on an extended .. (maybe a couple of months) visit to get a feel for it before packing up and moving here.”

    “Less than $1200/mo. We spend about $50/week on food, drink, wine, etc. We sold all our possessions before coming down & came down with 7 suitcases… We paid $100 each for these, which to my view was way cheaper than trying to ship them down,” described another expat.

    “The costs of living could be as much or more than in the US..a cup of coffee is cheaper at Starbucks in the US than in Uruguay. Health care if you are under 55 will cost you around 100 dollars a month with funeral expenses covered,” described another expat in Uruguay.

    5 Expats Found it Easier to Move to Uruguay than to Argentina
    “I faced the same choice 2 years ago, Uruguay or Argentina. I already had an apartment in Buenos Aires, wanted to relocate from coastal Brazil and did not want to live in a big city. We ended up near Punta del Este (but a world away in many respects) in Uruguay. The political and financial situation in Argentina is impossible. A few months ago it was impossible to get dollars (by decree of the President) and no one outside of Argentina wants their pesos. Inflation is 25-30%. I gave up trying to get residency. We still have our apartment in BA and enjoy the 35 minute flight from Punta to be in a great city every month. Since you mentioned you need to be near an airport there is one (Laguna del Sauce) 5 minutes from our house. And Uruguay seems very stable, the people are friendly, inflation is 7% and banking is easy. Both countries have winters and August is particularly gloomy. If you are visiting in July and August you will see the worst of the weather. I thought I would share my experiences with both countries,” explained one expat in Punta del Este.

    6 Where to Live in Uruguay
    One expat said, “Uruguay is a friendly, relaxed, politically stable, relatively safe and enjoyable place to live. Montevideo is a wonderful coastal city with a small town feel. This means you’ll have a wide range of restaurants and cultural activities available year round…but it’s a place where everyone knows everyone else…which pays extraordinary benefits once you’ve paid a few dues and gotten to know who is who, who to trust, and who not to. The coastal areas offer fairly good beaches and there are expat communities but offer much less to do. You will have to have a car anywhere outside of Montevideo, whereas in the city you won’t need one. (Frankly…I wouldn’t DRIVE in Argentina, much less own a car. I’ve lived in Mediterranean Europe, Mexico, etc…and Argentina is BY FAR the most dangerous place to drive I have ever seen. No one stops…ever. Uruguay by contrast is simply ‘sort of bad’, comparable to many other places outside the U.S.”

    7 Crime in Uruguay
    “The people of UY are by far the best – very helpful. Although UYos complain about their rising crime rate in the inner cities, this is mainly petty theft, not murders. Personal assaults, robbings or muggings are nearly unheard-of here,” explained another expat. Once you become known to your neighbors, you will be looked after as part of the community.”

  5. Taking On Poverty In Salinas, CA

    Grapes of Wrath – 1940 – Salinas Valley, CA – Story by native son John Steinbeck

    Main Street: Sailnas, California | PBS Documentary

    Isn’t their a panarchical shotgun approach to alleviating poverty? Ways without coercion and force. Should poverty it be fully eradicated? Many of mankinds greatest innovations began as attempts to escape personal poverty.

    I would rather burn all my money than allow an official gang to take it from me against my will. I shun poverty pimps. Poverty pimps are my sworn enemy.

    I will listen to these shyster’s ideas, Especially their points that are seen as valid by the majority. I will learn everything about them and defeat them in the marketplace of ideas. I know with certainty there is a market-based solution that will work.

    The needy are being dehumanized and losing their last vestiges of the ability to fend for themselves by these malevolent frauds. Encouraging spontaneous individual self-preservatory action and treating all people as deserving of respect, will soundly defeat the central planner jackasses, I am sure of it.

    • Lawdy I am so over the “we must X”. Like “provide them with education”. The PBS Ministry of Truth is the organ of choice for the Orwellian code words used by the brother keeper culture masters sympathy appeals.

      The public dis-education they do provide guarantees the kids will not be able to think their way out of the box they were born into. Or even think at all beyond the latest test. California is the worst, spending 50% of its budget on dis-education for all races, and watching it all deteriorate every year. It has nothing to do with race. It is all about expectations and creating a culture of success, not of needs and rights.

      Then the teacher masters whimper they need more money for computers and “new” programs to excuse their gross incompetence and failures. Only the the rare clear thinking child will escape. These “we must” programs would be the shining star in any dictators plan of guaranteed serfdom.

      Sorry for the rant- but I have watched it happen step by step for the last 40 years.

    • I lived two block from South Main St in Salinas. The corner of Romie Lane and Pajaro St., almost directly across from the school in the video. My wife went to that High School. Her Grandfather Arturo Ramirez came from Mexico and started out working in the fields. He did not speak Spanish around his kids and they only learned English. All of them are now professionals. They all own their own homes. Arturo owned three houses, nice ones. Arturo ended up a foreman for Santini Farms in Castroville. I also lived in Castroville for a while just down from the Giant Artichoke on Merrit St.

      I owned a business in Gonzales which is a farming community inland it’s poorer than Salinas. I sold to the farmers and there isn’t a farm owner in the county that I don’t know along with all their foreman.

      What I never understood was how such hard working people could not figure out how to get ahead and live better lives.

      I Lived in East Salinas when I first met my wife, Williams St. I had an apartment in the worst part of town. I would hear gunfire nightly. The gang bangers were shooting each other over turf wars. They were mostly third generation punks who’s parents had the union jobs and made good money. I knew plenty of them. Although some of them were new and they were the worst.

      One of my friends ended up being found dead in the trunk of a car that had been driven out into the fields and set on fire.

      Another one of my friends was paralyzed after gang bangers caught him selling on the wrong block. They took a knife and cut his back from his neck to his tailbone.

      I saw a man gunned down at the Pack and Save for wearing the wrong colors.

      It was all Prohibition’s fault. It’s not the drugs it’s the fact that they are illegal.

      After I met my wife I ditched the apartment and moved to South Main. I didn’t feel it was safe walking around with my wife in that neighborhood. But South Main Street was fine. It had one of the best cruise nights anywhere. I had a 65 Mustang, 87 Camaro and a 72 Volkswagen Squarback when I met my wife.

      East Salinas had a cruise as well, low riders and lowered trucks all thumping away. They cruised on Sunday. South Main was Friday and Saturday. It’s illegal to cruise now.

      East Salinas was mostly Mexican Alisal high was almost completely Mexican. North High was were the stoners went to school it was mostly white. South High was where the semi wealthy kids went but if they could get away with it parents would try and sneak them into that school. It was a mixed school. Then you had two private schools I can’t remember the names but I knew some people that went to them as well.

      I actually miss the place but I didn’t want to raise my family there.

      I don’t know what the answers are but legalizing drugs would be a very good start. As for the illegals they have to be allowed to become Americans and if they don’t want to then they can live in their shacks.

      • @Brad- You are the exception example I am thinking of. My best friend (Abel Sarmiento-Hernandez) is a first generation citizen son of two illegal parents who picked artichokes in Castroville in the 50’s. His father is now retired and what I would call wealthy. He and his wife saw the opportunities this country offered, sobered up built and ran a very profitable pallet business in Los Angeles. Neither he or his wife ever went to school in this country (they were from an area below Tijuana). They told Abel and his sisters to learn English, go to school and get ahead. (ref. my comment- “It has nothing to do with race. It is all about expectations and creating a culture of success, not of needs and rights”). Today all three children are reasonably successful.

        My school comments reflect my experience seeing what they produce in general, and why they continue to fail. The exceptions like yourself left that system and did better. My anger is at the teacher unions, administrators and decision makers. The CTA is the single largest political contributor to California politicians, and they write the education code. So when I hear some $350,000.00 a year administrator whine about conditions I will call his bluff. They call all the shots and have no desire to actually educate children beyond applying for a job at 18. And they don’t even do that very well.

        [[ In California, after 2 years, public school teachers receive what’s commonly called “tenure,” a special employment protection that teachers unions defend. As the below federal statistics indicate, teachers with just a couple years of experience are practically impossible to fire.]]

        Montessori, Sylvan and others know exactly how to educate children, have for over 100 years, and are very successful at it. State run schools reject that known and replace it with a “destined to be worker bee at best” system of their own, then lie to the public and blame their failures on everybody else.

        Environment also plays a big part. And that is where your gangster neighbors come from. They are in that “family” for one reason or another, mostly out of ignorance. Many years ago the schools segregated those students into separate schools, and let the others actually learn.

        In the third grade my daughter had a slacker teacher who did not teach squat, which I complained about at the time, but was told all was OK twice. Come 5’th grade she had no idea what the paragraph meant, although she could read the words. I paid Sylvan Learning Center $7,000.00 for some very accurate testing and 100 hours tutoring to teach her reading comprehension, which was very successful.
        She hated elementary school in general, but loved one teacher who taught her algebra in her the 6’th grade math class. That teacher put the screw-ups in the back of the class and gave them a student aid to work with while she actually taught the ones willing to learn. The district fired her for doing that, because she did not let them “mainstream” and interrupt the class.

        • Mmmmm Artichokes. When I lived in Castroville I used to ride my bike to Pazzini’s roadside store and get one steamed with their basil dip.

          As for Schooling I agree that the unions are the worst thing to ever happen to them. The Tenure laws are 100% Bullshit. Teachers talk about putting students first, but how can that be true with tenure? They know it protects the worst of the worst.

          My best friend is a teacher and so is his wife. I go to their end of the year party every year and listen to the teachers bitch and moan. Ted (my buddy) is a libertarian and the most popular teacher in his school. Of course he rails against the union some of the other teachers agree but most don’t. Most of those who love the union are less than stellar. Big surprise.

          The superintendent they had was also a friend of mine. He played bass in my band. He HATED the union and what it did to his school and how hard it made his job. He left to go to work for a private school. Again not a big surprise. I can only imagine the level of frustration that comes from being in charge of a school that is losing funding and having to lay off teachers and instead of picking the worst ones to let go you have to go by seniority.

          • @Brad – It is a chicken or egg problem. Classroom teachers and local administrators know the system is corrupted, but they turn a blind eye to the abuses of the union they give money to in exchange for good wages and a secure retirement. The children get the mental screwing, the teachers know it, but are too self interested to do anything about it. Guilty as charged.

  6. If Freedomistas are to succeed at eradicating the concept of being “keepers” how might our replacement concept operate?

    Perhaps like the following?

    Mob Justice – Why and How did a bunch of people on the Internet conspired to cut a $700,000 check to Karen the Bus Monitor?

    Indiegogo Campaign For Karen the Bus Monitor–6

    Couldn’t one of the readers of Eric Peters Autos create an Indiegogo Account and then an internet donation campaign to help out a victim of police violence?

    Couldn’t these type of campaigns return a sense of dignity and control to the millions of outraged American Individuals, and stop the onrushing Serbian Massacre that John Ross has warned us about?

  7. On December 8th, I walked out of my house with nothing more than a back pack. No food, no water, and no money. I’m doing everything I can do to simply survive.

    I’m risking everything! My job is threatening to fire me. I’ll be out of work for 20 days and I already don’t have money. I’m leaving behind my beautiful girlfriend and her two amazing children. I’m risking my life!

    When you climb in to bed tonight, I’ll be sleeping on the streets, in a dumpster, or in the woods… It’s literally freezing. When you kiss your loved ones good night, I’ll be crying because I can’t kiss my girlfriend on the forehead. When you wake up and open the refrigerator, I’ll be praying for food and water. This is about as real as it gets.

    By now you are probably trying to figure out why? I’m trying to raise $10,000 and I’m not coming off the streets until we do it. I’m doing this to inspire. I’m doing this because I want to show my girlfriend’s children you have to believe in yourself and follow your heart. I’m doing this because 1 in 4 kids in the Salinas, CA School District are homeless. I’m doing this to change hearts. I believe if you can change a heart, you can change the world.

    Bring Todd Home

    • “I’m doing this because 1 in 4 kids in the Salinas, CA School District are homeless.”

      Many such supposed statistics about the “homeless” are utter BS. Mitch Snyder, the late advocate, was fond of claiming that 3 million people in the US were homeless without a shred of evidence to back that up. The real number seems to be well under 10% of that, and the vast majority are adults, not children. Most of these adults have mental issues or drug/alcohol addictions.

      The proper response to children being homeless involves not throwing money at them, but the cops and social services to get the children taken away from parents who are probably stupid/addicts/psycho/some combination of these.

      These homeless stats are similar to the claim some years ago that “1 million children disappear every year in the US”. If 1 out of every 300 Americans were disappearing and not found, we would have been under martial law years ago. The real stat for stranger abductions is in the very low hundreds annually, not that this isn’t a problem, but it puts things in perspective. Children are far more in danger from people in their own household than from strangers.

      And if those people in their own “household” are unstable and living on the street after all, then others need to be involved for the children’s welfare. I doubt that “1 in 4” figure, though. Tor, I suspect you’ve been sold a bill of goods and are wasting your time for no purpose. Where’s the money you’re trying to raise really going? In someone’s pocket (not yours, obviously) instead? Many “charities” are like this.

      • I just watched the video. I didn’t give. I don’t recommend anyone give to this thing in particular. Todd said he wanted to inspire. Were you inspired? What does inspire you?

        We want to get to an economic system like Hong Kong, yet with all elbow room and real estate of America right? How are we going to pull that off? Give them the ol’ Ebeneezer Scrooge Speech?

        It’s an online crowd-sourced funding campaign. It’s received $11,575 of it’s $10,000 goal with 8 days left. It doesn’t legally qualify as a charity, the disposition of the money it received will be anecdotally reported online.

        I’d rather see this site get funded, so I didn’t want to divulge much about Todd, I just found the kid interesting and worth listening too. Humble and not well off or connected to anything.

        This is what I consider Christianity. Not robed douchebags, droning on in multi-million dollar prayer palaces. Not shriveled nosy Mrs. Crabtrees, worried about what their neighbors are doing.

        If the forced system is to be dismantled, what will take its place? It’s a fair question. Online campaigns by individuals don’t force anyone to participate. They don’t create any kind of parasitical hierarchy that needs to be supported.

        Charity begins at home. Beyond the sides of the supposed debate, I see opportunities for new ways to socially interact. A voluntary system being built from the ground up. It doesn’t matter how much bigger the majoritarian system is. Whether the existing system is destroyed or if it survives. As long as the voluntary system abides.

        I occasionally go out and find things out for for myself. I don’t believe in throwing money at random strangers doing random things beyond my ability to keep them accountable.

        Mitch Snyder made enough of a difference in other people lives that he was played by Martin Sheen. What kind of difference have you made? What actor should play you? Mitch got popped for stealing a car, but after doing his time, at taxpayers expense, he moved on to other things.

        “Snyder hanged himself in his room at the CCNV shelter in July 1990, where his body remained for several days before being discovered. Snyder’s suicide note spoke of Carol Fennelly, stating that he wished she loved him as much as he loved her. He is survived by Fennelly, his ex-wife, and his two sons.”
        Hunger Doesn’t Take a Holiday

        “2,042 pupils are homeless, nearly one in four children.” 11.22.2013 News Story.

        1.5 million children, 1 in 50 children in America are homeless.

        In 2006, Salinas, CA City Elementary had an enrollment of 7,954 students, of which 80% were Hispanic or Latino. Salinas City Elementary has 12 campuses and employs about 800 classified and certificated employees.

        2011 Federal Homeless Census. 2,500 homeless in Monterey County, CA. 1,250 in Salinas. Monterey County population 415,000.

        Las Vegas Metro where I reside, has 7,355 homeless, and a total of 1.97 million people.

        • “2,042 pupils are homeless, nearly one in four children.” 11.22.2013 News Story, and 1.5 million children, 1 in 50 children in America are homeless.”

          But Tor how can that be, I have paid my full rate into the brother-lover system since 1964? There shouldn’t be any poor or homeless by now, right?

          Salinas is a farming area with little english spoken there anymore. It also has better homeless weather and benefits then Las Vegas or anywhere in Nevavda.

          Federal-state-county programs consist of:

          MediCal, the California Medicaid program
          CalFresh, the California Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP / food stamp) program
          CalWORKs, the California Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program
          the State Supplementation Program (SSP or SSI/SSP), the state supplement to the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program
          the California Healthy Families Program (HFP), the California Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) program
          the Access for Infants and Mothers Program (AIM)
          the Low Income Health Program (LIHP), a California demonstration program composed of:
          the Medicaid Coverage Expansion (MCE), similar to the ObamaCare expansion of Medicaid coverage to individuals with incomes up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
          the Health Care Coverage Initiative (HCCI), similar to the Basic Health Program (BHP) of the PPACA whereby coverage is expanded to individuals with incomes from 133% to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.

          Federal-state-county-city-special district programs consist of:

          Public housing

          State-county programs consist of:

          Indigent medical services
          California Medical Service Program (CMSP)
          Medically Indigent Service Program (MISP)
          General assistance

          • Not to say that I agree with handouts because I don’t however saying that little English is spoken in Salinas is rather funny. I lived in Salinas for years and that is where my wife is from. Most people in Salinas speak English. Many of the farm workers don’t but they have their own little economy going on and they have always been around. It’s not great but it’s also not subsidized anymore than other places I have seen.

            • Philosophically, I support open borders – provided there is no welfare state to induce parasites to come on down. Or up, as the case might be. It’s bad enough that we’re forced to be milked like dairy cows for the benefit of homegrown parasites. But dangling incentives to attract more of them from other countries is insane.

              Or genius – depending on your point of view.

          • Brad, it is a definite trend I have seen there over the past few years.

            The 2010 United States Census reported that Salinas had a population of 150,441. The population density was 6,479.8 people per square mile (2,501.9/km²). The racial makeup of Salinas was 68,973 (45.8%) White, down from 90.3% in 1970.

            Hispanic or Latino of any race were 112,799 persons (75.0%).

            “Many of the farm workers don’t but they have their own little economy going on and they have always been around.”

            Agreed, California has always had a strong Hispanic population presence. No breakdown between town residents and agriculture workers found


            Compared to California population n general-

            White – 73.7%
            Hispanic – 38.2 %
            But actual percentages are hard to determine, as many claim mixed racial background.

            I don’t know when you were last there, but compared to Monterey and the surrounding communities its crime and welfare rate is also noticeably higher.

          • I go there once a year. It’s where my wife’s family lives and yes she is Hispanic. Nope she doesn’t speak Spanish and neither did her Mom or Dad. None of here Aunts or Uncles or cousins do either.

            And sure the crime rate is higher than Monterey, Pebble Beach, Pacific Grove or Carmel, most places have a higher crime rate than the these places. They are some of the richest people around and there is a cop on every corner. The crime in Salinas is mostly in East Salinas and it comes from drugs. Although they are generally the ones being busted their customers are from all of surrounding areas. It’s were I used to go and pick up my weed. My main dealer went to prison, I didn’t. Although I got busted twice for possession, not that I ever paid my fines.

            Legalize drugs and the crime rate in Salinas would be fairly low.

            • Hi Brad,

              Yesterday, the local yokel paper for our small county arrived and – once again – there were glowing stories of the righteous justice imposed on some poor hillbilly for the “crime” of having/using/selling/making “drugs.”

              More and more, I feel like Rowdy Roddy Piper’s character in They Live.

          • Brad Smith wrote, “Legalize drugs and the crime rate in Salinas would be fairly low.”

            Fuck. They can’t have that!

            The beer delivery trucks might start shooting it out in the streets over territory? …Oh, wait.

            Well… (said with disgust)…. then there’s, Monsanto Marijuana?


            The battle royale?

            Monsanto vs. the prison industrial complex.
            Who will win?

          • Holy cow Roth..
            As if it wasn’t complicated in the first place (government control, homelessness, welfare, drugs, alcohol, poor people, cops & robbers) but now it has gone multinational corporate in a country that elected the most left leaning government in So America.

            At least the people there should be pretty mellow and non-violent about it all. Might be a good place to hang out.

          • Tor wrote, “Encouraging spontaneous individual self-preservatory action”

            A.k.a. lighting a fire under their asses? Or, providing solutions anyone can follow?

            Discouraged at every turn by over bearing regulations and taxation, it’s hard to see how even a fire could propel people.

            Why? …

            In the background, a group of poor people somewhere ‘over there’ are spreading out blankets on a sidewalk to display their wares in order to try and turn a buck.

            Along comes a unitedstate soldier and his cohorts to run them all off and take all their stuff.
            The soldier feels a pang of guilt as he watches people run while clutching all that they have to advance in life.

            The ‘christian’ groups, back home, cheer that soldier as a hero and give boatloads of money to the empire, all with nary a bit of guilt.

            They cheer the police too, back home, as they do the same.

            There is no doubt there is a market-based solution that will work.
            The empire will have none of that.
            It’s how they roll.

            It seems to me, getting the golden calf off the alter of american churches is the only remedy.
            Fat chance of that, the church members have eyes that cannot see, and ears that cannot hear.

            Perhaps I’ve become too pessimistic as of late?
            I’m not even seeing the possibility of change for the better when I read about, How the Paper Money Experiment Will End


            However; I have read good things about Detroit:



  8. It is human nature and survival instinctual to racially or otherwise parse people you don’t know. Ageism, Sexism, Creedism, are also natural. Of course I have a different baseline expectation of a woman I’ve just met, as opposed to a man. Hopefully based not on demagoguery, but on experience and observation. To do otherwise, is to act unnaturally.

    Cain was the first city builder. Perhaps all cities are filled with Cain’s descendants. Cities are certainly unnatural. Residents of cities in general, seem cut off from the Earth and from God’s creation.

    Since we don’t know for sure what the mark of Cain is, shouldn’t a Christian refrain from killing anyone, just to avoid the seven fold retribution?

    Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell” (Gen. 4:5), suggesting that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.

    In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face”

    The curse of Cain was used to support a ban on ordaining blacks to most Protestant clergies until the 1960s in both the U.S. and Europe.

    Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible – And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

    The Curse Principle of Genesis

    Who Is Cain’s Father (Adam, or the Serpent)

  9. Nothing but a bunch of whining little brats as usual. No respect for the police, or the law, its no wonder this country has gone to hell in a hndbasket. Eric, you and people like you are the problem with this country. you all think you can just have everything your own way, all the time, and damn the consequences.Clover

    • I always find it interesting when people claim that it’s libertarians that are “what is wrong with this country”. How exactly are libertarians the problem when they are not the people in power and not the people who effect policy at all? How are libertarians the problem when they by and large abide by the rules foisted upon them by the likes of YOU?

    • The real old hickory switch Andrew Jackson:

      Famous words against the Rothschilds:

      “You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out.”

      Just to be assholes, the Rothschilds later had Jackson’s face put on the $20 bill.

      More Jackson Quotes

      The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe.

      The brave man inattentive to his duty, is worth little more to his country, than the coward who deserts her in the hour of danger.

      Desperate courage makes One a majority.

      As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience, and of the press, it will be worth defending.

      The bank, is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.

      It is maintained by some that the bank is a means of executing the constitutional power “to coin money and regulate the value thereof.” Congress have established a mint to coin money and passed laws to regulate the value thereof. The money so coined, with its value so regulated, and such foreign coins as Congress may adopt are the only currency known to the Constitution. But if they have other power to regulate the currency, it was conferred to be exercised by themselves, and not to be transferred to a corporation. If the bank be established for that purpose, with a charter unalterable without its consent, Congress have parted with their power for a term of years, during which the Constitution is a dead letter. It is neither necessary nor proper to transfer its legislative power to such a bank, and therefore unconstitutional.

      It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.

      Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!

        • @Garysco – what do you mean, get their power back. The bankers have never lost their power, at least not the BIG ones. TARP for example.

      • Tor – Old Hickory (although he had his own share of shortcomings as any of us do) really did understand what the Kenite money-changers were up to, they did indeed try to kill him for it. It didn’t play out the way they intended.When anyone asks me who the I think was the last “good president” I love the looks I get when I say Andrew Jackson. But by 1913 they’d implemented the process of stealing all of our wealth in earnest with the Federal Reserve Bank; they aren’t just transnational thieves, they are transgenerational thieves as well.

        The money-changers’ biggest fear is to get caught by a mob of angry peasants with stacks of “notes” in one hand, pitchfork and torches in the other and no gold in the strongbox. The banksters “fixed” that with the central bank and used their mammon, their filthy lucre, their ill gotten gains to buy the government lock, stock and barrel. I’m sure you can well see the state of affairs we’re in now.

        “For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” It is said in politics “to follow the money.” When you do you will turn up those who love money more than anything. You will run smack into a brick wall and have to stop looking when you reach the Fed, Citibank, Wells-Fargo, BOA, Goldman-Sachs, JPMChase and the people, that modern den of vipers and thieves, that are behind this system. Old Hickory was right.

    • OLHS:

      Why should any person respect thugs – whether in uniform or not?

      Why should anyone “respect” a person merely because he wears a government issued costume? Are all such costumed folk entitled to “respect” – that is, to deference and submission – simply because they’re suited up?

      And yes, I do believe every one of us has an absolute right to “have things our own way” (and not your way) so long as we cause no harm to you thereby.

      • Did you see that 40-car pileup in Wisconsin recently?? stuff like that happens because people like you drive too damn fast and reckless in your almighty, sefl-rightous quest to always get there first. you can put your dumb little pictures on my posts, but it doesn’t change the fact that people like you are responsible for tens of thousands of people ending up as hi-way pizzas every year. Live with that.Clover

        • Hickory,

          A thug takes his gun and uses it to shoot people dead in the street. Ergo – according to your logic – people who did nothing to anyone but who merely possess guns should be regarded as thugs who will shoot people by dint of the fact that they also possess guns – and therefore, their right to own a gun should be taken away. After all, “someone” might use a gun recklessly or criminally. Therefore, everyone should be presumed reckless and criminal – and treated accordingly.

          The fact that an accident occurred as a result of some other person’s error/misjudgment/ineptitude/recklessness behind the wheel does not mean I am reckless or inept any more than the fact that criminals use guns to commit crimes means I will use a gun criminally because I have a gun.

          Your standard – “too damned fast” – means what, exactly?

          Faster than you like? Faster than an arbitrary number?

          How so? Why?

          You and your fellow Clovers are odd ducks – venerating signs (and political edicts) in the same way that primitive cargo cults worshiped control towers they made out of straw.

          It’d be funny – were it not for the fact that there are millions of you non-thinking emoters out there.

          PS: Your handle is interesting. What’s a hickory switch for? To beat people with. It’s not surprising you support thuggery – and decry those who take issue with it.

          • Its even worse than that, Eric. It would be one thing if they actually did assume everyone with a gun is a criminal. Yet they do not do this.

            Any time anyone says that everyone, except the military and police, should be disarmed, I know they are either evil or really, really stupid.

            The military and police should be the ones who are disarmed, as Ron Paul pointed out some time ago.

            • Agreed, David – and, good to hear from you again!

              It never seems to occur to the civilian disarmament crowd that the reason they trot out for disarming civilians – they’re irresponsible, potentially murderous and thus can’t be trusted to handle them – applies just as much, if not more so, to people wearing government costumes. After all, a single criminal can only kill a handful of people. Government can – and has – killed hundreds of millions of them.

        • OHW, we’re just starting to thaw from a bad ice storm here in Tx. As traction got bad I saw Eric out there running will-nilly across the lanes on the interstate, causing cars to pile up, trucks to jackknife and countless people to be maimed and killed. I guess nobody recognized him. I haven’t dropped a dime on him……yet. signed, Old Mesquite Limb

        • Interesting that anyone would assume it was someone driving too fast that caused a pile up in a blizzard. I doubt that anyone was exceeding the posted speed limit. Chances are very good that this was caused by clovers who think that the posted speed limit is what they should be driving at regardless of the conditions.

          The Godvernment told them it was safe to do 65 so they were doing 65. The Godvernment is omnipotent and always knows what’s best so it must be fine to do the speed limit.

          Or maybe someone was worried they would get pulled over for doing under the minimum speed limit, so they were going much faster than they could handle their vehicle at.

          Either way there is no reason to assume that the accident was caused by a libertarian. The odds are far greater that it was caused by a clover. The same goes for the vast majority of accidents. As libertarians are by far in the minority it takes quite a leap to assume that they cause most of the accidents. What it doesn’t take is a huge leap to assume that most accidents are caused by clovers of one form or another, because it’s not as if Clovers themselves obey the laws at all times. I would bet my bottom dollar that Old Hickory doesn’t follow every law that is on the books at all times.

        • no, it’s because people like you expect other people to compensate for them. Every so often that other person doesn’t manage to do it. Your kind always wants to put all the work and effort on to others. Plus seemingly has no understanding that avoiding your dumb selves is much more difficult in the snow, oblivious to basic physics.

          I’ve had drivers like you tell me I was ‘going too fast’ when I was going 25mph. No it wasn’t because she ran a stop sign that we nearly crashed, it was because I was going to fast. I’ve had drivers like you tell me I was going too fast on a bicycle too. Yes, on a bicycle. It wasn’t because they pulled out in front of me. It was because I was going too fast on a bicycle.

          It’s never because people like you drove poorly. It’s always because someone else wasn’t driving slowly enough to deal with your poor driving. And by slow enough I mean a non-zero speed.

          When the roads get snow/ice your kind doubles down on the stupidity. Today the light ahead is green… I have a clear path. Guess what the van driver in the right lane does? Starts a left hand turn. It’s snowing, we are on a major arterial road. Asshat decides to turn left from the right lane at the far side of the intersection. Then what does he do? Stops in the left lane, perpendicular to the lane’s direction. There’s a car on my right, I can’t change lanes. If I had hit this asshat, people like you would proclaim I was “going too fast”. Too fast for what? Dealing with infinite idiocy and laziness, of which the only speed suitable is zero.

          • No doubt. I’m amazed you have the patience to explains this to every idiot clover who visits this site. I just don’t understand why they don’t get it. These cowards/clovers wouldn’t dare act like this on foot. It’s always on the net or in their cars!

          • BrentP,
            As you’ve no doubt heard, the New England area had two major snowstorms just recently; we were driving back from New Jersey in between.
            Snow on the roads, mushy conditions, it’s about 9 PM or so – and below freezing, so black ice is on the road.

            Someone in the high-speed lane realizes (s)he (?) missed the exit – and forces their way over to the exit across a lane of traffic to get to the shoulder – so they can BACK UP and get off.

            I guess OHS wouldn’t have an issue with that?
            Or was the driver of that white sports car automatically a “libertarian speeder,” I wonder?

            Or are we just to forgive that mistake every time it happens?

            And since the White Sports Car was holding up traffic, I’d wager it’s not a “libertarian speeder.” Ultimately, we’re just supposed to make allowance for Old Hickory Shit for Brains and his ilk – and expect to get shit on in response.

            This sort of treatment I can get from my family for free.

        • Ol’ Hickier Twit, the forty car pile up occurred because of snow and ice. Just the other day at slow speeds on icy road while on my way to work, one of your slow moving geriatric ilk turned onto the shoulder in front of me from a side road. He was using the icy shoulder as an acelleration lane. As I approached, well below the speed limit, this asshat pulled right out in front me! I had the jeep not quite sideways trying to avoid this moron. He crawled along at about 10 mph less than I was previously safely going. So prudently, I stayed back and crept along with him. Then with him on a dry patch and me still on the ice he stops in the middle of the road! And then as an afterthought puts his turn signal on. Once again I’m sliding on ice trying not to hit his dumbass in a vey low speed collision a second tiem. Thank god I had plenty of room and a ditch. His antics reminded me of you, you old geezer. If it’s icy stay off the road unless you absolutely have to, and let those of us paying your damned social security and providing your electricity get to work safely. But especially don’t pull out in front of people on ice; I don’t care how slow you’re going.

    • @Old Hickory Witch

      You are correct sir in stating that “people like us are the problem with this country”
      GIVEN the fact that this “country” is no longer what it once was…

      Those of us who respective the Constitution and the values of what the U.S.A. once stood for are indeed a problem for what is the current corrupted AMERIKA.

      If that response was to intellectual for you, then here is the vernacular – BITE ME ASSHOLE

  10. This case does not surprise me. Along these lines, there is an old and largely forgotten doctrine in Anglo-Saxon law called “misprision”, which is essentially a criminal charge for your failure to snitch on someone else’s crime. Its definition is concealment of a crime, i.e., that someone else did, but you know about. As does English law, US federal law still has “misprision of treason” as a crime on the books: 18 USC 2382.

    You don’t hear much about this offense today, but you do hear a lot about peripheral players being busted for “conspiracy” to an offense for little more than the same thing.

    I have wondered if something of this sort would return, given the prevailing attitudes. If this case against the boys is successful and spawns others, we’ll have our answer.

    • Hi Ek,

      Indeed. I am reading a biography of Aaron Burr. Jefferson went after him in just this way over his alleged “plot” to separate the West from the union.

      Turns out Massa Tom was capable of being something of a Clover himself.

  11. Based on the article it is pretty clear both boys knew the girl was too drunk to drive as they would not allow her to drive when they were in the car. The boys were also likely in possession of the only keys to the car when they were driving it, and ultimately turned the keys over to the drunk girl. These days there must have been at least one cell phone in the car, so contacting an adult was always possible. If a reasonable prudent person knows someone is drunk, they do not give them car keys even if the drunk owns the car.

    That immature public school socialized teenage males are being asked to make a decision of this magnitude is dubious, I would suggest the “immature public school socialized teenage male” defense. I do not believe applying the standard of a reasonable, prudent person to “immature public school socialized teenage male” is workable. Maybe the fault lies with the Dept of Motor Vehicles for not covering it in their how to drive booklet.

  12. The Nazis were really big on “Sippenhaft”…..literally “kin liability”……the idea that a whole family bears responsibility for the actions of one member. That is where we are heading with this. Of course, don’t expect this to apply to the political elite.

  13. Posted on Yahoo’s front news page. – Whining that people/ republican’s are bad and not communist enough. With this high level of hysterical writing you know we must be near the end of Margaret Thatchers’ “running out of other people’s money”. Complete with pictures.

    How to stick it to the poor: A congressional strategy
    Why choose between under-educating children and taking the food out of their tiny mouths?
    By Samantha Paige Rosen | 8:05am ET

  14. There’s an old, sensible, pro-liberty saying: “immoral is not illegal.” Meaning “immoral” acts (prostitution, drug use, even blatant racism) are perhaps or probably or definitely worthy of condemnation but they are not — or should not — be illegal acts.

    If the girl was impaired, then the boys didn’t use common sense. Maybe they were impaired, too. In any case, “a lack of common sense is not illegal,” obviously applies.

    • I have come more and more to the opinion that if something is NOT immoral, it should not be illegal either.
      When the only victim is the person who voluntarily entered into the situation (took the drink(s), smoked the crack, exceeded the posted limit around a corner and slid off etc – No Crime has been committed.

      Shoot, Shovel and Shut UP

  15. In a way this has been going for a long time. That is, our neighbors being used as a tool by the state. Although this is slightly off topic there is some similarity. Every employer in this country has been reporting us to the government for years. They report what should be a private matter, that is our wages, to the government. And they don’t just report our wages they actually serve as collection agencies to confiscate the fruits of our labor. It’s no surprise then that government would want to make us accountable for the actions of our neighbors because in a way many of us already are. Those who own businesses are required by law to not only report on the work habits of employees but also to – under threat of force – intercept and steal a portion of their wages. Although we’ve all been inculcated to accept this theft it does not make it any less moral. When hundreds of thousands of employers serve as an extension of the state it’s really a small step to ask every citizen to spy on and report suspicious behavior to the authorities.

    • Yep they have people reporting on each other all the time. Take something as basic as going to the doctor’s office. By law they have to do some tests for drugs if they think you might be using and they have to report this. Before they can sell you pain pills they must check and make sure you aren’t getting them from another doctor as well and if you are they are supposed to report you for that.

      Your kid can be a straight A student but if they don’t show up often enough they have to report you to the police and CPS.

      Let’s say you work at a story that sells booze. Same thing if someone comes in it’s your job to be the police and look for underage people trying to buy. It’s not their fault that they fool you by looking older or even having a fake ID it’s your fault for not magically knowing that they are going to break the law it’s your fault. They go as far as to set up stings with people they know look older than the legal age.

      The list goes on and on regarding the things that you must report. Even a psychologist must report you if they believe you are going to go out and commit a crime.

    • Dear David,

      You are grossly mistaken when you claim you follow the moral authority of Jesus. You are following a version of his moral authority lensed through the mind of a powerful and gifted intelligent mortal. By Paul of Tarsus. Paul the Roman.

      Read the full text of Romans, and see if I am right. Paul was a man of considerable accomplishment, and also of high social standing. Many of Paul’s “commandments” have no basis whatsoever in the old testament, nor acts or words of Jesus.

      They are based rather, in the consensus of Jewish scholars, Roman politicians of occupied Israel, and respected elders of the time.

      Paul’s letters were written only 10 years after the death of Jesus. The gospels were written at least 100 years afterward.

      Known as Saul prior to his ministry, Paul was born of Hebrew parents about A.D. 5, or a few years earlier, in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia. He later became a Roman citizen and also became fluent in speaking and writing in the Greek language. He was brought up in boyhood in Jerusalem, where he was taught by Gamaliel. Before he became a Christian missionary, he was a Pharisee. His trade was tent-making.

      After his miraculous conversion in A.D. 37, he participated in missionary expeditions. On the first journey (A.D. 45-47), Barnabas was his partner. On the second journey (A.D. 50-54), Silas (or Silvanus) was his partner. For part of the third journey (A.D. 50-54), Luke was his partner. Paul was imprisoned in Jerusalem in A.D. 58, in Cæsarea from A.D. 58-60, and in Rome from A.D. 61-63 and from A.D. 65-67.


      The new testament is an earthbound distillation of the life of Jesus. It has been subtly packaged and engineered to evoke a certain response and adhere to a minor subset of the possible ways to honor the example of Jesus.

      The four gospels should be seen as the feel good dessert after the meal. The meat and vegetables are found in the other books. Most importantly, you should study the 13 letters of Paul which were the preserved first writings after Jesus’ death.

      This excerpt from Romans. This is your scripture and foundational document:

      For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature.

      Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. even as they refused to have God in their knowledge,

      God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits, secret slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God.

      Insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

    • Yeah, lib. I read that. To me, it’s infuriating that the local newspaper would interview the cop’s Lt. and print her obviously constructed version of what happened as if it had been witnessed by her and several others.

      The newspaper conducts the court of public opinion and in that court, one side of the story is held up as the obvious truth. This is done despite the fact that there are no rules of evidence. Innuendo, speculation and outright lies are allowed for presentation by one side.

      The court then announces the verdict, which all readers are expected to accept before there’s any trial in an actual courtroom. That’s how jury pools are corrupted.

  16. OT but I had to relate this. Was pulling up to some construction under a bridge this morning. It’s cloudy here and so under the bridge was dark. The cop had his blue and white epileptic lights going. I literally could not see the cop until I was on top of the car. I couldn’t see if he was asking me to stop or wave me around. I could easily have hit him. Even though I knew he would be a jerk, I rolled down my window anyway. “I couldn’t see you at all! You might want to reposition yourself or your lights.” The cop responds: “I have to have them on when directing traffic.” Me: “That may be so, but I was blinded by your lights. I couldn’t see you.” The cop: “You always slow down at blue lights right?”

    Then he walked away. Sanctimonious jerk! This is what gets me. There’s no longer an ounce of humility or listening to a mundane. The cop is ALWAYS right. He could have been hit and of course it would be the driver’s fault. I hate the cops. I hate them. I loathe them with every ounce of my being. I’ve been treated like crap by them all of my life.

    I was once stopped on my motorcycle “speeding.” Actually it wasn’t speeding, just accelerating too quickly from a stoplight which a cop didn’t like. He pulls me over. Asks for my licenses. It was in my backpack, secured with a ziptie. I had learned a lesson from an earlier ride when I had that backpack and discovered when I had finished that the pack’s zipper was open. I ziptied it thereafter. So I pull out my pocket knife to cut the zip tie. The cop FREAKS. “Stop! What are you doing?!?” In my haste to to get the license he demanded I forgot that they freak out at the sight of any weapon, even a 3 inch knife. He says “Don’t you know you almost had a .357 pointed at your head?!?” He ended up letting me go with a warning because my wife was on the back and I don’t look like a criminal.

    That was 7 years ago. I might be dead today. Does anyone know of any sites that list the good things cops do? I need to read some positive stories. All I ever read are sites like William Norman Grigg, Copblock, and others. I read too many stories about them no-knock raiding the wrong house, killing family pets, and then killing innocent UNARMED people like here:

    and here:

    I almost forgot this one:

    And if it’s not death, you get forced enemas:

    These are just the stories in the last 3 months! And we all know we could go on and on with the references. Am I just reading the bad news? How do the rest of you deal with the cops? I already have a plan in place in case CPS ever shows up at our door: Deny them access, demand a warrant. While they are going to get it, grab the kids and get out of the state where they don’t have jurisdiction. This is what the police state has done to me.

    Thanks for letting me rant. I just wanted a hearing and I know people here will read and understand this post. Yes, I’m posting anonymously. Thanks for understanding. Great job Eric. I will be donating to your site soon.

    • Last time I got pulled over by a cop on my bike I was doing 55 in 35, it was 9:30 at night with nobody on the road. When I put the kick stand down on my bike and tried to step off the motorcycle the cop started sliding his gun out of the holster. I didn’t do shit but stand up and lift my leg over the bike.

      • dom, why did you want to scare him so badly? What were you thinking? Probably had on a helmet, just asking for it. You should have been displaying your soft white underbelly with your shriveled gonads in display, neutered naturally. You could have just slid off that bike, rolled over and “displayed” for him. And that would have freaked him out too. Not much to be done with out and out cowards. Of course a Calico M 950 under your jacket could have cured him on the spot….and you wouldn’t even have had to dismount. As an old skit on David Letterman showed, It’s easy to nap….with a Mac in your lap!

        • It really makes you wonder why they feel the need to be on defense from the start. I believe they know what they’re dong is wrong and feel guilty about it. After this incident I recommend the rider keep riding. No point in losing your life for 20 over.

  17. Eric asked
    On this subject:

    Am I the only person who’s noticed that the Simpsonian degradation of children calling adults by their first names has become all but ubiquitous? It’s no longer, “Hi, Mr. Jones.” It’s “Hey Fred.”

    Also that adults babble like eight-year-olds to eight-year-olds? Wanting – apparently – to be their bestest friend, rather than a parent?

    No, you’re definitely not the only one who has noticed this. I think sometimes that my wife and I are the last parents in America to have raised their child (and grandchild) to adhere to what were once known as “manners” and “appropriate child behavior in the presence of adults.”

    Unfortunately, most parents today not only do not have any desire to be parents (kids are mere obligations/status symbols that, once spewed out of mom’s womb, are turned over to someone else to actually raise/mind), but are actively AFRAID to be parents. There is, I will admit, some justification for the latter. The State has effectively criminalized any parental actions that are corrective to the child and, through institutions like the kiddie day prisons called “publik skoolz,” turned children into informants against their own parents, as was the case in the old Communist bloc countries (and apparently today in countries such as Iran).

    But yes, all of this has made today’s kids insufferable little monsters. That said, I still feel the urge, whenever I see a kid misbehaving, to beat the living shit out of the PARENTS for allowing the kids to behave the way they do.

    • Libber, CJ can’t go into a restaurant with me, his manners are too good. He loves kids but if they ran by and I disapproved, he’d knock them down and then look at me That what you wanted to do? Yep, CJ, good boy. He’s mindreader.

        • Garysco, “police” dog, hilarious. In fact, that’s what we call him, and sometimes cuss him about. I’ve told him so many times We don’t need the damned police. But he know everywhere off limits for him and the cats too. He can be in his bedroom and if I tell one of the cats to get off a counter or something, he hauls ass looking for the offender and then jacks them up. Cats hear him coming and look paranoid. I tell them he’s going to be there just toot sweet and they’d better do what I say. The thought of the “enforcer” coming does make them get down. We’ve called him The Enforcer for a couple years now. We call him Master Blaster when it comes to coyotes.

    • @liber – At Sams Club I had my hot dog and was about 1 inch from my soda cup pushing the Coke lever when a little female of about 10 jumps in and fills hers first. Me (63 years old) says “You are one rude little brat”. She kinda froze up, looked visably shaken, then walked away looking at the floor. I don’t think anyone had ever informed her she was not entitled to be “me first” in all circumstances. Sign of the times.

      • Good thing you didn’t encounter her parents. You can best believe that they were her “rude little brat” to the one hundredth power.

  18. Boothe’s Ten Questions about Cain.

    7 But what comes around goes around and none of us ever really ever “get away with it” whatever “it” is. So Cain was caught in the act as the Universe eternally and perpetually balances itself. He was sent off into the land of wandering where he went on to sire a lineage of liars, boasters, murderers, arms manufacturers and entertainers.

    – aka as New Worlders and 3rd World Africans. Lineage is untrackable there for the most part. Free for all reproduction, beyond patriarchal control.

    8 You see his spiritual offspring running the major military contractors and the media / entertainment business right now. These are not righteous men, they are amoral opportunists like Cain; look at the fruits their efforts bear.

    They entertain and beguile us all, but the wise man is not seduced by them.

    9 Read Gen. 5 for its deeper meaning, not just the words. And keep in mind that the Freemasons claim Tubal-Cain as their progenitor, hence the “two ball cane” symbol they use.

    Masons began as a unionization of the builders of churches. One look at the fancy robed Christian Elders, and you can see how they’re not staunch enough to lay brick or build anything of substance. It may be they deserve their subjugation. Better to build less impressive churches with their own hands.

    10 Claiming you are the offspring of Tubal-Cain is akin to proudly claiming your lineage comes from Stalin or Hitler. We were warned. We have ignored it. We are in deep ca-ca now because the offspring of Cain, spiritual at least, run things and to them the rest of us are livestock. Think about it.

    1 If Adam and Eve “ate a fruit”, why did they cover their genitals with an apron of fig leaves instead of a mask for their mouths?

    The choice of fig leaves was their invention. The Lord gave them skins of animals instead. Who is skinning the animals for them?

    2 If Adam was Cain’s father, why isn’t Adam mentioned in Cains genealogy in Gen. 4?

    Cains unique biblical genealogy consist only of Mehujael. Perhaps Mehujael was unwanted. Many believe Cain had many unlisted offspring, and that they are of a Satanic line. All of Cains “good” offspring are also enumerated as Seth’s offspring in Chapter 5. Cain is cast out, and given no ownership of his own issue, it seems.

    3 If Cain and Abel were more than half-brothers, why did YHWH appoint a new “seed” for Adam with Seth, to replace Abel?

    Seth was born after the slaying of Abel by Cain, and Eve believed God had appointed him as a replacement for Abel.


    Two Seedline Discussion

    4 Could this “serpent” (literally “shining one”) named Lucifer, the most beautiful angel, this light bringer that left his first estate, find Adam’s wife “fair” and “share” some of his DNA with her to produce an offspring called Cain?

    Perhaps the serpent is the coiled helix DNA itself. Man is made, order from chaos. Yet still in the protein encodings of man, remains chaos. The serpent lives within all men in the DNA. In Cain’s case, this serpentlike chaos becomes visibly manifest.

    5 Perhaps Cain and Abel were the result of heteropaternal superfecundation like Heracles and Iphicles?

    The original system was children were born of a Man, and the womb is just a shelter and sustenance. The serpent left his eggs. The ovaries. Maybe women contributing half the DNA is not the way it was designed to be. That is where all their birthing suffering comes from. The blood of menses is called evil, because women are the site of evil. The serpents eggs resulting in satanic bloodline mixing with the human.

    6 Perhaps Cain was wroth and his countenance fallen because he had no birthright in Adam’s lineage and figured if he offed the legitimate heir, he’d be able to take his place?

    Yes, I think this might be so. No birthright in perpetuity. Cain was cast out, and Seth was given his place. Though confusing, it seems all heirs are attributed to Seth, whether born of Cain or of Seth.

    Both the Seth lineage and the Cain lineage have an Enoch in them. Other than Mehujael, they are identical? Seth/Enoch begots Methuselah. Seth/Methuselah begots Lamech. Lamech is the 9th generation under Seth. Lamech begot Noah.

    Cain knew his wife; and she conceived Enoch; unto Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael; and Mehujael begot Methushael; and Methushael begot Lamech. In chapter 5, these offspring become part of Seth’s line. Cain has no rights, even to his biological offspring.

    Lamech is of the 7th Generation of Man per chapter 4.

    ב זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בְּרָאָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמָם אָדָם, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם.
    male and female created He them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

    • Thank you for the exegesis Tor – These questions have made me persona non-grata around more than one church and their associated churchians. And don’t even get me started on perdition versus eternal torment in hellfire meme. Or maybe we should bring it up; it should be interesting with this crowd.

      • My pleasure Boothe. I seem smart to some because I can discuss a wide range of topics at a superficial to an intermediate depth.

        I enjoy the challenge of trying to respond intelligently to what you post.

        I am somewhat like the ones whom Hot Rod discussed. I often achieve success by picking the brain of those who have true deep depth wisdom and then merely memorizing or applying what they say.

        I would say it’s a matter of recognizing and utilizing the goodly rather than the godly. Being intelligent for me is mostly a matter of knowing who and what to ignore. And when to hang on someone’s every word and agonize over them. It’s rarely about amassing brute facts or generalized models.

        Most importantly is know when to deeply listen, because you’re dealing with someone who is casting pearls of a great price. Don’t discourage them by being a swine, but open your heart and mind, and really try to absorb what they are trying to give you.

        Lately I’ve been fascinated by density. Water is 1.0 g/cm3. Molasses is 1.4 g/cm3. The densest things in the solar system are the Earth 5.5, Mercury 5.4, and Venus 5.2. The next closest is Mars at 3.9. A few moons and asteroids are in the 3.0-3.6 range.

        Osmium, iridium, and platinum. Those look to be far more substantive than gold. What does it matter, how shiny or attractive something is?

        The sun’s density, is the same as molasses 1.4. The other objects of the solar system actual rotate around the barycenter of the solar system, not the relatively ephemeral hot ball of molasses bright star as we’ve been led to believe.

        You have to go 1,000 light years from Earth to find something denser. A black hole, with density of infinity. A lesser infinity than the center of the milky way is a supermassive blackhole, also of infinity. This infinity of density is so great, it’s pull is strong enough to cause the sun to rotate around it.

        In 2000 the center of rotation was 1/3 of a solar radius outside of the sun. Ten years from now the center will be a full 1/2 solar radius outside the center of the sun.

        In general things that are more dense, are more real than thing that are less dense. I wonder if the stars we can see truly are only signs. Not substantive. Part of a holographic projection system only peripheral to the true nature of creation.

        Air has a density of 0.001g/cm3. The colloidally suspended water in clouds are only 0.5g/cm3. The space between drops is still only 0.001.

        So polluted air, and so many other things that seem important, are really not much to worry about at all. They’re lacking density, and we can mitigate them with technology of superior density.

        Nuclear weapons, merely rapidly decrease density and rapidly increase energy for a small amount of fissile material. Probably some kind of deuterium based sprinkler system or thick foam deployment could greatly reduce the damage of a nuclear detonation for example. Density uber alles.

        Guns shoot bullets containing lead. Which is 11.4. Death is being pierced by the hyper dense reality of a fast moving bullet, more real than your own less dense transient body.

        What’s most real is the black within the silver band you can see in the sky away from the city lights. The supermassive black hole 27,000 light years away at the center of the milky way.

        If there are other beings, if they are dense enough, we wouldn’t be able to see them. They wouldn’t emit light or other electromagnetic waves for our senses to perceive them.

        Though freemasonry seems intimidating. I think autodidactory can defeat it every time. Just to be safe, one could combine the two. What about making a Masonic Walking Cane made of titanium?–Walking-Cane–%22Two-Balls-and-a-Cane%22–36-inch-in-OAK-Wood.html

  19. So many people have been convinced that drinking in driving is a “Crime” that it’s not a large leap to consider allowing someone to drive while drunk as an accomplice.

    The FACT is that driving while intoxicated is NOT a crime. If people didn’t have an assbackwards way of looking at things this wouldn’t even be considered a crime in the first place.

    She was the negligent party, she caused her own death and nobody but her knows exactly what caused the accident. They of course will claim the booze caused the accident but how do they KNOW this is true? She might have been tired, or playing with the radio, an animal might have run into the road, etc etc etc. It was her responsibility to maintain control of the vehicle and not anyone else’s.

    The fact that she is a minor is a red herring. It could easily be said that older people are more of a danger on the road while drunk because they have slower reflexes to begin with. So what if these boys had been driven home by an adult? Wouldn’t the exact same rules apply?

    What next, are kids supposed to rat out there parents who drink and drive or go to prison? I can just imagine how well it would have gone for me if I call the cops on my Dad. Holy shit would I have been in trouble.

    It’s funny but it reminds me of when my Dad had me drive him home when I was about 13 or so. He was too tired and had had a few too many (his excuse to get me to drive). I drove from Detroit to near Alpena Michigan in a snowstorm with a stick shift and my first time driving on the expressway. I thought it was a blast. Now of course they would have put him under the prison for even thinking of such a thing. But the fact was that he had good judgment and knew I was a good driver and could handle it. Sadly it seems the days of using your own judgment are a thing of the past.

    • I agree, Brad.

      Why should consuming alcohol and then driving be a crime, ipso facto?

      The standard ought to be: Did you cause an accident?

      It’s politically incorrect in the extreme – because it contradicts the orthodoxy of neo-Prohibitionism – but the fact is some people can drink and drive. That is, their ability to keep a car on the road, under control, without causing injury to either themselves or other people, is not degraded sufficiently by alcohol to cause them to lose control or cause damage to themselves or others. Clovers react to this statement of fact in the same way that Dracula reacts to the morning sun. Instead, they want a one-size-fits-all arbitrary standard, BAC levels.

      It’s absurd – and it’s vicious – for the same reason that it would be vicious to herd every driver who appears to be over 60 into special “checkpoints” to gauge their reflexes, visual acuity and so on – on the theory that some older people are impaired by the aging process (which is certainly true) and therefore, all older people are to be considered impaired by the aging process until they demonstrate otherwise to the satisfaction of a costumed goon.

      This is straightforward logic – but Clovers, of course, do not operate on logic.

  20. I’m surprised that no one here has pointed out the obvious double standard. The State is forcing us to be our brother’s keeper, yet those paid to “protect and serve” are not required to. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect us.

    And I’m disappointed at the number of posts that want to make the Genesis account into something it isn’t – allegory, myth, parable, whatever. The account in Genesis is historical narrative. Adam was the first man. He was not a parable. Eve was the first woman. We are all descendants of the two of them. Through Adam, sin and death entered the world, and this is why we have to deal with the state of Connecticut, amongst other things.

  21. Thanks for the info. I’ll be sure to keep in mind that I can be arrested for not stopping my friends from doing something stupid after they leave my presence.

    I like that you noted that the boys were doomed in this situation. No way they can actually stop her. Harassment/false imprisonment charges (or worse, as you note) if you do, accomplice to reckless driving if you don’t.

    The car company of the car she drove, and the companies that produce the alcoholic drinks she drank are equally responsible.

    • Brandonjin, it’s obviously the fault of the state. Consider what they(the boys0 were supposed to do under the rules of the state, what they could not do, under the rules of the state, and the contradiction thereof. The state should have addressed this conundrum. Prosecute the state and hence, state prosecutors. Let’s place blame where it rightly belongs.

      • Sounds like a plan to me, 8. Though accountability isn’t something the state or clovers are forced to have. Push accountability to others, even those who did nothing. Guilt by association I suppose.

    • The car company of the car she drove, and the companies that produce the alcoholic drinks she drank are equally responsible.

      As I noted upthread, while that statement is certainly true when you follow the “logic” (to pervert and misuse the word beyond all reason) behind these perverse positivist laws, we can rest assured that the auto and alcohol industries, among many others, have put their lobbyists in the national and various state capitols hard to work making sure that they get their indulgences/exemptions from any such liability.

      • Just noticed your comment. My rationale was just an extension of Eric’s comment about BMW. Of course, their accountability was/is completely hypothetical, even when you follow the above story to logical conclusion. Interesting but unsurprising how it works.

  22. The thing is Cain and Abel were brothers. They most likely loved each other. To hate Cain, is to hate Abel.

    I have nothing but for contempt for the man who marries a woman. They have children. They love each other. Then for some reason, a divorce comes.

    Now she is the enemy. Now he hates her. Now he schemes to bring the full weight of the state against his ex-woman. A godly man takes a woman for life, no matter what she does against him. He should drop the whole puritan playacting all together, if he can’t do that.

    Hitler was once a baby in his mother’s arms. Hitler had a sister who lived through the war. The diamond rule, is every creation has value. At all times. If you kill a man dead, which sometimes you must, it is because you were not wise enough to find out where he belonged and where he could still contribute.

    To say Cain should be hung from a lamppost or killed for his crimes, is to be at odds against creation. What seems like cognitive dissonance at a lower level, may all be harmonious at a high enough level.

    Perhaps Osama Bin Laden is playing a harp on a cloud in Heaven somewhere. If you profess to be a believer, you are not the one to say otherwise.

    I loathe the concept of outsiders determining what is to be harvested and what is chaff. Any farmer owning his own land, knows that chaff too has its use and place.

    The perversion is, now there are Earth bound people who think they know who the chaff is. If that is the lesson you get from scripture, you’re better off reading a car repair manual or something. You’ve started on the wrong foot, each step takes you further away.

    I play the atheist to reason correctly. Trying to reason in a religious mindset is like trying to debate while singing in an operatic voice.

    The productive Christians also go into reasoning mode. There is no place for prayer and esoteric jubilation while constructing a third generation nuclear power plant. There is a time and a place for that mindset.

    The great inventors and doers spend time communing with the spirit. Then they venture forth and do things while already imbued with the spirit. Broadcasting the Lord’s Prayer at Foxconn isn’t going to help them make the iPhones.

    The time spent off the production floor in reflection, that is what can be productive.

    • Hi Tor,

      I thank you for your viewpoint on what you believe of Cain and Able. I understand your desire to remain neutral in judgment of your peers, as you said to allow them to find their place in society. I too do not believe in killing nor hindering a man on his own efforts if his beliefs don’t coincide with my own as long as he also follows the NAP.

      Where I differ I suppose from you is the idea that humanity is one big happy family. That it is my duty to say help a man find his place in society if he was truly a destructive individual. It is true that Able probably loved Cain, but could you say the inverse was true absolutely? Obviously Cain to kill his brother in violation of the NAP simply because of jealousy was not a good thing either. At least as the bible conveys as the message.

      The real problem with naivity (which I’m not saying you are) is that many people so called capitalist that we are all equal benefactors or should be in intellectual knowledged but would take a much different approach if say material progress or ownership. I’d offer that not only is this unnatural its in fact very much socialistic and just as destructive. You show me a man that believes that his duty is to help mankind and dedicate his life to helping all people without discrimination profite equally and all show you a man that not only is an equalitarian but will die poor and used because of such naivity.

      Unfortunately, most good men today support the theory that intellectual property should be open to all and anyone who witholds their fruits is selfish to his fellow man. But I don’t believe all men are equal when endowed to spirituality and thus the right to own intellectual knowledge. Would I show a man how to make nuclear device, if indeed I thought his intention would be to destroy or control the world with that technology? The answer is no. There is a reason why people who are immoral cannot think of such technology on their own, its called impotence of the brain (evil?). But what of men that are highly developed both spiritually and intellectually that spill all their intellect into a common pool that would be at best used by the worst individual and the worst concentrated into a man made power structure to be used against the best of people and enslave them. Do you think the generals with all their brass stars could make a nuclear device? No. They require intellectual giants to assimilate that knowledge and give them the detonator and key codes. And the mischief is taught by the lie that its the duty of scientist and creators to give everyone (thus centralize into a few hands of the worst) the ideas to power the world. Its bizarre, its silly, and its dangerous. And worse yet its socialism of the worst kind to believe naively that all men are equals and can handle knowledge and the power that comes with it.

      I believe my goal in the whole thing is to try to elevate people to a state of awareness of good and evil because morality and immorality do exist. The good of this world unaware are powering the worst abominations in this world simply because they do not discriminate when it comes to intellectual ideas. There are many ideas I know work, I do not share them in with mankind because simply to do so would profit me none, but worse would only empower the worst of centralizers. That is a hard choice, but its because I believe from experience in working in corporate america and having to pay my taxes to government that the enemy is group milkers not individual innovators. Individual and Godly innovators become part of the problem when they play naive to game of reality that bad doesn’t exist in “society”. Quite frankly group think and articulation is the problem in everything because it is has no discrimination.

      Further, discrimination or judging a tree by the fruit it bears is absolutely a necessity for survival and flourishing of any good individual. I especially get tired of a type of person that isn’t quite a bible thumper but still missing the point saying “though should not judge”. And the problem is that in the translation from hebrew the words are much more descript whereas in English they are vague and aliased and overused. So for example there is a word for love your mother, another for love your son, but in english there is only the verb love. I speculate the confusion about judging and what Yeshua describes and judging a fruit has to do with context and aliasing of the conversion from Hebrew to English. Here a man would be not only foolish but infantile to believe he shouldn’t look a (judging) man carefully before hiring him for a landskeeper on your estate if he has a criminal rap sheet. Or judging the intent of an intruder is godly as well. But to make judgement as if you are a God is quite another thing. And quite frankly many people seem confused on the context of “judge” like they do with “love” in english word translate of Hebrew. Judging is absolutely the key to survival. Judging intent of your brothers’ in context of brotherly love or its opposite is also a given when that persons decisions will impact your life and Godly rights. Yes I would put a man six foot deep if I contemplated that his intentions by actions would be to kill say my wife. Nor would I try to find a place for such an abomination in my life or the world, and by all rights that would be a Godly and moral thing to do and anyone that denies it is simply being naive to wisdom and intelligence.

      What I’m trying to convey here is that every inventor needs to seriously contemplate whether releasing knowledge to a “common whole” is going to really benefit the man like himself or is it giving his fruits to the enemy that ultimately wants to kill, rape, and steal from him. That is why I believe un-godly men do not formulate powerful ideas on their own, they don’t have the spiritual comprehension yet to own such thoughts. It takes time to develop to a worthy point as a society to even be able to cope with such powerful things as nuclear weapons for example. A good percentage of people are apes on the larger scale of things simply because morality isn’t even an after thought.

      Good people in my people need to stop being so damn naive about handing over the knowledge God conveyed to them for a pat on the head by the most corrupt institution and individuals in existence. Stop giving these fuckers your fruits! And start discriminating as even the free market has its excellent ways of doing such. Socialism of intellectuals giants to intellectuals dwarfs needs to end.

      • I do want to make clear that I do not believe that Cain as a murderer should be allowed to “cover” his actions. I think it naive to think that a murderer should be able to kill another man’s wife simply because he has a right to find a place in society. That to not stop such evil perpetrator and event by a Godly man, would be not only cowardice but also condembable on the scale of wisdom and intelligence and thus ungodly.

        Therefore if I can believe that in violation of NAP that an intruder has first violated the NAP and therefore I have a duty and right to stop such behavior with force is not only wise but Godly of natural law. How should I then say that a super intelligence of this world (God), would not have any more right to condemn such behavior? Lying to cover up an violation a offense of NAP by a perpetrator is condemnable offense by those involved and a superceding intelligence that takes interest in the laws or morality. I’m not sure what is worse Tor. To say that there is no good or bad just people who need to find their rightful place in the world, or to believe that a man can’t make a pre-judgment about a person or group of people to protect themselves in advance. Again history is ripe with the Cains and Ables. Its a lesson that repeats throughout. Ignore it a ones own peril is what I have to say.

        But again I do agree with 98% of what you offer so whats the big deal amongst friends.

        Best Regards,

        • If I were to speculate. The mark of Cain is the sun-blackened skin of Africans. Africans who to this day, are known for their propensity to murder due to uncontrollable emotions, even those they dearly love.

          If you act from the scripture, Cain’s punishment is proscribed for you for all time by the creator. Never to be altered by anyone. It is written for you. You follow it, or face the consequences.

          “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

          The colonial enslavement of 450,000 Cains and their offspring was not in defiance of scripture. Use of corporal punishment was permitted. Taking the fruits of their labors and keeping them at subsistence levels, because they commit “crimes.” was allowed. Expelling them from a community is okay.

          Charging them in white man courts and executing them under white man’s law. That is in defiance. That does trigger the sevenfold vengeance of the creator.

          No man can see a black man and miss the mark that is upon him. He is unlike the Oriental, the Indian, the Slavic, the Germanic, and the others.

          He is to be put to work. Or handled in some manner. He doesn’t require the elaborate kosher trappings of suburbia. Cain is happy living in a hut. Or in a ghetto. He has much to offer to the world. He has as much of a claim on the material successes of America as anyone.

          The Lord said to Cain “When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.” Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! “Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face.

          I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.” Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.”

          Not all blacks are Cains, but some are. Keep the Cains outside of your gates. Keep them away from the weak. They may use their strength to their advantage. You know this, and can use your wisdom to make fortifications before anything bad happens.

          Cain and Abel. Tale of Brothers and Murder

          Or keep repeating the errors, that there is a one size fits all justice. Keep on reaping the sevenfold vengeance you were warned about.

          • Ok Tor I have understood what you are getting at and I’m going to admit that I never even contemplated that the mark on Cain was interpreted by many as blackness. I do not see blacks as marked by their melanin content, much less than a white man with a tan should be a convicted conman. Though I can see where perverse people used such connotation of the bible to validate their theft and control over another people. If anything I’d argue that the slave holders were the Cains and not the black slaves that were held against their will.

            Again, I think of Walter Williams as being my equal simply based on their level of competence. I also do not find black features marked or ugly, I find blacks very unique and handsome. Whereas I’d demote many of white people to the lowest of street junk like their black counterparts that participate in evil.

            Secondly, there is a reason that I don’t believe the mark you are talking about is blackness. If black men were meant to be the marked fugitives and wanderers then why would the Pharaoh of Egypt (who incidently was black) be allowed the biggest and advanced civilization of his time? That would be in direct contradiction with the mark of Cain. There is certainly a mark but it isn’t skin of color based, its a seed thing by accounts of the bible. That runs down family lines in all races. Do I believe that heredity determines good versus bad always? No. I believe that some of the most fantastic people can come from the worst of lineage, and I’m not sure if they are a throwback to 20 generation earlier but they exist and can rise 100 fold above their family fountain. On average though there seems to be some correlation with lineage and goodness or evilness.


          • Tor I’m going to quote another site to the the mark of Cain, though not my words its concisely fits my viewpoints on the Cain and Able story relative to blacks. Also, I want to clarify that I take the Cain and Able story not as a literal event, but rather a parable (a story) to convey a deeper message:

            In the past, many believed the mark on Cain to be dark skin—that God changed the color of Cain’s skin to black in order to identify him. Since Cain also received a curse, the belief that the mark was black skin caused many to believe that people of dark skin were cursed. Many used the “mark of Cain” teaching as a justification for the African slave trade and discrimination against people with black/dark skin. This interpretation of the mark of Cain is completely unbiblical. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is ‘owth used to refer to skin color. The curse on Cain in Genesis chapter 4 was on Cain himself. Nothing is said of Cain’s curse being passed on to his descendants. There is absolutely no biblical basis to claim that Cain’s descendants had dark skin. Further, unless one of Noah’s sons’ wives was a descendant of Cain (possible but unlikely), Cain’s line was terminated by the Flood.

            What was the mark that God put on Cain? The Bible does not say. The meaning of the mark, that Cain was not to be killed, was more important than the nature of the mark itself. Whatever the mark was, it had no connection to skin color or a generational curse on the descendants of Cain. To use the mark on Cain as an excuse for racism or discrimination is absolutely unbiblical.

          • Tor – I contend that the mark set upon Cain and his Kenite (or Cinite and not to be confused with Cannaanite) is the very curse you cite above: “When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.” Could the mark be that Cain can’t grow anything? I’ve known many successful black farmers, so I don’t buy it being a physical feature. No, you will know them by their fruits. Cain is sent off as a nomad, a man without a home, into the land of Nod (i.e. the land of wandering). His progeny become metal smiths, Qéní or Quayin (from the Hebrew lance), but not just any smiths, swordsmiths or arms manufacturers and dealers, goldsmiths from whence came moneychangers and now banksters, the entire legal profession (a den of vipers or serpents if ever there was one), players of the harp and flute which have become the modern entertainment complex.

            Find a lucrative profession that produces nothing of real value nor that is essential for living and you will find Cain there. Maybe not everyone that participates in the craft or profession, not the worker bees or drones, they just go along to get along. But the extremely wealthy controllers who achieve their status by hook and crook, back stabbing and deceit; they are Cain. They are almost invariably transnational (wandering) as well, promoting and participating in things like the EU, NAFTA, the CFR, Trilaterim, fiat currency, the perpetual welfare – warfare state. They are war mongers, Gorebullian watermellons, gun grabbers, collectivists and democidal misanthropists; stealing individual rights, Liberty and self determination along with the fruits of our labor. I contend that Cain runs the international plantation and uses the slaves thereof to grow what he cannot.

          • With your kind of thinking it is no CERTAINLY no wonder we are in trouble in this world. As evil and immoral as the Establishment is, they are right -on with their CONDEMNATION of Christianity and of course other religions
            Let us not forget, as they are aware of, it is “thinkers” ( and I use that word very loosely,in your case) like you who are responsible for over 200,000,000 deaths since the late 1800’s, in WARS and other “Genocides” causes by, directly or indirectly CHRISTIANITY.

            Africans killing Africans, or others, are the SAME CHRISTIAN INDOCTRINATED consequences of and by Christians.

            Have you eve been to Africa, by the way. I have and can tell you Christianity has done a fine job of destroying the minds of “Black” people.

            May you, AND your ZEALOT type suffer with conscience pangs and pain for the rest of your life.

          • Roger – Don’t confuse the false doctrines of the organized church and those in the gun-vernment that use those doctrines as an excuse for empire building, subjugation, genocide and democide with what Yeshua actaully taught. They are two different things entirely. Check out Mathew 24 and Luke 11 if you want to see what Yeshua thought about the organized church and its leaders. It was the organized church of the day, a den of vipers, that killed him; the Romans only carried out the edict.

            True Christians are remarkably non-interventionist, non-aggressive and highly libertarian. Closed minded, unthinking churchians (regardless of the spiritual leader they identify themselves with) are the real problem. And I think you’ll find Tor to be as open minded and willing to accept new data as anyone you’ll ever encounter. Oh, and those 200,000,000 dead you cite; they were at the hands of gun-vernment. Many of the guilty governments in the 20th century were Communistic and therefore professed atheism, not Christianity. Furthermore, many of them prohibited teaching Yeshua’s doctrine. Hilter’s National Socialist German Workers Party identified with paganism, hence the use of runes. But the Nazi’s were pikers when it came to killing people when compared to Lenin and Stalin. Get your facts straight.

          • “Don’t confuse the false doctrines of the organized church and those in the gun-vernment that use those doctrines as an excuse for empire building, subjugation, genocide and democide with what Yeshua actaully taught.”

            That is my take on the whole thing. It seems to me that Yeshua exhibited the most libertarian views for his time, that he allowed people to choose whether to follow or not states it all. I’d be surprised if western philosophy of classical liberalism and hence the new age form of it in libertarian wasn’t the direct result of the teaching of Christ himself.

            Personally I hate going to church as I find that the most demonic people often reside there. And I refuse to listen to some pompous orator totally make Yeshuas message into something it wasn’t.

            As far as the Adam and Eve thing again I don’t worry too much about it. Its interesting for sure that some of it in a parable form would have some significance as a parable. If I were to elaborate what I thought of a human genotype existing in the time of Cain such that he could procreate outside of Adam and Eve’s genes, I guess it would be to me a hint to something along other human primates that might have coexisted. Instead of blacks as being the lineage of Cain I was thinking something more along Neanderthals as being a semi-human genotype that could’ve been a way for Cain to procreate. And many scientist believe that neanderthals were coexistant with the human species for some time, so again that was always what I thought might explain the Cain thing and some other human genotype outside of Eve and Adam. Again I always took Adam and Eve as being just something of a simple parable with possible deeper meaning like those used by Yeshua.

            And as far as my black brothers, this coloring of the skin is not something that takes long for humans to change to adapt to environments. I would speculate that the human genes accomodate melanin changes very rapidly based on environment. I’m thinking that a noticeable difference in skin color would happen very naturally for even a pure scandanavian light skinned white in five generations based on equator lighting conditions. Just because I believe that the genes are much more adaptable than selective breeding, I believe as many of you know that the human mind and experience shapes genes dynamically without necessarily breeding being the way to large changes. Skin color and equator lighting conditions would probably dictate a permanent tan out of necessity. But again blacks and whites in my opinion are not that much different genetically, and I seriously doubt that the Adam and Eve parable has anthing more to do with them and nothing less to them than it does with white people as I’d suspect we are much more alike than most would like to think. Melanin aside. Cains lineage has nothing to do with blacks.

            Finally I will say that one thing that really bothers me with liberals is that they think that whites must treat black equal to themselves. This is counter to what Yeshua taught in his messages, as he placed his “Jewish” ancestry above others. Did that make Yeshua a racist? Absolutely not. Because its very natural to prefer your own family over a stranger in terms of trying to give an inheritance to one versus the other. If there was no value in people of like genes from being around each other then there would not have been the need for nuclear families. And here lies the kick as any juvenile that has read Yeshua’s teaching would probably be greatly disappointed to think they were stressed as a gentile less than say a Jew (Yeshuas genetical closest family). But over the years I’ve came to realize the importance of this in that love for someone genetical similar to you doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive to someone not like you in appearance. Love is not a mutually exclusive property. You can love your own more and still love someone that isn’t like your genetics. And since love grows to infinite that you could love someone not like you infinitely even though you love your own genetics more.

            And sometimes its like the parable that we find that someone not like us genetical seems to make better family anyway. When a good man asks that his family comes to his wedding, but they are too busy to attend the wedding because of a funeral. Then he instead asks people not of his family and closest friends to attend the wedding and they do, who is more of a family member? And though many people of like genetics to me have isolated me, people that look darker than me have been the most accepting and welcoming and thus have become my family and brothers and sisters. Water sometimes just is thicker than blood after all. And I believe that both messages are what one might get from reading Yeshuas story and parables.

            Hot Rod

  23. Dear Hot Rod,

    I was just reading about Christopher Columbus man. A godly man who wanted better for people than the brutality of what he saw around him.

    Catholics burning women in the square, muslims and christians slitting each other throats over who best worships the creator the correct way.

    He had nothing for contempt for monks, and men of power in government and church.

    He had a faith in himself, and in his own conviction, that there was a better way to the East. The Turks had blocked all Christians access to Asian land routes. Sailing around cape hope took a full year. He knew there was a shorter route.

    He convinced Queen Isabel he could get there in 7 weeks(he knew it would take longer, but lied about the distance to get permission)

    He persevered, and opened the New World to the Spanish Empire. He was just a wool weavers son, but he knew the Earth was round, it was plain to see if you watched a ship sail past the horizon. True knowledge of the creator goes hand and hand with knowledge of the physical world.

    For his trouble he was eventually thrown in jail. And bankrupted. His accomplishments and status were taken from him. Other men were given rule over the New World he discovered.

    But his accomplishment was still his. Though discredited in his lifetime. He knew the great work he had done for humanity. His son wrote and preserved his autobiography, and his unique experience of seeing Eden on Earth.

  24. Here in nanny state Mass., they’ve already charged homeowners for providing alcohol to any dipshit who gets in an accident after leaving your party, not just minors. Guess they think you’re responsible for the whole neighborhood; my take is they figure you own a house so there’s more money to be extorted by the court system. I kind of like Mr. Simmons’ solution.

    • Back when America was much more free than it is today, I used to wonder how successful Rebels could be so brutal. Well, I no longer do. It would be very bad for the tyrants were I the Minister of Justice following a successful revolution in America today.

  25. The slippery slope of tyranny.

    Here in Kentucky, we have a law requiring drivers to wear seat belts. The law was passed after we were reassured, “Don’t worry. Nobody is going to be pulled over an cited for driving without a seat belt. We just want this good idea codified into law, as a good example of what people should be doing.” Then, a year later, we were told, “We’re not going to pull anyone over and cite them for driving without a seat belt, but if you’re stopped for another violation you can also be cited for not wearing your seat belt.” The following year, the police were citing people for not wearing their seat belts. My friend had to pay a $25 fine because the police saw him buckling his seat belt while his car was in motion in a parking lot, before he even reached the road. It was an obvious “revenue enhancement” for government. Now there are giant Big Brother electronic billboards over the highways that say. “CLICK IT OR TICKET! WEAR YOUR SEAT BELT. IT’S THE LAW.”

    “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” was a good public service message, but it looks like Connecticut is trying to make it THE LAW. It’ll be another very bad law.

    • Liberty, back in the 80’s when Tx. passed seat belt laws I had two friends in the same pickup get ticketed, costs were over $75. Now seat belt tickets cost over $200 and often much higher. It’s one hell of a source of revenue. A friend pulls the belt out and wraps it around his knee since a seat belt causes him pain.

    • The identical thing came about here in Louisiana.


      Follow the money.


      BTW, Whatever happened to the $25.00 heads up fine?

      Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

        • Re: heads up

          As applied to fines it originated with me. In bygone years a reasonable fine was considerably less than a weeks pay for a laborer. But it did get one’s attention in a financially painful way. Thus, heads up.


          Officer, I just sort of oozed past that stop sign.

          The sign don’t say OOZE, it says STOP.


          Of course you stop rather than ooze simply because a uniformed revenue collector might be watching.


    • Texas pulled the same sort of bullshit with mandatory auto insurance. We were told that rates would go down now that everyone was being “responsible”. Did they? Hell no!

    • “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” was a good public service message, but it looks like Connecticut is trying to make it THE LAW. It’ll be another very bad law.”
      All laws are bad laws. Until freedom loving people can understand that, we’ll be at the mercy( or incompetence) of government.

      • All laws are bad laws.

        Except for the Natural Laws. Unfortunately, most of the public needs to be educated on exactly what these are, the simplicity of which would probably fry their State-washed brains.

        • Except for the Natural Laws.
          Haven’t seen a government pass “Natural Law” yet; whatever you think that is. But as soon as government passes Natural Law, it will be bad law.

  26. More laws, more income for juris doctors. Am I the only American who sees the clear and present danger. Legislating lawyers, prosecuting lawyers, defense lawyers, court-appointed lawyers, lawyer governors, lawyer judges . . . Matlock and Perry Mason notwithstanding, an Evil Brotherhood if ever there was one. Where are the so-called “checks and balances” applicable to the Evil Brotherhood?

    Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

    • I wonder whether (just daydreaming here) BMW, say, would be legally culpable for providing me with a new 335 GT … knowing the car is capable of 155 MPH and that I might very well try to drive it that fast? Shouldn’t they have known? And they did nothing to stop me!

      Can I send BMW the ticket?

      • wonder whether (just daydreaming here) BMW, say, would be legally culpable for providing me with a new 335 GT … knowing the car is capable of 155 MPH and that I might very well try to drive it that fast? Shouldn’t they have known? And they did nothing to stop me!

        Can I send BMW the ticket?

        No. The automakers (even the foreign ones, who you can bet have their paid lobbyists on Crapitol Hill working overtime) had the foresight to have already purchased their legal exemptions from any forthcoming liability laws that carry the concept to such extremes. It’s only gonna be you and me, the little guys, who get shafted up the ass, NOT the Big Boys – ever.

        • Better buy your vaseline now – before they outlaw using it after you / we get shafted up the ass – after all THEY WANT you to feel the pain

          • GW, remember when Jimmy Carter said punishment of illicit drug offenders shouldn’t be greater than the harm of the drug? That lasted all of the time it took the MSM to twist it into something else and the “punishers” to reprimand him in public forum.

    • TGS, Chris Christi said “don’t lawyer it, people don’t like lawyers, I am one”. I’m sure you’re “full” of him as almost everyone with some sense is. He’s right on the mark there though.

      • I dislike Republicans on principle – but that Chris Christie bastard doubles it down for me. He is the apotheosis of the I-know-best (and am going to make you do it) authoritarian Republican – indistinguishable from his “liberal” opponents.

        When he begins his run for supreme power (willens zu macht) I believe they ought to break open the display case at West Point and retrieve the powder blue uniform of the Reichsmarschall – along with his baton. Der Dicke (the fat one) rides again!

        • Some of my family still live in NJ, and from what you see on the “news” you’d think he was some kind of hero/savior, but we all agree he’s just a loudmouth bully, pure and simple.

        • Christie is indeed a very special breed of repulsive. But hey, he hails from the Garbage State. What else can we expect from that corner of humanity’s cesspool?

          • HEY!
            I come from Jersey, too, dammit!
            And the armpit of the nation extends well north of NJ, including New York, RI, MA, CT… And it extends downwards, too, with MD, DE (Not as bad but has a few choice bits of disease), and VA (where police spy on people in bars to see who they can charge with drunk driving… Even if they aren’t drunk, or driving, at the time.)

            I believe our best bet is to light a fire so big, the gods will ntoice us again.

        • With exceptions of course (Such as Ron Paul), I generally despise the GOP as well. I can’t imagine Chris Christie being better in any way than Hillary. Yet the ignorant drones will still vote for him.

          • Yeah, can you imagine if a Presidential candidate DIDN’T “Support the troops”? Lol. I mean, the Republicans pretend Obama doesn’t, but its a joke.

            I get so mad sometimes because of shallow people like them. How do you respond to people that think that way?

          • Hi David,

            Christi will be worse than Hillary – because “conservatives” will support and defend him as reflexively – as mindlessly – as they cheered The Chimp. As I never tire of needling Republicans over, the fact is that without The Chimp, Obama would have been inconceivable.

            More damage to liberty has been done under the auspices of the Republican Party than any other party.

            Never forget: Lincoln was a Republican. He freed no slaves, but enslaved everyone else. Enshrined the Leviathan central state and eviscerated the very concept of “government by consent.”

    • TGS, sorry, got caught up in the CC thing and forgot the rest of my thought. You’ll notice laws are written too often in legalese. I believe it’s written that way so the average person does not read it. Try reading one without your eyes glazing over, just what they want. If you’re drawing such a fine line it must have Latin inserted into it, then too fine a line is being drawn. If I can’t interpret a law then it wasn’t written to protect me. Of course, how many laws are for “our” protection?

      • I can think of nothing more important than that laws be utterly simple. Why should something governing ordinary literate Folks need to be interpreted? Well, I figured that out years ago. Cui bono?

        “We could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles, and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires a solution.” ~ Ezra Taft Benson, The Proper Role of Government


      • Of course the simple solution to this would be to push for amendments to both the federal AND state constitutions that would prohibit any piece of draft legislation from being over one typed page long from being passed (along with giving the legislatures absolutely no more than 24 hours to vote on any such bill’s passage).

        Needless to say, this will never happen. There was a bill that originated in the House a few years back requiring that Congresscreatures and Senatards actually simply read the fucking bills placed before them before they voted on them, and it never saw the light of day in committee.

        • Hi Tinsely

          GJP is certainly valuable as a means of thwarting the operation of “the machine.” I’ll all for making use of it to the fullest extent possible.

          Especially insofar as it helps prod people to question assumptions about the legitimacy of “the law” as such – vs. what’s right (and wrong).

          Then get them thinking about self ownership vs. collective ownership.

          It could change the world.

          • eric, the grand jury is so biased to the prosecution I see little way it could ever be effective in righting what’s so drastically wrong in the “judicial” system. In fact, the grand jury is the main problem as I see it.

            • Hi Eight,

              Yeah… there is definitely a problem with regard to the average person’s reflexive deference to authority. The inability (incapacity?) to ask: Is this right? As opposed to: Is it “the law”?

              Most Americans seem to fall into the latter category.

              It’s the same mental defect that keeps them from grasping that theft is just as much theft when it is done by groups as by individuals, or under color of law.

  27. The Keepers-That-Be couldn’t do a worse job if they tried. Watch the medicinal benefit this girl with cerebral palsy experiences from “illegal” marijuana as just one instance of what’s possible without them.

    Marijuana – Treats Cerebral Palsy For Jacqueline Patterson

  28. Nothing new here.

    It is all part of the long ongoing move to make everyone a criminal when they wake in the morning because It gives the state flexibility to deal with you as needed. Many law professors have already said that there are so many laws that no one can go about their day without violating several.

    Used to be only special circumstances were needed to charge anyone under 14 with a crime, but now they are going after the teens and pre-teens. That is why they can arrest 6 year olds’ for making gun signs with their fingers at school. Welcome to your new “we can make it up as we go” homeland security comrades.

    • Very true.

      We have all been made criminals because of some BS default law that they have passed (or may pass in the future and charge us with retro-actively) but can’t tell us about because of National Security.

      We will all be treated as criminal’s by the State when it is in their interest to muzzle, or otherwise depose of us.

      That is the primary reason that I no longer recognize the legitimacy of the State.

      I do recognize moral law and am therefore not a threat to anyone that chooses to leave me alone, but eventually TPTB will back us all into a corner where that will not be possible…

  29. If anyone was a problem, it was the parents. Apparently the girls who live at the house love to throw parties when mom and dad are gone. Just as boys will be boys, girls will be girls. Maybe the girl herself should be responsible for her death. But then the state can’t collect money from a dead girl. Benjamin Spock parenting at work here.

    • A story I know from second hand experience (I know the dude involved that gave the bitch the pills). This dumb bitch popped a bunch of pills, went to Home Depot for god knows what, and then drove herself into a 5 foot deep landscaping pond of an apartment complex (just across the street from the Home Depot) and drowned to death because she was too fucking high to get her ass out of the shallow water. The dude was never prosecuted because dead people tell no tales, but the dude thinks I’m the asshole for making fun of her. I am indeed an asshole, but fuck (butt fuck, ha! second time I’ve typed that within 24 hours…) anyone who can’t handle their own fucking lives.

      That said, the system (through public schools) are teaching all the youth that you should rely on others (mainly government) to “do the right thing” as opposed to be a real fucking human being and doing what’s right despite what the corrupt government/drug dealers say.

      • Odds are that alot of us are going to get killed doing something stupid. The more out of the ordinary things we do the more likely. It may very well be that the purpose of your life is to serve as what not to do. One of the reasons I try not to make fun of people who screw up is that it always seems to come back to myself in a peculiar sort of way. I like you and hope you don’t have to reap the same as its not fun to die nor be a the butt of a joke while in the process.

        • I get what you’re saying Hot Rod, but I won’t go down popping a bunch of pills. I did, however, just slice the shit out of my right (dominant) hand by slipping on an oil spill in my garage and slid my hand across the garage door rail. Bled out for a few minutes but I won’t need stitches… I suppose that’s what I get for making fun of the dumb drowned bitch. God dammit my hand hurts :'(

          Fuck you universe! And the mysterious ways you work!

          • If true it sure sounds like a final desination flick. I’d suggest you don’t take a bath next to the radio tonight.


        • Ha, probably.

          My first job was working at Burger King. Because of my people skills they kept me manning the drive through… I never had to deal with someone as crazy as the chick in that video… if I did, my 16 year old innocent ass would’ve quit on the spot.

      • I always try to follow the logic of whatever the given thing is we’re talking about.

        If those two boys had a legal obligation to “do something” to prevent their friend from driving after drinking, then I guess my wife has an obligation to narc me out (or try to take the keys) whenever I “speed” ….she has been with me at triple the double the double nickle. Oh, the humanity! And since she did not squeal on me, I suppose she’s minimally an accessory to “reckless” driving.

        Well, it’s to be expected. After all, most people have already bought into the idea that it’s ok to treat people as presumptively criminal. So why not also hold them responsible for the “crimes” of others? Minimally, require them to “do something” (or “say something”) when they notice a “crime” being committed.

        We’ll all be so much safer.

  30. What is good about the death of the female? She took only herself out of the gene pool. Too many times drunk drivers wipe out the other people and walk away with minor injuries. Back in the 60s and 70s drunk drivers accounted for 70% of the road toll. Not themselves mind you, they just took out everyone else. This is what led to the alcohol test for drivers.

    “But your honor, if we had stopped her from driving we would have been charged with rape and assault.”

    “Young boy, that would be a far better charge than allowing this woman to die.”

    “We had nothing to do with her death.”

    “Yes, you did, young boy.”

    “Are you saying we are to be charged either way with a crime that we had nothing to do with.’

    “That is right young boys. Who told you that you were not your strangers’ keepers”?

    “We are not her keeper. She is an individual with a brain and a conscience.”

    “You are her keeper. How dare you boys think you should not face accomplice charges over this young woman’s death.”


  31. Tubal means smith. The same game perpetuates, this time, it’s not the tiller who is the problem, it is the smith, the worker of metal. Austrian economists would say smiths make what the market requires.

    In the bible there are three archetypes: providers of shelter and science – necessity; providers of stories, art, and music – leisure; and providers of tools and goods for export and trade – capital; Tubal is the provider of capital.

    The Pharisees, the ones who claim they alone can perceive “good smiths” and “bad smiths.” Those are the unproductive evildoers who should come under suspicion. They are the freeloaders, attempting to make a living by demanding alms to pursue their “scholarship” wherein they claim to be able to divine who is a “good smith” (tubal), and who is a bad smith(tubal-cain).

    TUBAL-CAIN (תּוּבַל־קַיִן), son of Lamech. Genesis 4:22 states that “Zillah bore Tubal-Cain, who forged implements of copper and iron; Tubal-Cain had a sister Naamah.” Various attempts have been made to identify Tubal-Cain as the name of an ancient tribe somewhere in the Near East.

    Scholars understand Tubal as a generic name for smith, derived from ybl, “to bring, produce.” The second element of the name is universally connected with the Arabic qāyin, Aramaic qaināyā (qaināʾah), “smith, metalworker.”

    In later times, Tubal-Cain was confused with the Tubal of Genesis 10:2, for example, and mistakenly identified with the Tuscans, well-known smiths of the ancient world. There is a parallel between Tubal-Cain and his beautiful sister Naamah and the Greek smith-god, Hephaestus, and his sister Aphrodite.

    In the Aggadah

    The aggadic interpretation of the meaning of Tubal-Cain’s name, is based upon the biblical record that he was “the forger of every cutting instrument” (Gen. 4:22). The aggadah teaches that by thus furnishing mankind with the means to repeat Cain’s act of killing, with even more ease, he perfected (tibbel, תִּבֵּל) Cain’s sin (Genesis R. 23:3).

    TUBAL-CAIN Source 2:

    Brother of Jabal and Jubal, sons of Lamech, who appear to have been the originators of several industries and arts. The correctness of the Masoretic text of Gen. iv. 21-22, describing Tubal-cain, is in dispute.

    Tubal-cain held a position in metal industries comparable with those of his brothers in their lines. The Septuagint, however, omits any equivalent of this fact as noted by Dillmann, Wellhausen, and others, who think that “Tubal” originally stood alone, and, being a later addition, was translated “smith.”

    Tubal is identified (by Dillmann, Schrader, and Delitzsch) with the Assyrian Tobal, a people living southeast of the Black Sea, and known in later history as the Aryan people, the Tibareni, with whom Phoenicia (Ezek. xxvii. 13) traded for articles of bronze (A. V. “brass”). This fact would seem to point to the correctness of the view that “Tubal” originally stood alone and that the bearer of that name was the progenitor of a people whose chief industry was the production of vessels, instruments, and other objects of bronze and iron.

    The Septuagint text calls the inventor “Tobel” (“Tubal”). An apocryphal tradition adds “Ḳainan” to the name (“The Book of the Bee,” ed. Budge, ch. xix.). This variance of tradition continues in later times. Philo of Byblus (in Eusebius, “Præparatio Evangelica,” i. 10) names two brothers as the inventors, one of whom was called “Chrysor” (χρυσώς, perhaps from ).

    These brothers discovered enchantment and sorcery as well as the art of working in iron (comp. and ; also and ), and invented rafts and various fishing-implements.

    Jabal, Jubal, Tubal Source 3
    The names Jabal, Jubal and Tubal Cain are like the three arms of a clock (hours, minutes, seconds) and their meaning can not be assessed separately. It seems that Jabal and Jubal cover the most basic structure of a human society: artificial shelter and livelihood (Jabal) – science – and musical expression (Jubal) – art -.

    It must be noted that these elements pretty much sum up all elements of the tabernacle and its rituals. The name Tubal Cain may denote the next step up in complexity of human society: world wide industry and manipulation of metals. The creation of surplus goods – Capital -.

    The highly peculiar detail of these characteristics is that they survived the flood of Noah. (Further confirmation the flood was a local flood of all the chosen people, not a worldwide flood)

    Tubal Cain is the forger of all implements of bronze and iron, and although a very sporadic use of iron goes back as far as 3000 BC, the iron age didn’t commence until 1200 BC. And that is roughly half-way into the book of Judges.

  32. Nah, the two teens do not (or at least should not) have a criminal liability to the State though the adult who allowed booze to be served to teens in his/her home to minors SHOULD have a criminal liabilty……….assuming the State has NOT stood in the way of the home owner exercising Authority over the booze dispenser. The two teens themselves deserve a solid trashing by their Fathers. As to the likely lazy indulgent parents of the girl- they get to live with the knowledge that their inattention to Duty killed their child. If I am wrong and the parents truly truly tried to keep a rebellious child in line and the dispenser of booze DID aid & abet her defiance THEN violent/fatal revenge by her family against the dispenser would be completely in order.

    • Mike: Were you really so pure as a teen that you didn’t do shit like these kids, or even worse? Have some empathy please. Most of us have done far worse, and nothing bad happened.

      • Exactly Bobbye. I can only speak for myself, but I would be in prison for my entire life if the government could prove all the drugs I experimented with as a teen. I’m not saying that people should allow teens to experiment will drugs, I am saying anyone who thinks the government should do THE JOB OF THE PARENTS is a bitch of epic proportion, and that’s putting it lightly.

      • My Dad had the wisdom and sense of duty to deliver a severe ass kicking when necessary. Dad NEVER aspired to be the buddy of any of us kids.

        • Mike, my dad was the same way. Parents should NOT aspire to be their children’s friend. Their duty is to raise a future adult to carry on the species. Friends come from outside the family.

          • On this subject:

            Am I the only person who’s noticed that the Simpsonian degradation of children calling adults by their first names has become all but ubiquitous? It’s no longer, “Hi, Mr. Jones.” It’s “Hey Fred.”

            Also that adults babble like eight-year-olds to eight-year-olds? Wanting – apparently – to be their bestest friend, rather than a parent?

            The wife and I have given up trying to socialize with our (mostly ex) friends with kids. Among the reasons, that the kids are omnipresent and dominate everything – reducing everything to the level of kids. For example, these people invite us over for dinner. The kids are included – and catered to without limit. If one of them interrupts the adults with some childish question, it must be answered patiently and at length. The adults cannot have an adult conversation – because the children might hear something they ought not to. It never occurs to these people to send the kids to bed – or to another room.

            I don’t hate kids. I do hate that the world of kids and the world of adults is no longer separate.

          • I go with that on many counts.
            I can’t stand how kids dominate everything. And it’s everyone I know who has kids that I’ve been with them with their kids present. Not one, not some, all.

            And because I don’t have kids I supposedly cannot have my opinions or views. I remember being a kid really well. Last time someone tried that shut down on me that’s what I used as a response. But generally I just stay silent.

            It’s probably well enough that I don’t have kids in the way this society is now. I’d probably be charged with child endangerment just for letting do what I did when I was kid, and I was very restricted compared to many of the other kids in my neighborhood.

            For example… I couldn’t even have fireworks while the kids down the block had bottle rocket wars. (use the old style yellow wiffle ball bat. The hole in the handle from the blow molding process, put the bottle rocket in there. Light it. Aim it at another kid…. )

          • Eric,

            I know at 18 I don’t exactly qualify as a “kid” but I sometimes still get treated like one. I was once talking to my uncle and was making an argument about the job of police being immoral (I did reserve myself a little bit compared to how I would post either here or on RPF, but I did point out that I don’t have any special respect for police and that they aggress against the innocent). The response had nothing to do with the argument presented, but was simply something along the lines of “Well, I have a little more life experience than you so I feel differently.”

            Its this kind of logic, and ageism, that ticks me off. Now, I don’t know what kind of situation you’re talking about, so you aren’t necessarily wrong, but I find people that predicate their arguments SOLELY based on age to be stupid and not worth talking to. I’m also not sure what you mean by the “world of adults” vs “world of kids” being separate. What do you mean by that exactly?

            • Hi David,

              In re: “the “world of adults” vs “world of kids” being separate.”

              I mean being able to get together with other adults and not have a bunch of screeching eight year olds around. Being able to have an adult conversation with other adults over dinner/drinks without having to modulate everything to the level of eight year olds.

              When I was a kid myself, my parents would introduce us to their adult friends – and then we’d be told to go play (or go to bed) or just go away. So that the adults could be adults – no catering to kiddie questions, no “toning it down” because “there are children present.” Drink, smoke – discuss serious things.

              Some of our friends who have kids have become basically kids themselves – immersed in a world of cartoons and play and “activities.” Makes my flesh creep.

          • Eric

            I think I get what you’re saying. You aren’t saying that parents shouldn’t do things with their kids or that they should totally be separate from their kids, you’re simply saying that parents should be able to talk to each other without catering to kids all the time. I don’t disagree with that.

            What bugs me though is the number of stupid adults there are. I honestly believe I had a greater ability to use logic than the average adult even at 12 years old.

            • Hi David,


              The other day, a recurrent troll here – who styles himself Old Hickory Stick – tried to critique something I’d written by denouncing my age. He accused me of being a Millenial (horrors!) and when I informed him that in fact my generation is Gen X, he abused me on that score.

              I asked him what my age had to do with the substance of my argument. He had no answer, of course. Or at least, no coherent answer.

              Some people are like ducks. You can’t teach either German.

          • Eric:

            I remember “Greg” saying awhile back that you give the Clover to everyone you disagree with. I wanted to point out to him, although I never got the chance, that we’ve disagreed several times and yet you’ve never given me the clover, thus destroying his argument.

            Age based trolls annoy me the most though. Really, really aggravating. I occasionally fall into it too when I point out that the 65+ crowd is controlling the country and voting to keep ticking off the rest of the world and keeping their social security payments flowing in. But even when I say things like that, I make very clear that I make a generalization. Ron Paul is 77. The same example of a generalization would be valid with the GOP. Ron Paul was a Republican, but most Republicans still suck.

        • Holy shit, that’s the first sensible thing I’ve heard from mikefromwichita.

          Maybe there is hope for the world after-all?

          …Nahh, that was just a hick-up.

    • MFW, bullshit, kids have nothing else to do but keep tabs on parents and snoop in everything there is to snoop, see all there is and know each and every time their parents even go take a shit, and then do their worst for the time allotted. I have had this pulled on me and unlike you, remember when I could pull off anything with my parents…and that’s been long ago. Kids are the like the inmates and just one closed eye or one snore from the jailer and they have their number. I could drink or do anything I wanted if I just knew When and I made a life out of knowing that just like all my friends who had any intelligence. I set up a dummy thing out of pillows in my bed and slipped out the window countless times and i was damned good at it. You could look in my room and swear that was me in bed. What’s a parent to do? Turn on the light and inspect the bed when they’re tired and only want to check and see their kids asleep? I proved no one can be there all the time and my parents were great people and kept a close watch on me but nobody can be expected to thwart a little criminal and that’s what most kids are, just waiting for the opportunity to have some fun…and that’s criminal these days although it wasn’t when I was growing up. I’m amazed I never get the emails for these things either. I just happened to notice people were on a different thread than me. Oh well. Don’t blame the little heathens, they just do what comes naturally and parents shouldn’t have to live to the standards of jailers.

      • Eightsouthman wrote, “but nobody can be expected to thwart a little criminal and that’s what most kids are”

        Ha! So funny, and so true.

        But I don’t get this, “MFW, bullshit, […] parents shouldn’t have to live to the standards of jailers.”

        Seems to me they do.
        What am I missing?
        Not being a parent, for one. I surmise.

        Perhaps we diverge in that I think parents are the property owners of their children until their children can seek emancipation?

        • “Perhaps we diverge in that I think parents are the property owners of their children until their children can seek emancipation?”

          Roth, 8 is right there. Our children aren’t our property. They’re members of the family and as such, they are their own selves, people with the same will to live their lives as I have. As a parent, I don’t own my daughter. I’m responsible for her well being and for teaching her what I know. I’m responsible for providing for her and teaching her how to provide for herself, but she owns her own life, body and soul.

          That legal doctrine of emancipation of a minor is a fiction. It’s a means for the state to terminate parental rights, but it doesn’t emancipate anyone. I won’t be a jailer as a part of parental responsibility. I’ll follow the example of my parents by teaching my daughter that she owns herself, and is responsible for herself. That’s the best I can do.

          • Ed, it seems to me emancipation precedes government by several thousands of years. Emancipation is a result of natural law. It happens when children start their own families, or simply act like adults, and/or go on their own.

            Your description of a parent seems a bit like a parole officer. I know of parents who let their children live on potato chips, Oreo cookies and soda pop because they don’t want to tell their children what to do.
            A parent as parole officer can guide them and might feel or be responsible for them, but in many cases, without any kind of ownership, nothing changes for the better in that setup. YMMV?

            It’s a lot like marriage, some people get married with the idea the man is the head of the household and breaks the tie during disagreements. The wife willingly becomes the property of the husband.
            Other couples have co-equal partnerships. Is it more frequent they have long blown out arguments that never get resolved, and things like that that result in dee-vorce? It seems that way. Who knows?

            Either way works under Panarchy, though.

        • If libertarians say a person ‘owns’ their own body, when and how does a person give up their ownership of their sperm or egg, and their claim to the child?

          If a person says they don’t own their children while claiming they only have responsibility for them, from where and by what authority is the responsibility obtained? Who or what is the determining factor as to who is responsible for a child?

          Seems to me, without ownership, there’s no responsibility. The opposite is what the state is trying to do to the boys in this article, that is, assessing responsibility without ownership.
          The same is true of the guy out in traffic, the one the state is trying to charge for what the cops did while shooting at the guy, placing responsibility without determining ownership.

          Without family ownership of its own, a babysitter has as much responsibility as the parents, and so too, the state.
          Without a claim of ownership, that is how the state usurps the rights of the parents. And so too, the individual.

          The parents as owners of their children is not as the role of a jailer. The state is that which takes the role of jailer, because the state has no authority to do so, while the parents do have authority simply by being the parents.
          The parents, take the role of parents.

          • Roth, I agree with you about ownership and property. The problem might be with the language.

            If you own a TV or a car and you want to dismantle them, that’s fine, you own them, they’re you’re property. That’s not true of your children.

            Perhaps better words to use are you have stewardship of your issue.

            That means, your oldest boy was sent to the junkyard to find recycling, and beg, and work odd jobs 10 hours a day from age 5. He’s still at it and is 12 now. He is the strength of body and protector of his family.

            While simultaneously that your youngest boy never worked, got a computer, nice clothes, and a tutor and is being groomed for attending the university, and is 9 now. He is the strength of mind and dreamer of his family.

            Each boy has a deep love for the other. And for their wise father. And they each have each other’s backs in different ways.

            They each can cut a modern Kool-Aid drinking XBOX playing American sissy boy into ribbons too, and then run circles around him, given a fair opportunity.

            That’s what being a wise father exercising ownership/stewardship over his property/issue has sometimes looked like. That’s what being an American used to look like.

          • RAH, I believe Rothbard would disagree with you. A person becomes owner of his body by being the first to actually control its actions, when it starts moving on its own sometime in utero. One libertarian implication of this is that while parents might voluntarily claim responsibility for their offspring’s injurious acts, they can’t actually be forced to be responsible. Might seem callous, but the only logically consistent positions are self-ownership or ownership by others, and I choose the former.

          • Duncan wrote, “A person becomes owner of his body by being the first to actually control its actions”

            Would that be some time right after being potty trained?
            Or after they can walk upright,… and outrun dogs to the tree?

            I just have a difficult time seeing a baby in a cradle as being an owner – in control – as much as anyone can be.

            Seems like stewardship can only come about through an ownership of some type. An ownership that a child removes, when they are able to. Otherwise the state can look at a parent letting their 8 – 12 year old child get an ear pierced and call that child abuse and mutilation (a.k.a. bad stewardship according to them) and use that as a pre-text to usurp the stewardship of the parent. It’s so easy to do without a claim of ownership of any sort.

            With responsibility or stewardship, at what point do the parents no longer have ownership of the product of their own bodies (the egg and the sperm) what is that process? Is there a form to sign?

            Currently, it seems there are four instances which remove the ownership claim: the state takes it, the child takes it, or the parents expire or give it away. There should only be three.

            Ownership within a family is like freedom. The statist are afraid that if people have true freedom all The People will rob and pillage each other. If parents owned their children, it’s not likely they’d disassemble them like a car. Religious and social values and such would reduce it as much as anything does now.
            It’s not like parents disassembled children en masse in the old wild west where there were no laws or cops preventing such.

            It doesn’t really matter, the collective is set on being the true owners of all people, and it does not look like things are changing any time soon.

            The statement, “That’s my child.” appears to only mean, “I’m responsible for that being”.
            Odd, that twist of English.

  33. This law will be passed because there enough sheep out there to support it.

    My younger brother is a heroin addict, who is hopefully in his final days… he blames the whole family for “not being there when he needed us” for his problems. People like him will cheer laws like this, and he is certainly not alone in his support for tyranny.

    As long as 51% of people blame the other 49%, there is democracy! *Cue cheers of the Nazi masses*.

  34. I don’t see how these kids can be found guilty on this charge. Any lawyer worth his salt will simply point out that a 17 year old kid can’t possibly have enough experience with alcohol to know when another 17 YO has had enough.

    In fact, that charge really won’t hold up for anyone who isn’t an expert in the effects of alcohol on the human body. The line of questioning on the stand would begin and end with “what is your background in observing the effects of alcohol on the human body?” Any answer other than “It was my doctoral thesis in grad school” would make any answer hearsay and/or speculation and get the testimony thrown out.

    This smells of the trend in prosecution to throw as many charges out there as possible hoping enough of them will scare the defendant into a plea-bargain.

    • “I don’t see how these kids can be found guilty on this charge.”

      I can. The judge will be the sole arbiter in the courtroom, since this is juvie court. The prosecutor will want it to play out in juvie, because to charge them as adults will bring a jury into the process. Their attorneys will be limited in what they can present, and will have little input into the railroading process.

      George Carlin said, ” Prosecutors are the worst slime that ever crawled out of the devil’s asshole.”

      They have remade the entire system into their own playground, taking over control of the grand jury so they can be the sole decider of who is charged and who skates away clean. To them, everyone is guilty simply by accusation.

    • This prosecution is modeled after many successful prosecutions of persons who illegally provided the means of death to the person who died. It will hinge upon who gave the dead girl alcohol . I will bet that the boys have already admitted that they provided the drinks. Again, almost all mothers will agree with the prosecution.

      • Of course the mothers will agree. Because, regardless of reality, in their twisted moral calculus,”somone has to pay”. And it sure as shit isn’t going to be the one who actually took the drinks: that is the girl herself… oh, hell no!… She’s never responsible for her own actions. And thus we see why more American men despise their female American counterparts.

        • I just don’t like idiots, male or female. This whole thing reminds me of the “My body, my choice” thing… well, except for drugs, prostitution, alcohol, gun rights, incandescent lightbulbs, big gulps, etc. At least libertarians who support abortion rights have some degree of consistency, most people don’t, and that really, really ticks me off.

          I know my mother wouldn’t agree with this crap charge, but I have a feeling she’d be in a minority there.

    • Perhaps, and if there is an acquittal, the only thing that has been done is the continuing paycheck for the attorneys (both sides) and destruction of the lives of these 17-year-olds.

      But following the chain of responsibility for the death of the driver, someone could make a case for everybody from Honda, to the girl’s grandparents. Any of them could have prevented it. But the only one who prevented a recurrence is the Grim Reaper himself.

      This is the theory of life as espoused by the angry atheists, survival of the fittest, no God, no afterlife, here and now. Why are they so upset and want to punish kids who assist natural selection?

  35. Once again, driving is the model. And this is a death that involves driving.
    What does the state teach with driving?
    Drive slow for what the other guy may do. Always yield to the other guy. Do the work of the other guy. This is a simple stepwise extension of it.

    What does the rest of this society do? Always push the work on to others. On to a minority. Our rulers enslave us all socially and the masses mimic the behavior enslaving their neighbors.

    What happens in corporations? Same thing. I have watched in my career as the smarter harder working people became more and more burdened as others got off loaded or just plain had their jobs eliminated.

    Fewer and fewer responsible people doing the work of the entire society. Then we wonder why those few people burn out.

    But, for the rulers, the bureaucrats, this works great. Under this model of concentrated responsibility, their political power and the legal use of violence will give them total power.

    That’s what this is. Not holding them responsible for her actions, holding them responsible for not making decisions for her. For not taking on the burden of life for other people. They failed to do her work for her.

    Just an aside, I am going to guess that the feminists are once again silent on this ‘well the men should have kept her safe issue’, something they would be all over if men had acted to keep a woman out of a dangerous job she couldn’t handle, because feminism has never once gone out of its way to lift social obligations off of men nor stopped the accumulation of more burden on them. Furthermore, another dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t catch 22 is damn useful.

  36. “Instead of Big Brother watching you, everyone will be watching you.”

    And the socialist state is advanced a little towards their goal, which is having you watch yourself.

  37. “Imagine if it becomes accepted doctrine.”
    It already has to a large extent. The police in all jurisdictions try to hunt down the ‘friend’ who gave or shared the fatal drug in accidental overdose cases if death results.
    Interesting title: Brother’s Keeper. This false belief is largely responsible for the attitude reflected in this piece. Cain killed his brother Abel and when confronted by God, Cain asked the rhetorical question, “am I my brothers keeper?” Of coarse he wasn’t, God was. It was Cain’s accusation of God’s dereliction of duty. God was supposed to protect and keep Abel safe. Where the Hell was God when the killing happened? God’s point of view is that, yes, He is His people’s keeper and it anyone is enemy to God’s people, they are enemy to God. Truth is; people would rather be their brother’s keeper than rely on God. The God of the Bible is the ultimate libertarian when understood. People should challenge their assumptions, especially those ‘gifted’ to you by your culture.

    • I agree and the socialist like to get the bible thumpers on board by misinterpertation of the message. Somewhere the socialist proclaim that theft is the same as charity and using the proceeds of theft is keeping of your brother as well. A majority of people are very incompetent at getting the real message. I’ve met too many my whole life. Their whole life is in disarray and they like to preach false doctrines, they should just look in the mirror and ask…”Am I good fruit?”.

    • Cain is accused by the voice of being the bad guy, because he busts his ass tilling the soil and growing crops all day.

      Then some voice says, set some of your crops on fire because I say so. Cain was like, what the hell? And reluctantly does it, but the voice still isn’t happy about his reluctance.

      Abel is the good guy, and a good shepherds says the voice. Always tending to his animals, unless the voice tells him to do some pointless heinous shit. WTF?

      One day, the voice says, burn some of your animals. Instead of asking, WTF? Abel thinks that’s a great idea, and slaughters his best animals and then sets them on fire. Abel would have set himself or Cain on fire if the voice asked him to. He’s just that good.

      Cain realizes Abel is a dangerous moronic psychopath just like the voice, with no limits to his stupidity. Cain feels compelled to kill him as an act of self-preservation. When the voice comes by again, Cain tries to preserve his life by not answering the questions directly.

      Somehow the voice can hear Abel’s blood crying from the ground. The voice is troubled by the crying blood, but the burned animals, well that’s just the smell of victory to him.

      The voice, claims he made the Earth, and is most likely some manner of megalomaniac psychopath, delusional and unstable. Cain heads off into the woods to get away from the voice and somehow manages to triumph and make a go of the Earth in spite of the voice or Abel.

      • A few qustions Tor. If Adam and Eve “ate a fruit”, why did they cover their genitals with an apron of fig leaves instead of a mask for their mouths? If Adam was Cain’s father, why isn’t Adam mentioned in Cains genealogy in Gen. 4? If Cain and Abel were more than half-brothers, why did YHWH appoint a new “seed” for Adam with Seth, to replace Abel? Could this “serpent” (literally “shining one”) named Lucifer, the most beautiful angel, this light bringer that left his first estate, find Adam’s wife “fair” and “share” some of his DNA with her to produce an offspring called Cain? Perhaps Cain and Able were the result of heteropaternal superfecundation like Heracles and Iphicles? Perhaps Cain was roth and his coutenance fallen because he had no birthright in Adam’s lineage and figured if he offed the legitimate heir, he’d be able to take his place? But what comes around goes around and none of us ever really ever “get away with it” whatever “it” is. So Cain was caught in the act as the Universe eternally and perpetually balances itself. He was sent off into the land of wandering where he went on to sire a lineage of liars, boasters, murderers, arms manufacturers and entertainers. You see his spiritual offspring running the major military contractors and the media / entertainment business right now. These are not righteous men, they are amoral opportunists like Cain; look at the fruits their efforts bear. Read Gen. 5 for its deeper meaning, not just the words. And keep in mind that the Freemasons claim Tubal-Cain as their progenitor, hence the “two ball cane” symbol they use. Claiming you are the offspring of Tubal-Cain is akin to proudly claiming your lineage comes from Stalin or Hitler. We were warned. We have ignored it. We are in deep ca-ca now because the offspring of Cain, spiritual at least, run things and to them the rest of us are livestock. Think about it.

        • Boothe those are some interesting takes on the parable of Adam and Eve. I’ve heard similar thoughts before and have pondered it. I do find the whole story of Adam and Eve a classical parable, that is a story meant to convey a deeper message. For example, why if Adam and Eve were the only humans to be created that Cain was able to “wander” and thus procreate elsewhere? Which kind of lends to the idea that although Adam and Eve could be the first of their kind in lineage they surely weren’t the first human like genome on earth.

          But again as a parable like you I think the larger message may very well have been something akin to evil and good seeds. Throughout much the bible there seems to be a message that there is the wheat and the tare. I’ve been mixed at times wanting to believe that humanity is purely choice based in evil versus good, rather than the seed theory which is totally heredity. Though numerous studies by even psychologist have more or less verified the seed theory as being more correct.

          Some people seem to seriously be born without a conscience, they also seem to lack higher level faculties and the two seem to go hand in hand. I’d like to believe that most of mankind is of the good seed and at least has some choice yet to logistical choose righteousness, order, and creation. Though what if a man is born incapable of logic and love and compassion. What if these things cannot be taught to them because they simply are not of the correct seed and thus have no inheritance? Even the prodigal son was given his inheritance (logic and truth) such that was the sign that he’d again return to the father. However, what if a man is born without the inheritance (properties) of what we assume is Godliness. That bothers me quite a bit, but also lends to why the good becomes a remnant or outcast to the power structures of mankind (government and empires). It also lends to what I have observed that the forces of supernatural creation versus supernatural destruction of soul want to reproduce their traits in a competitive rivalry.

          Again even if the parable seems at times rather strange to me. I have also found it interesting. Like I said in earlier posts the Adam and Eve parable eludes to a food that would have allowed our species to exist without death. Interestingly enough food is energy. And energy is the explanation of entropy, that is the loss of useful energy. Is it not suprising therefore that our need to eat is ultimately what ages and kills us as a process of entropy. And that process in full study seems to be well investigated with the glycation theory of aging of protein structures. So again the parable indicates a truth hidden behind the story.

          One thing I have noticed, however is that our antiparticles generally get great joy out of destroying and enslaving. They especially hate goodness, good people, creative attributes of God, and want those things that they lack on their own merits so they literally steal them. In every aspect they take the bearer and deliverer of the fruit, take the fruit, and get great joy out of the destruction of the deliverer. I’ve talked many times about my opinion that good people will stop have to stop giving their fruits to the bastards and bitches (sons of Lucifer), if they are to survive and be free. Too many of us (who are probably very small in number) are snared into the wicked man made traps, too many of us give our Godly fruits to evil that in return want us annihilated.

          Like any parable I doubt that the story has to be a real life story, that the particpants were necessarily called Adam and Eve. That there was a literal tree of bad fruit as in leaves and some poisoning sugar tasting treat. What you said about Cain being of a bad tree and thus fruit seems to have a ring of some validity to it. Just like the glycation thing being a hidden meaning behind aging. I find the whole parable very interesting to say the least very figurative to something much more behind the scenes like yourself.


          • Tor what was most moving to me in the link you provided was this:

            “Ironically, though he had created what many believe to be the most important invention in history, Gutenberg was a victim of unscrupulous business associates who took control of his business and left him in poverty. Nevertheless, the invention of the movable-type printing press meant that Bibles and books could finally be effectively produced in large quantities in a short period of time. This was essential to the success of the Reformation.”

            To me this is quite the story of all Godly (including me) and inventive men on this earth in a nutshell. Good men connected to God create and bad men reap the benefits by dishonor. You name the greatest thinkers including Jesus and Tesla to Galileo and see if you don’t find the same sad story as Gutenberg. It may be greater than the Adam and Eve conventional story of Able and Cain that you seem to propose is rather inverted. I agree that many of the authors of the bible seem rather un-Godly and that the tare or shall I say evil people have subverted the real message of it by planting their seeds of falsity. I’ve already been made aware that the way it came to become its current incarnation. That said I think the theme of Good versus Evil seems to make sense to me as I have said the world appears bipolar in every other aspect of physical law. Opposite forces appear quite natural in natural law. And from my own standpoint of walking on this earth a version of Cain and Able types exist in this world view.

            And I have concluded from my own spiritual quest that there is a supernatural force applying a divine judgment to keep the dishonest in check. Beyond that I read the bible very interestingly in that some spots of it still seem rather inspirational.

            If the real story is inverted in names or if the current incarnation was modified at some point makes no difference to me as again someone found it wise to convey its message that the bad literally tries to steal and profit and kill the good in this world, ie Gutenberg as per your link. Or that food is the source of our aging which seems to be true. Or that some kind of sinful fruit (reproductive) caused men to become wicked in seed, rather interesting.

            Given all this I stand by my original assertion that there is a direction of order, intelligence and a path to enlightenment and there is the opposite. That the orderly is predisposed to be used by the inadequate and unfair on this world view.

            Also as you probably have read that I have been a very large skeptic that the bible is infallible, but I also believe it to be influenced heavily between thoughts of divine mixed in. These nuggets of truth should be considered but not forced on others. As Bevin and I have discussed that all religion has a transcendental value to it. And living in a state of perpetual nothingness or moral relativism is by far the greatest dishonor to ones own soul.

            I am curious though for you to provide the source where you have found that Able was the bad guy and Cain the good guy. Its of my biggest desire to know such things as I literally hate people who play the victim while actually being a bully (evil shits). I’ve seen it so much in my life that wicked people do love one another, that they profit off the kind and gentle. That something supernatural has corrected my course from relative morality. But one thing is for sure I hate the bad being the good and the good being the bad and quite frankly this world is full of that kind of shit. So please provide your sources so I can learn more about what you propose on the Cain and Able story in specifics.



            To me the question is whether a man can pick out anything of value in the bible, and I believe I have with a rather skeptical eye. Psalms and the new testament seem to have the most meaning to myself.

        • The Assyrians forced the Jews into bondage of the Babylonian tillers of the soil, bakers of bricks, and miners of asphalt and bitumen.

          Their disparagement of their benefactor and protector Babylonians is what came home to roost when Hitler disparaged his benefactors – the Jewish shopkeepers who kept him alive when he was destitute.

          Cains are tillers of the soil. Farmers. Cains are rural leave me aloners. Miners of the ore. Frackers of the oil. Hermits of the mountains, islands, and the north.

          Abels are herders of livestock. Ranchers. Abels are urbanizing tenders and sacrificers. Lorders over human hierarchies. Aggregaters of the tropical hordes. Builders of pyramids and wonders of the world from slave labor.

          Covering comes from learning you are subordinate and vulnerable. Children learn to cover as they grow older. They learn to lie and hide from their parents and peers, because they sense their actions are uncovered.

          The first bible written in English was by Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. John Wycliffe. The English bible was subtly altered over time to serve the interests of the Monarchy. Consider King James 1611 “improvements” of making a more poetic scripture. Any cynic would wonder in what other ways he improved the English translation.

          Adams and Eves, in Hebrew, these names symbolically represent the divine roles of the chosen men and women that God has created in them. In addition, these names symbolically represent the beginning and the end steps of the Plan of Salvation.

          While we can spread the word of these Judeo/Christian/Islamic chosen people throughout the world, it is not scripturally sound, to say this applies to all men. The Chinese came from the Yangtze river and their elders were taught language from writings discovered on oracle bones.

          To say the “good word” which appeared 20,000 years after the occurrences in China is to be a priori their governing document is patently absurd on the face of it. It is something to tell them about, but never something to force on them through deception or strength of arms.

          Adam in Hebrew is pronounced: ‘adam and looks like this:

          The Aleph, א, as the first character in the Hebrew alphabet represents God himself, who is the One or should be number one in Christian’s lives.

          The Dalet, ד, represents man or mankind.

          The Mem, ם, represents the world, or water, which is mostly covered by water.

          Reading from right to left then, to be an Adam means to leave the presence of God. All Christian mankind comes down to the earth as mortal beings. Adams fall and grow from babies that adult man might be. We grow and increase in our mortalness as we mature and know good from evil. The Adams are the Geneses of the Plan of Salvation for all of us.

          On a side note, the last two characters in Adam, דם, are pronounced dam and it means blood in Hebrew. Blood is the symbol of mortality. By removing the Aleph, א, or God in our lives we become mortal, or subject to death. So, to be an Adam in Hebrew has further meaning.

          Eve in Hebrew is pronounced: hava and looks like this:


          The Chet, ח, represents a sacred or holy enclosure, the most important of which is the Holy of Holies, or the temple, or the presence of God.

          The Vav, ו, represents the veil of the temple.

          The Hey, ה, represents the spirit or the name of Christ.

          Reading from right to left then, Eve means the other end of the Plan of Salvation, returning to the presence of God by passing through the veil where Christ and His spirit dwells. Eve’s name also represents the closeness to the spirit that Christian women inherently have, through their divine nature, to become more like Him.

          Hence, Adam’s name is the beginning of the Plan of Salvation and Eve’s, the destination of the Plan that all Christians hope for. Only together as man and woman unified, sealed and working together in faith and good works, can they both make it together.

        • Cain’s line was specifically a line ending in death. Cain’s line were the sons of Satan. Keep in mind how in Genesis 3:15 God promises that Eve will bring forth the Messiah who will save many from their sins. In Genesis 4, Eve says that when she and Adam had Cain (Look at the text, Adam was the father) Eve says she “Got a man with the help of the Lord”. Eve clearly had a hope that Cain would bring forth the Messiah. Instead, Cain wound up murdering Abel and clearly rejecting God and his authority. Cain’s line was the spiritual descendents of the serpent. Hence why Seth “Replaced” him.

    • So you say God is a Libertarian ??!?

      God needs libertarianism as much as a fish needs a bicycle….

      Amazing….just amazing… matter WHAT the philosophy, God or Jaysus is ON YOUR SIDE…..

      Please no more…..too much laughing… sides hurt !!!

      • What god is – or isn’t – and whether he (or she or it) exists or not – is speculative and probably beyond objective proof.

        Self-ownership, on the other hand, is axiomatic. We all own ourselves – and no one owns anyone else. From this flows the Libertarian’s bedrock principle of non-aggression. If you do not own other people, you have no right to impose your will on them by force, nor to harness their labor or seize the fruits thereof.

        The only ethically acceptable violence is defensive, in response to aggression.

        No need for Chaysus or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even.

      • I’ll wager you believe God believes in Social Justice. Social justice is a reflection of God’s essential respect and concern for each person and an effort to protect the essential human freedom necessary for each person to achieve his or her destiny as a child of God.

        I’ll bet the Government is your God. Bow your head and pray for Ban Ki-moon’s blessing.

        If people strongly believe that God has a plan for their lives, then they are more likely to see government as doing too much.

        Those who agree strongly that “God has a plan for all of us” are least supportive of government programs that help those out of work.

        A majority of those who strongly believe in God’s plan also believe that “able-bodied people who are out of work shouldn’t receive unemployment checks.” As a belief in God’s plan grows weaker, so does agreement that those out of work should be helped by government. Three-quarters of those who do not believe in God’s plan believe that government should provide unemployment aid to those out of work.

        Baylor Study: The Politics of God’s Plan for Your Life

        hysterical (adj.)
        1610s, from Latin hystericus “of the womb,” from Greek hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter.

        mindset (n.)
        also mind-set, “habits of mind formed by previous experience,” 1920, in educators’ jargon, from mind (n.) + set (v.).

        analogy (n.)
        1540s (perhaps early 15c.), from Old French analogie or directly from Latin analogia, from Greek analogia “proportion,” from ana- “upon, according to” (see ana-) + logos “ratio,” also “word, speech, reckoning” (see logos). A mathematical term used in a wider sense by Plato.

        No matching terms found.

        Every ADULT knows bartender business is a LAW! And one that is ignored again and again.
        Unknown meaning.

        • Tor: you must be a walking encyclopedia! Thanks for understanding that ‘God’ and ‘Government’ are competing authorities. And data to back it up. Amazing!

      • The word “libertarian” doesn’t appear in the Bible, and so I won’t use it to describe God.

        The moral wrongness of aggressing against other human beings, however, is Biblical. 1 Corinthians 5, the Golden Rule, “Blessed are the peacemakers,” etc.

        Of course, some people will deny that these rules apply to “governing authorities” to which I respond with Deuteronomy 17.

          • I try to avoid labels because they tend to be taken out of context. Some people think “libertarian” means libertine, or that there’s no such thing as a pro-life libertarian, or that libertarianism is just “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” or what have you.

            But I believe that if you really tried to live by Jesus’ ethical pronouncments, you’d have to reject the State, because the State is incompatible with what Jesus taught. The State is a violation of Luke 6:31, Matthew 5:9, and Romans 12:18 (The last one is technically Paul but Paul taught the exact same doctrine that Christ taught.)

    • Eric is talking about something way different than the original story on which the title is based.

      Cain was not punished by God for any action on Abel’s part (Which would be what Eric would be calling “being our brother’s keeper”.) Cain was punished because he murdered Abel. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was a lie. Cain lied to God.

      Mind you, the NAP doesn’t really apply to God anyway. And if you tried to apply it to him, God would be the rightful owner of human beings since he created them, and thus would have “homesteaded” humanity. Its absurd to try to apply the NAP to God, but even trying to doesn’t really change the fact that God is the rightful owner of human beings.

      The NAP is a relation between human beings and other human beings, not human beings and God.

      Mind you, you could discredit this analysis by arguing that God does not exist, but that would be a different point entirely, and would make the conversation moot.

      • David, how does the NAP not really apply to God?

        Seems to me he smites those who agress against him while leaving the innocent to live. While the creator is the owner, he leaves it up to individuals to follow him or not, he does not force them.
        How is that not the NAP?

        Saying the reason is because God “homesteaded” humanity is similar to my counter-argument to the idea that parents are not following the NAP because they spank their children.

        This was an interesting discussion (imho) have you listened to it?:

        Walter Block and Stephan Molyneux debate on spanking (using violence against) children

        • One of the many critiques I have of the Christian conception of god is the “love it – or leave it” doctrine. Only it’s worse than merely “love it – or leave it.” The doctrine is: “Accept Jesus” – or be consigned to Hell. Further, that you must “accept” on faith – not fact.

          One could pick this apart many ways, but just for openers: Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, minimally. The New Testament is less than 2,000 years old. The Old Testament maybe a few hundred years older. Uncountable generations of humans have come and gone before anyone heard “the good news.” And even when “the good news” was heard – it was only heard by a relative handful of the planet’s human population. The judeo-Christian conception is the Herrenvolk conception.

          As far as god owning us – and so being entitled to do as he likes with us: A despicable doctrine that amounts to the same thing as arguing that a parent may do anything it likes with its child. Anything at all.

          The bottom line is no one knows whether a god or gods exist – much less their nature. People believe all sorts of things, of course.

          But that’s a different thing.

          • Eric,

            You have hit the nail on the head AFAIAC. I find it somewhat ironic that the default position that many “libertarians” take is a Christian one. You see this so often….essentially, I believe in a libertarian position but where it conflicts with my religion, I must make an exception. Many people pooh pooh my position as too rigid, but consider that not sticking to principles was what transformed the U.S. republic from relatively free to the police state we now endure.

            I don’t have a problem with anybody worshiping any mythical creature he or she wishes to, but when even a whisper of coercion results from that worship, then said individual has crossed the line, IMNSHO. As always, YMMV and OALA, EHOATAS.

            • Hi Giuseppe,

              I’m cool with anyone believing whatever they want to believe. I know I believe some oddball things!

              But, I insist on a higher standard when someone claims to know.

              Christian theology is almost infinitely malleable. This is its genius – as well as its curse. Genius – in that it can be almost anything anyone wants it to be. The Bible’s “true meaning” can be parsed infinitely – and no one can prove their version is the right version. A curse – because this malleability renders it meaningless. So much feel-good (and sometimes, feel bad) platitudinous double-talk and gibberish. Monotheistic Gods. Gods who die. Omniscient Gods who can’t find their creation. Perfect Gods who create imperfectly. Et Cetera.



          • Eric, I understand your point with some of your stuff here. Let me go point by point.

            I don’t honestly know how long humankind has been around. There’s obviously a “young earth” position and an “old earth” positino as well as debates over the length of the geneaologies and whether any, and how many, generations were skipped and so forth. As neither a scientist nor a historian, I don’t claim to know the answer to these questions. However, I don’t think its true that nobody knew the Judeo-Christian revelation (I don’t really like that term, BTW, Judaism is no closer to Christianity than Islam is… I put this there primarily as a criticism of certain elements of the Christian Right) before Moses and the Israelites is an error, IMO. If you read through the first 11 chapters of Genesis you can find a number of examples of people who believed before the Abrahamic revelation, and the rest of Genesis shows people who believed before the Mosaic Revelation. Now, can I prove that those events actually happened? No. But since the Christian belief would be that they did, this fact alone discredits one of your arguments against Christianity.

            As for the “tiny number of people” argument, this implies that God actually wants everyone to be saved. This is not the case. Which seems harsh at first glance, but realize that according to Christian doctrine, man has sinned against God… an infinite being, and thus deserves eternal punishment. Not only is God above man, but his being so is precisely the thing that prevents human kings from being above man.

            Regarding God owning us, I understand your point there. Does a parent have a right to abuse their child? Of course not. The difference is that a child is just as much a human being as the parent, whereas God is infinitely higher.

            @Giuseppe Crowe- I can only speak for myself, but I’m not advocating force. Take a look at 1 Samuel 8. I believe that the biggest problem in our society now is that God is being replaced with Gov.

            Of course there will always be a few people that don’t worship either one, but that’s an extreme minority. Most people do not have ANY semblance of morality without God. Their “morality’ is solely based on majority rule.

            Mind you, I could say plenty about GOP Party Line Christians, there are a number of points where I can, and do, use their own book against them.

            • Hi Dave,

              Minimally, recorded human history goes back at least 10,000 years. It’s pretty indisputable there were people on this earth long before there was any notion of Jesus or the god of the Old Testament.

              As far what’s in Genesis – what’s in the Bible, generally: It’s what would be regarded as hearsay in a court of law. It can’t be cross-examined; there’s no real way to substantiate any of it. One can believe it. But it’s not like Newton’s Principia – something objective, verifiable.

              But when you write the following, it reminds me why I (so to speak) threw Christianity in the Woods:

              “As for the “tiny number of people” argument, this implies that God actually wants everyone to be saved. This is not the case. Which seems harsh at first glance, but realize that according to Christian doctrine, man has sinned against God… an infinite being, and thus deserves eternal punishment. Not only is God above man, but his being so is precisely the thing that prevents human kings from being above man.”

              How can men who never even heard of this particular god (much less his “son”), who were born, lived and died long before the “good news” was presented – or who lived in other regions of the world (the New World, for instance) deserve eternal punishment?

              Moreover, what sort of benevolent god imposes eternal punishment for temporal “sins”?

              The whole business about condemning people to eternal punishment merely because they did not reverence this god has always struck me as the apotheosis of Cloverism: You must obey – or else!

              This god isn’t interested primarily in goodness. In fact – according to Christian doctrine – one can have lived an utterly loathsome life, abused one’s fellow human beings in the most repellent, unjustifiable ways imaginable – and then be “saved” (and forgiven) merely for “professing Jesus.”

              In other words, goodness consists in obedience. Nothing more.

              That’s an idea that makes me head for the woods!

          • eric wrote, “The doctrine is: “Accept Jesus” – or be consigned to Hell.”

            Hmp, many people see it as more like: “Accept Jesus” – or you cannot stay in his house.
            It’s not so much a “punishment” as David wrote, it’s more like denial of companionship. Being outside of his companionship is being in non-existence, too bad, so sad. You had the choice. This is totally inline with our creator being a libertarian.

            eric wrote, “The judeo-Christian conception is the Herrenvolk conception.”

            Only, from what I understand, the peoples living before, those who never heard of Jesus, get a free pass to a second chance later. It certainly seems to fit with the idea that all the great religions of the world are a revelation from a supreme being. If that is so, your conclusion doesn’t stand.

            I do not understand why you think your creator owning you is a despicable doctrine?
            Is that how you view the cats you own, or the building you make?
            From that, a parent(s) May Do anything they like with their child. It is a natural law.The same as a cats meow, and the infanticide a cat can make of its litter. The only questions are, is it ok, and who gets to decide if it’s ok or not?
            Why is it ok for a cat, but not a human?
            [Not that I think it’s ok. Be clear on that. … It’s just none of my got-damn business. It is free will. or in the case of the cat, instinct, or something? Even then, it is troubling to witness]

            I thought of your position while reading this:

            “When American journalist Theodore White visited China in March of 1943, “he saw corpses by the sides of the roads.” He calculated that “about 5 million people were dead or dying.” Collingham writes: “Some peasants sold or murdered their children. Mr Jingguan lost his father to starvation in 1942. By 1944 his family were so desperate that they sold his sister, then aged fifteen, to an older man, but she too died.””…


            It seems clear to me, the parents ‘owned’ their children, as much as anyone can own anything. Again, natural law.
            Mankind’s lack of immortality implies mankind is owned by The Creator, just the same.

            For a man to say, “The bottom line is no one knows whether a god or gods exist” …is no different than a man who walks out of a newly built house while exclaiming, “There’s no such thing as carpenters!”
            You, are The Proof.
            Yeah, it’s a belief,… supported by the fact that you exist.
            For many, it’s the particulars that aren’t certain. Meno-meno.

            If you choose not to think that way, it is of course your decision, “we came from nothing, we are nothing, and we go on to nothingness’? In the meantime, the collective known as The State dictates that The State determines what a parent can, and cannot do, with their child. Even David agrees, ergo; “Does a parent have a right to abuse their child? Of course not.” So then, ear piercings are criminal!? Ect… Ect… Ect… Let it be written, Let it be so. Wa-la, Ipso facto, gooberment and the collective replaces God and family (and every individual becomes subordinate to The State). If The State is the one to decide what is or is not abuse, The State – is – The Owner. …For now.
            Not the individual, not the parent. The State.
            Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato. But that’s just gibberish, eh?

            Insert video of a woman yelling out, “That’s child abuse to let ’em ride that motorcycle!” here, x.

            The audience reacts by saying in unison, “The nerve of those parents thinking They Alone have the say in what their child can do! Despicable! … Quick! Call the Stasi!”

            eric wrote, “In other words, goodness consists in obedience [to your God, your creator?]. Nothing more.”

            Ask your earthly father that and see what he says?
            “That’s a good boy.” or, when your mother says, “Do as your father tells you to” means nothing?

            Fine lines, all around.

            /Rant Off.
            Pardon the length, I prolly shouldn’t have even typed it. Let alone hit the Post Comment button. Anyway, The paint is dry now. Commence: Coat Two.

            • Hi RB,

              You write:

              “Hmp, many people see it as more like: “Accept Jesus” – or you cannot stay in his house. It’s not so much a “punishment” as David wrote, it’s more like denial of companionship.”

              This is your interpretation of scripture – which is fine, you’re entitled to it and I’m not claiming it’s false. I am claiming … it’s your interpretation – which goes back to my earlier point that the Bible and Christian theology is whatever anyone claims them to be. There is no single standard. The church is fractured and each sect (each individual) has their own “Christianity” that differs from that of other Christians, who have been squabbling among themselves since time immemorial about the “true meaning” of “the word.” The Bible itself is nothing more than an arbitrarily chosen collection of certain documents, edited and formatted, by a handful of churchmen… subsequently re-edited, translated and parsed countless times in a babble of languages.

              Which is right? Your guess is as good as mine – and neither of us can prove the other is wrong.

              “Only, from what I understand, the peoples living before, those who never heard of Jesus, get a free pass to a second chance later.”

              See point made above. What is the source of this doctrine? Other doctrines (or explications thereof) claim that “none come to the father but through the son” – and there is no mention made of those who existed before the revelation (by men) of Christian doctrine… nor of those who existed in other parts of the world during and afterward.

              On ownership: There is a difference between owning a material/inanimate object (which is absolute) and “owning” another living being, which in the case of parents and kids entails stewardship and obligation – and is not absolute nor permanent.

              I have every right to take a ball peen hammer to my restored Kawasaki, if I so choose. A parent does not have the right to abuse or kill a child.

              On our existence/the world implying a creator:

              This is just an assertion – and more fundamentally, it does not prove the creator God of Christianity any more than it proves the creator God of the Muslims or the creator God of the Egyptians… and so on.

              Yes, the natural world is an awesome thing; our existence as complex beings is a marvel.

              It does not prove “Jesus Saves.”

          • Hi Eric,

            I don’t see how religion has anything to do with Cloverism. It is when God is replaced with Gov that “Cloverism” flourishes. Yeah, many people who say they are Christians do that too, but so what? If you could give me Biblical proof that they were right to be that way, that would be one thing. But you really can’t, at least without abusing Romans 13 to make it mean far more than was ever intended.

            I think its interesting that you bring up Newton, considering Newton was a devout Christian who would be surprised to know that he is most well known for his scientific rather than theological contributions. That’s actually an illustration of my point, that being a Christian does not entail refusing to think.

            Regarding your comment on human history, I have no doubt that its at least 10,000 years, if not longer. But I don’t see how you can POSSIBLY prove that nobody believed in “The Old Testament God” (Who is really the same as the New Testament God, BTW) before the Old Testament was written. That’s mere conjecture, without any proof. I can’t objectively prove you wrong either, of course, but its conjecture. I happen to believe you are wrong because I believe the Bible is accurate. But you cannot possibly prove otherwise.

            Its not just for not believing that people deserve eternal punishment. Its for all their sins they have committed. The temporal/eternal distinction exists because God himself is eternal. That said, the Bible teaches that the degree of punishment is conditioned on how much the person knew. It seems to me (I could quote particular texts if necessary) that someone who never heard of Christ would suffer less in Hell than the Pharisees.

            As for the guy who lives a loathesome life, there are a few of problems with that. First of all, we’ve all sinned. Second of all, its not “Because they believed.” Its because Christ died to pay the price for their sins. They are saved because Christ died in their place. Christ causes everyone for whom he died to believe at some point, and be saved.

            There’s nothing unjust about that because the price for that loathsome person’s sins has been paid. Say you owed a 100,000 dollar fine (Presume that you assaulted someone and had to pay them compensation) that you couldn’t pay, but someone else pays the fine for you. You are free to go. Is that unjust? No.

            • Hi David,

              The defining characteristic of Cloverism is reverence for arbitrary authority. You must obey because it is written.

              It’s not for you to question. To use your own judgment, form your own opinion – and act on it – that is the cardinal sin.

              Religious dogma is of a piece. It is not rational (objective, fact-based) and it demands submission based on faith – deference to authority.

              In re Newton: You’re package-dealing. My referencing Newton’s scientific work to make a point about scientific things has nothing to do (as such) with his religious views. If a maniac states that “2+2=4” he is still a maniac, but his statement on that point is no less valid because he happens to be a maniac.

              You write:

              “But I don’t see how you can POSSIBLY prove that nobody believed in “The Old Testament God” (Who is really the same as the New Testament God, BTW) before the Old Testament was written.”

              I am not sure what to make of this. How can one believe in (or even know about) that which did not exist at the time one’s existence?

              I have several shop manuals for various vehicles. Is it possible that any person could have knowledge of these prior to their publication? Prior to the existence of the subject vehicles? Prior to the existence of the theory of internal combustion?

              The Hebrew-Christian god(s) may be old. But other religions are much older. And human beings – as a race – far older than all of them.

              I’ve already responded at length in re my objections to the proxy payment for “sins” performed by Jesus. The tortured evasions one must accept (e.g., that a monotheistic deity has a son whom he deliberately subjects to an agonizing death to – somehow – expiate the guilty actions of others. Even though as a god – immortal, by definition – he cannot really die. Leaving aside the ethical loathsomeness of the doctrine that the death of an innocent being expiates the sins of guilty. It is vile beyond words.)

              You write:

              “Say you owed a 100,000 dollar fine (Presume that you assaulted someone and had to pay them compensation) that you couldn’t pay, but someone else pays the fine for you. You are free to go. Is that unjust? No.”

              Yes, it is unjust … if the person who owed the fine did not pay it back.

              And let’s not forget: We are not talking a mere debt of money. We are talking about the deliberate murder – the taking of an innocent life – in lieu of punishing the guilty party.

              Unspeakably vile.

          • ‘Yes, the natural world is an awesome thing; our existence as complex beings is a marvel.’

            Amen on that brother!

            ‘The church is fractured and each sect (each individual) has their own “Christianity” that differs from that of other Christians, who have been squabbling among themselves since time immemorial about the “true meaning” of “the word.” The Bible itself is nothing more than an arbitrarily chosen collection of certain documents, edited and formatted, by a handful of churchmen… subsequently re-edited, translated and parsed countless times in a babble of languages.’

            Yeah its a big mess of multiple authors, editing, and translation. Further its been edited and translated by very powerful interests to maintain a grip through the threat of hell and rewards of heaven. Those are pretty powerful ways to keep people in check. Its really up to us to sort the fruits by ourselves. Poison, not poison, or not sort at all. I’ve found many powerful concepts in Christianity such as state machine views of flow of consciousness and our extension through it as living members in what many think is time or states of comparison to other state machines. That has led me to believe in in infinite multiverse and intelligence of infinite God. Combined by the miracles assigned to Christ and some of his knowledge that indeed our thoughts can shape our multiverse world. It works for me and has saved me by not entertaining destructive thoughts. But rather flourishing in industrious ones. That said the words of Christ makes the most sense to me as the abrubt edges and seams of the various other authors seem rather hard at times to digest. Is that because of tare or politicians having enought time to denature the real contents? I don’t know, But here too there seems to be nuggets of wisdom I can’t neglect.

            ‘This god isn’t interested primarily in goodness. In fact – according to Christian doctrine – one can have lived an utterly loathsome life, abused one’s fellow human beings in the most repellent, unjustifiable ways imaginable – and then be “saved” (and forgiven) merely for “professing Jesus.”’

            But then just as I see clarity in the message of Yeshua, after that comes a dupe or his anti in my opinion telling us that “by his blood and belief in him we are cleansed. Worship the brother of man and not God” and that all we have to do is profess Jesus at the end of our lives and we are saved. That anyone that adds to any knowledge of body of a God except himself (the last author) is condemned. It must be real nice to be self appointed to the task of idle threats. A real turnoff and abomination to me.

            And the most heinous will get to be in heaven? I don’t know if I can buy that either. To murmer at the end of ones life “Jesus” after living a rotten thug of one down here. Something about faith without works useless by the previous author, and that you’ll have to pick up your own cross to follow me seems to ring more truer to how it all would have to be. Or how about you reap what your sow? That seems more like what happens in a causal or Godly world if this life has any fortelling and aboding lessons of one hearafter which it does. But I suppose it gives me a bit more hope that it is that much easier to get in after all I’ve done some bad shit my whole life too, like those I’d not want in a heaven either. Seriously if heaven was full of murderers, hypocrites, adulterers, liars, theives as in down here I’d not think it would be too nice of place to be a member and reside, so I’m hoping that there is something more than just mummering “Jesus save me! at the end of ones life. But you know I’ll be mummering those words too minus not thinking Jesus is God in all and hoping that between knowing the Father (which is not Jesus but rather everything) and having someone to help guide by teachings of how better to behave down here than I might have a chance.

            ‘It does not prove “Jesus Saves.”’

            Maybe its the subtle message of Jesus that saves, so one can self preen in a good image. Something about knowing the wicked apparatus in this world called government as just one case example. I find it rather interesting for example on top a steeple that Jesus claims a Satan said he’d make all the kings and government bow to him if he’d worship him instead. And that leads to what exactly, basically that all governments are of bad and apparatuses evil. I sure can buy that based on my forty some years living on this earth. And all the church goers of God and Country seem to miss that point. Or how about all those saints like John the Baptist and their heads being put on a charger by governments. And who exactly would crucify Jesus would be nothing less than the power of the state along with the religious executers (another it seems evil of the world).

            No I don’t believe professing Jesus name is enough for me. I believe though that there is power in thoughts that extend metaphysically. Our minds like numbers and functions reside somewhere in the ether of spirituality. I believe that the PTB tried to supress this message because they did not want us to know our true power connected to the God which we all reside in, which coincidently is infinite. To me another fractured line of Christian I am, their is two views of Christianity. As you said one is written for the very limited thinker, another is for a higher level intellect. And this again as you said is its genius, but it certainly is not useless.

            Further, I believe that hate breeds more hate much like Yeshua tried to teach people to lessen the flames by water instead of more fire. Is this not blowback that people like Ron Paul today preach? And what exactly to take of buying a sword but not living by it in principle? That too is rather profound wisdom for it is lacking in most the other parts of the bible. Not occupying our minds with evil he tells us, because what we obsessively think we become? Or that without a vision his people perish. And take Napoleon Hill that cataloged the thoughts of other great industrialist like Carnegie, Edison, and Ford that show that what we visualize and profess belief in making happening becomes reality. Edison though not being Christian but rather an agnostic shows that you don’t have to be a strict Christian to make the power of the mind work in good works. Though maybe the method is all the same nevertheless as Napoleon Hill shows and in what way does this differ than an intellect of Christ and his first conveyance of using it metaphysically with the “Infinite Father”.

            Jesus does save for those that want to hear the message, but maybe just maybe its not like the message of the church who wants us as subjects to obediently follow. Its not carrying a physical symbol of a cross of his condemnation around your neck. Maybe its a message of something subtle behind a very eloquent man and his stories. Thats my take on it really. Further I find peace in resigning myself to something of more intelligence. And by no accounts do I think Jesus is all of God, you can see he never confesses such a belief even though the church and Apostle Paul in particular needs to fabricate a reason why to worship Jesus and not be idolizing a man (A mortal sin in the old testament) instead of God. The whole trinity thing a farse to cover up how they made an intelligent brother, a leader, and a messenger of truth, and man into God himself (a shame and sin). I’ve spent my whole life pursuing truths so that I’d know them and could find peace in following the truths in everything from physics, to electricity, to spirituality. I don’t feel but know there is something more as this world or universe is infinite in possibilities. I know that there are consequences or effects for every cause. Therefore I must choose wisely “good” causes that yield good effects for me as well as others around me. I exist mathematically not just physically. I’m a subset to a larger intelligence and I will live again in infinite of possibilities. Knowing the Father as in an infinite God gives me peace, just like knowing that fire burns to avoid scarring my skin is a good thing to know. The message does save like knowing fire burns to avoid it. Though the message is both simple for the simpletons so that they can have enough faith by believing in a “face of God” and the next state outside of this one minus a mathematical knowledg. At the same time Christianiyt is complex for the intellects that would be satisfied to know all the truths combined with physics, engineering and mathematics and that is not rendering it useless but rather brilliant.

            Also I will say that because I don’t think Jesus is all of God or the “Father” then I don’t think it impossible to have a relationship exclusive to God that is unique, though I don’t know for sure why I’d want that if I truly like the presence of someone more intelligent than myself that could help guide me and rather take a simpler viewpoint for my own character in development. Why be an island, I’ve been one all too long down here out of necessity because most people are real fucking stupid minus a few on maybe this message board and my wife, but I’d be the first to take up friendship with really good, intellgent and honest people for the sake of mutual growth. And I’d be happy for any knowledge and guidance they’d want to help me to acheive greatness. Sure sounds like heaven to me.

          • I wonder: under a libertarian perspective, is owning a cow a relatively absolute thing, or is it conditional upon correct stewardship and always situation-ally at the whim of other people?
            If so, does that apply to all livestock?
            And all pets?
            If not, why not?

            eric wrote, “On ownership: There is a difference between owning a material/inanimate object (which is absolute) and “owning” another living being, which in the case of parents and kids entails stewardship and obligation – and is not absolute nor permanent. ”

            No one truly owns the kitten?
            It can’t be sold, it can’t be bought?
            Or, The State, is the only entity which owns the kitten and therefore dictates all behavior that is acceptable towards the kitten?

            I’ve seen people take ball peen hammers to motors and metal in frustration and anger. I’ve seen people shoot cats. I’ve never seen anyone take a ball peen hammer to a kitten. I suppose there are people who do that, I wouldn’t. So whose kitten is it? And, why?

            If a lost kitten meows in the woods, does anyone own it?

            • Morning RB,

              I admit to a gnawing discomfiture over the issue of “owning” animals. The idea – religious as well as secular – that we have a right to do with them as we please. To use them, to harm them, even. What is the source of my discomfiture?

              They are living beings, as we are. Humans possess (well, some of them possess) self-awareness, conceptual capacity. Some animals may also possess these things – and the fact is, some human beings do not. Yet, we do not (as a rule) treat, as an example, a Down Syndrome child the same as we’d treat a cow – or a cat.

              Mind, this is not a call for external intervention – by the state or otherwise.

              I am just explicating my own personal intellectual-ethical odyssey. And it is leading me toward a conclusion that in many ways could probably be characterized as Buddhist. Reverence life. All life. Try to the extent possible to not cause gratuitous harm to any living thing.

              I wonder whether anyone’s coined the term AnCapBuddhism?

          • Dear Eric,

            You wrote:

            The doctrine is: “Accept Jesus” – or be consigned to Hell. Further, that you must “accept” on faith – not fact.

            Correct. You did not put words in other peoples’ mouths. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had Christians say this to me almost verbatim.

            Non-Christians cannot be faulted for concluding that many if not most Christians interpret their own religion this way.

            That is part of why I said that while it is possible to be a Christian libertarian, the two beliefs conflict, and make it an “against the odds” proposition.

            Christianity or any other major religion that appeals to a “higher authority that must be obeyed” is highly incompatible with libertarianism, which is fundamentally anti-authoritarian.

            The combination is not impossible of course. Ron Paul, whom most of us admire, is an example. But what I said about the underlying incompatibility holds nevertheless.

            • Morning Bevin!


              The current Church is relatively peaceful insofar as it has not got the power to enforce its views.

              What if it had such power?

              Historically, when the Church could enforce its will, it has been far from peaceful. Apostasy (even within the Church) was treated with incredible brutality. This was true from the time of the first ascension of Christian political power under Constantine all the way through to the modern era.

              Christians will claim this legacy does not represent the “true Church,” that it was a perversion of Christ’s teachings.

              Well – and this will sound harsh, but I think the point is valid – the same has been said of Marxism. All the mass murders and oppression? That was not “true communism.” Marx’s teachings were “perverted” by evil men.

              But Marx’s teachings radiated hate and violence. Marxism in all its forms is necessarily violent.

              Similarly, the Old Testament is chock full of the most horrid ethnic-racial brutality imaginable – all justified in the name of God. And in numerous cases, egged on by “God” himself!

              The New Testament supposedly effaced this legacy of blood and guts, yet the Christian Church has not officially rejected the Old Testament. And the New Testament, though free of orgies of “dashing babies heads against the walls” nonetheless has its own choice passages.

              All the Abrahamic religions assert universality. The necessary corollary of that is that everyone who does not “believe” is not merely in error but cretinous, depraved… evil. They have rejected The One True God. They represent a mortal threat to the in-group.

              What follows necessarily from that ought to be obvious.

          • Bevin, it really depends on what you define “libertarian” as, and for that matter, what you define “Christian” as. Without defining those terms its impossible to know for sure whether those things conflict.

            If the NAP is defined to bind every being ever to live, including God, than that belief is incompatible with Christianity. If the NAP is defined in such a way as to say that even those who do commit aggression cannot be punished, or that God himself cannot punish anyone for violation of his laws (Whether aggressive in nature or not) than that is a violation of Christianity. If “libertarian” means rejection of all forms of authority, than that is incompatible with Christianity. If libertarianism is defined in such a way as to cause the rejection of the family, than libertarianism is incompatible with Christianity.

            On the other hand, if “libertarian” means the rejection of all human states and the belief that man should never be permitted to aggress against his fellow man, that definition is not a violation of Christianity.

            Take a look at 1 Samuel 8.

            As for the animal rights thing, I don’t really care what someone does to a dog or a cat or a cow. I mean, yeah, I might care from a moral perspective, but its not a warrant to use force, IMO. Human children may be a different story under some conditions.

            • Morning David,

              But, here’s the problem: You make a number of assertions – universal statements – about what is (and is not) Christian, or compatible with Christianity. Other Christians disagree – and have universal statements of their own that conflict with yours. You all (Christians) refer to the Bible as your source – but the Bible is as I have pointed out before not infrequently impenetrable, or at least vague. I realize that – to you – it is the crystal clear authoritative “word” of god. But the fact is that the “word” is far from clear, was written and edited by men – and is open to almost infinite interpretation. To me, much of it is unintelligible. I literally cannot make heads or tails of it. The language is awkward, allegorical. And in the case of the King James version, it is written in archaic English. It is tough for most people to parse the language of the Bill of Rights because it is written in late 18th Century English. The King James version is written in Elizabethan English! Might as well be Esperanto. In any event, what it “really means” is not only highly fungible and speculative – it is probably unknowable. We are dealing with texts that are at least 1,700 years old that have been edited and re-translated so many times that the “original meaning” is now as remote and untouchable as the Ark of the Covenant.

              But my more serious objection – well, my position – is that the assertion that the Christian God is the “real” god is itself an exponential leap of faith over the assertion that a god (as such) exists and no more (or less) valid (factually, logically) than the assertion that Allah is the one true God. Or Zoroaster.

              Or Crom from Conan The Barbarian, for that matter.

              I kind of like Crom. The Riddle of Steel has a certain flow to it.

          • Dear David,

            I am glad that you are a libertarian.

            Apart from my not unwarranted fear that the major world religions, including Christianity, tend to be anti-libertarian, I have no objection to your Christian faith.

            As I have noted before, my own mother is a Christian. So I am not out to “get” Christians as such. I am merely subjecting ideas to the test of intellectual consistency and truth.

            Libertarianism is about the NAP and live and let live.

            Most world religions are about “Us vs. Them.” They are about those who believe in the one true faith and will be saved, vs. those who are infidels who will be damned to hell.

            More often than not, this core value has translated into horrific “Kill the infidels!” violations of the NAP.

            Anyone familiar with world history knows this. Anyone who sweeps this ugly reality under the rug, is being evasive and dishonest.

            You imply that Christianity ought to be interpreted from a libertarian perspective. I agree. Ought to be. But ought to be is not “is.”

            I wish more Christians shared your political convictions, but wishing does not make it so. The sad reality is they don’t.

            Examples include Neocon hawks who support Armageddon on behalf of Israel.

          • David, just so ya know. I didn’t bring up the animal examples to discuss animal rights, it’s all about property rights. Who has ’em, who doesn’t, and how it all fits under libertarianism.
            From there you get to the rights and placement of individuals in a family, especially in regards to the state.
            Important matters, no?
            Probably a bit too much for this thread though.

          • Dear Eric,

            Exactly. We atheists and agnostics did not make this up. The historical record is clear.

            “Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity.”
            — Pope Innocent III

            YouTube has a video online, one that has been widely watched, entitled “Three Things You Didn’t Know About Islam.”

            It argues that when believers in Islam are a tiny minority within a particular nation state, they are docile. But when they become the dominant force, the dark side of their religious faith emerges. Shrill demands for Shariah Law emerge, and theocracy is soon implemented.


            I fear there is considerable truth to this claim about Islam. And interestingly enough, I fear the same when it comes to Christianity. History tells us that when Christianity wielded the same unchallengeable power, it did exactly what this video claims Islam will do.

            To wit, the auto de fes, the Medieval Inquisition, the Roman Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition, the Goa Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials.

        • Yeah, I listened to that. Stefan may or may not be right about his pragmatic arguments against spanking. I’m not really strongly opinonated about that. But as far as the non-aggression principle goes, the NAP can’t really mean anything if you apply it to kids. There’s absolutely no way it can apply the same way to kids as to adults, and I think Block illustrated the reason why very well. Molyneux and Block were kind of talking past each other with the “lower/higher” standard thing, when its actually both. Walter was saying that there is no direct obligation for a parent not to “aggress” against their children for their own good, and I agree with him on that. Stephan held that parents have a higher standard… namely, to take care of their own children, which you wouldn’t have for a stranger. I agree with that, which actually plays into Walter’s point as well.

          What is “aggression” in the context of a divine being? Is refusing to worship God “aggression”? Well, according to the libertarian NAP, no, and there should be no legal penalties for not doing so (This is probably obvious, but I’m just illustrating a point.) This isn’t a flaw in libertarianism either. But, at the ultimate judgment, is unbelief punishable? Yep.

          eric, I’m getting to your comment next.

          • To David, from a Deist Amigo elder, who attends Evangelical Lutheran church service:

            [You say]
            “Anyone who believes in a gospel of faith and works, or just works, is at war with Christ. These people need to repent of their false religion and accept the one true gospel. All of my work is, most importantly of all, intended to point people to this important message.”

            These are the words of Paul. I respectfully ask you to reconsider whether you are a Christian, or whether you are a disciple of Paul.


            “We may sum up Paul’s teaching on faith and works as follows: 1) We cannot be saved by works, because all our works are corrupted by sin, but Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and offered his perfect works to God for us; 2) By faith in Christ, we are forgiven of our sins because of his death on the cross, and we receive by imputation his perfect fulfillment of God’s Law. Whereas we cannot be saved by our works, we are saved through faith by the work of Jesus Christ; 3) Having been saved by faith alone, we are called to do good works, living in accordance with God’s law and serving him with our lives.

            This is all laid out in Ephesians 2:8-10, “By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”

            The apostle James writes about faith and works differently. In letters like Romans and Ephesians, Paul presents a doctrinal treatise. His concern is to systematically lay out certain truths. James is writing what we call “wisdom literature.” His Book in the New Testament is analogous to the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. His concern is to pastorally exhort his readers. Because of this James says things about faith and works that some people think contradicts what Paul teaches. One of them was Martin Luther.

            [I say]
            Ignore the heretical pharisee claims of which apostle is gospel and which one is apocryphal. Listen with your heart and mind instead. The book is to help the flock, not a cudgel to bludgeon them with.

            [I say]
            – A Christian should find themselves closer to Martin Luther. And to James.

            Not Catholics and Paul. Those types could better be called “Holy Romans.” A dirty little secret is Rome never fell, but was transformed into a religious-holy monarch system masquerading as secular states.

            Works, not faith are what matter. All your opinions about abortion are worth $0.00, unless they’ve helped someone.

            If a landlord were to rent a studio apartment to a pregnant 15 year old girl for cash, and not require ID or a credit check. And give her the key and leave the utilities in the owners name, that is a work of $1,000,000s of value to her.

            She might abort the baby. She might give birth to the baby, but the Christian act of that landlord giving shelter in my mind is a way of taking up the cross. Of bearing the risk of state trouble, and business losses.

            A landlord that only rents to “good christians,” and state worshipping sheeple, and not pregnant desperate children in need, is an asshole, not a Christian.

            A Holy Roman nation, that claims to be Christian, while violating everything Christ held sacred, is an nation of bloviating assholes.

          • Bevin and Eric,

            I’ve been watching our discussions on this message board turn into somewhat parallel articles on LRC for some time. So to no suprise did I see an article of Joe Sobran today addressing much of our discussion about Christianity and our discussions (laughing). Bevin and Eric when you see dogma about Jesus is Lord and divinity and blessed be St. Paul then you know I’ve rubbed the fur of the pit bull the wrong way. But if anything this dogma just reinforces what the atheist and agnostic point as the burning at the stake of any non believer of the official religious doctrine or should I say propaganda. And to be honest I don’t know how anyone can defend Pope Innocent (smile). Nor would I want to burn at the stake anyone who disagrees with me on how I see Christ or his teachings. Nor do I want to see anyone go to hell, its all personal for me to go to a good place actually and not be a fearfull reject. I agree with you Eric that most Christians think that they can simply say “Jesus Save Me” the final 3 seconds of their life and they are “IN”. Doesn’t matter if they are mass adulterers or who they shit on. In fact this simply belief is what empowers them to be the biggest assholes of all religions on average. Don’t believe me go to Christian church and hear how they all say “brother” this and “sister that” and shake your hand like a partisan angel. And once you hit the parking lot they will be trying to run you over.

            So Eric I’m not going to defend the Christians from themselves. I believe that they are seriously on average some of the biggest delinquents when it comes to morality. And ask most Christians if they have to follow the 10 commandments and they will say “No” as the 10 were replaced by 2 (which is true) but they simply follow none. Why should they? They are forgiven already by the blood of the sheep dripping down their innocent forheads. While their lives show contempt for goodness on average and wrecklessness because quite simply most are wicked and couldn’t understand the real message if it hit them on the head straight on. But hey I’ll give them that they probably will be forgiven because Jesus would probably be that awesome though I doubt he could give them a free pass totally simply because they utter unintelligible bits and skew phrases missing the whole part that they are to actually live it!

            And if I say I’m close to my God that I can guarantee is not hearsay to Joe Sobran that fears that not saying the correct words will offend his limited God and send him straight to hell (laughing). And just for Joe Sobran you might want to get your head straight as I never said Jesus wasn’t Lord as in fact I’ve said that he was on here multiple times, though I don’t buy that when he was talking outside of himself to the “Father” he was in fact having a conversation with himself. And dear Joe even Isaac Newton who professed to believe in God very much and also be a Christian refuted the Holy Trinity and its secondary the 1 face theory wisely and had to get the Kings permission to be protected for his own sacred right of disagreeing so he wouldn’t be crucified by the English church. I state it again that Holy Trinity is a farse as Jesus is not all of God. He is God though because God is everything and if you hear his words he explains this to the holy rollers of his time very well. I think he was trying to explain that within (God) we live and breath and therefore he is part of God. But it passed right over their heads like it does yours.

            So to be honest if Newton agrees with me than I’m honored to disagree that Jesus (“The Son” and thus derived from the father) is actually not all of God who is the “Father”. Jesus is a finite entity whereas God is infinite. Jesus is a local ruler of the Father but still works for him. But if you think I’m saying I don’t believe him to be a Lord or thus local ruler of God’s domain over mankind then you need to clear the wax out of those ear canals. I’ll tell you what you go ahead and call Jesus all of God and say he was the face of God if it makes you feel all soft and safe, but that doesn’t make your views any more right than those that felt the world to be flat. And one of the reasons I’m actually quite at peace with Muslims (even though they too are religious bullies when in congregation) is because they are quite right that Christians are ridiculous to claim Jesus is the “Father” or all of God. He is not all of the Father but he is certainly some of the father, and a large percentage of what humanity needs to exist again in good form inside the father was laid out by his message and in following his example. Which again most do not do because they are already cleansed of their sins by his blood. I mean really the whole thing is even repulsive to me to accept how so few Christians actually follow through with their part.

            And where does all the deviance begin in Christianity is very clear and I throw Stink Paul out of with his dirty bath water. But I can’t do this because we know that the church wouldn’t exist without St. Paul. Oh the pity not to have walls of indoctrinations as we need orators in St. Pauls image to tell us how to read the Christs words when in fact its clear that the messages are so much in diagreement that anyone with an open mind that would rightly conclude that the Christian church has two layers one of oil and one of water and the two can’t mix because one is polar and the other is not. Its impossible though that someone would skew the Christs words even though he said exactly that in his last supper and that someone was already there to usurp it. But I suppose nobody as in an anti-Christ had their ways with their miracles? Again its not I that have read anything wrong here, but rather I’m not invested with all the idle threats that somehow reading things with an open mind of God is going to end me in the pit. Though the largest pit was the one created by the Christian church for those of reason through the ages. And if you take issue with the true history of the church maybe you should study what they did with Galileo and why. And somewhere you’ll see that any discussion of God outside of St. Paul’s is considered heretical. Only St. Paul can amend the bible with anything that resembles Godliness, and poor Galileo who pompously claimed that the earth wasn’t the center of the world was a heretic for changing the word. Bahhhh!!! If that is Godly that I have to fear what I might say would offend God when I’m reasoning obvious faults of it then I’d say I’m no Christian after all. But I am a believer in Christ, so much so that I don’t care what contradicts his words.

            Eric you are also right on most Christians being obedient to the clergy and their sacred texts and not necessarily Godliness. But you question the true history of the conversions like the King James bible versus the Pilgrims bible that literally stated that Rome was the anti-Christ and they get shit bent out of shape. Most of these followers have only KJV in their brains and all other things that question it translation are heresy, fire the pits! And let us ignore the fact that the KJV was translated by a “Kings” men.

            Further it disgusts me how many Christians do believe in blindly following orders. But it follows that anyone that swallows a rat whole without seperating its hairs is quite frankly easily confused and duped.

            And this I believe is where the Christians will want to see me sent to hell that Eric and Bevin keep talking about, but I’m not fearful. A man can never be afraid to say the truth, and the fearful can’t go to heaven and in that sense I’m not the least afraid to see how the religious institions of today are BS just like the Pharisees and Saudacees. Most of today’s Christians would be the first people to hang out the brother Christ on a cross, if he challenged their limited views of God just like Jesus offended the sensibilities of the clergy of his time. God isn’t as dumb as most Christians think it to be by the way, nor is it punishing people who want to truly understand how it all works nor afraid to call something fear mongering BS.

            And so you see Bevin the real problem isn’t Jesus or his teachings, its in dogmatic and scared people that want to crucify anyone who challenges their narrow interpretation of it. This is the real evil in the world that so few are so scared that God is going to condemn anyone that is exploring possibilites of its intelligence. And frankly explains why religion is a waste of time if you want to get to know natural, divine law, and our purpose here according to the legitimate causes and effects. I’m going to switch off relgious topics as I’m afraid that its making too many Christians actually so scared that they are getting condemmy again, oh the irony.

            • Hi HR,

              I like to keep an open mind when it comes that which – as I see it – no one can know in the sense that 2+2=4.

              I base my attitude toward the numinous on the fact that we naked apes have imperfect sensory apparatus, and (even the best and brightest among us) finite intelligence. Not even Newton’s mind could encompass the whole of creation and its workings.

              One cannot know without knowledge.

              And there is so much we do not – and probably cannot – know.

              We view the physical world through human eyes, that refract the light in certain ways that are different than the way the eyes of other creatures view the world. Our brains process the information differently. Many things (e.g., the infrared portion of the spectrum) we do not see at all – and would not even be aware of, were it not for the science that tells us so. Ditto hearing. And so on.

              Our world is a limited, three-dimensional world. It is possible there are many more dimensions – another reality we brush up against every moment but which we are unaware of because our faculties cannot perceive it.

              All of the above conveys to me a magesterial awe for creation. But that does not – for me – make Christianity and the Christian gods persuasive. Nor any other gods – who have come (and gone) from the historical record spanning the eons of time.

              I have no doubt the ancient Egyptians – whose cult of Ra lasted for thousands of years – believed as fervently in the universality and absolute correctness of their dogmas as modern-day Christians believe in theirs. But I have trouble comprehending how any person – aware of the former (and other such examples) can maintain belief in the absolute “truth” of the latter.

          • Dear HR,

            My only real concern, on a practical level at least, is whether another person’s religious faith will lead to violations of the NAP against me.

            If they don’t. if adherents to a particular religion scrupulously respect the NAP, then I have no problem whatsoever with their internal belief systems.

            Put in more concrete terms, if all or even most Christians were like Ron Paul, I would be overjoyed.

            Sad to say, many are like this:

            Vocal support of a pro-Israel American foreign policy is basic for the leaders of American Protestant fundamentalism. This has been true ever since 1948. Pat Robertson and Rev. Jerry Falwell have been pro-Israel throughout their careers, beginning two decades before the arrival of the New Christian Right in the late 1970′s. These men are not aberrations. The Trinity Broadcasting Network is equally supportive. So are the best-selling authors who speak for, and influence heavily, Protestant fundamentalism, most notably Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), and Tim LaHaye, the husband of Beverly LaHaye of Concerned Women for America, which says on its Web site that it is “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.” Rev. LaHaye and his co-author have each earned some $10 million in royalties for their multi-volume futuristic novel, Left Behind. They have a very large audience.

            The Unannounced Reason Behind American Fundamentalism’s Support for the State of Israel
            By Gary North
            July 19, 2000

          • “Not even Newton’s mind could encompass the whole of creation and its workings.”

            I’d agree with that as relativity has obviously shown Newtonian Mechanics and Physics to be incomplete. Nevetheless Newton was a great intellectual thinker of his time. If a man wants to be an excellent carpenter he should hang with excellent carpenters, if he wants to be a excellent plumber than he should spend time with the best of plumbers, if he wants to be excellent businessman he should surround himself with the richest and best, and if he wants to be the best intellectual thinker he should spend his time with the greatest of phlosophers of all times. Newton was not a man-god though he was certainly not a fool as his good works attest, and I put a certain more credence on his type verus a Pope Innocent. When I went to college I simply didn’t learn the theorys presented in my courses, I learned about the men that provided them. The idea was that I didn’t just want to know what they found, but I wanted to know how they found the answer and how they thought. Ultimately to emulate.

            About Egypt and the God of Ra I’m completely ignorant to even guess what they believed. Though I’m equally impressed at the pyramids that someone built in an advanced civilization. Its rather interesting because I never thought much more of the pyramids then being big religious freakish buildings of the past, that is until a few months ago. Under persuasion of a few I now have changed my mind that these were actually testaments of an advanced civilization that probably even understood electricity and magnestism and a high degree of mechanical engineering and materials machining. Were the people who built the huge what I used to think temples, the same people who worshipped Ra. Again we can only speculate on such things, though there is one thing that I think has always been true and that is the truth. To me the laws of physics and economics do not change, men simply learn more depth about them or they don’t. Then they either apply the truth from the true theories or they don’t. The fruits of good works (constructive) and the fruits of bad works (destructive) are just as valid now as they were 10,000 years ago. That to me is the true law and to ask why people deviate from the truth by strange cults that make men or worse statues of stone into Gods is like asking why the world has genius and stupidity simultaneously. And nothing has changed in eons. How does a simple primate to know the truth? A truth simply sell itself by its own merits. It requires no persuasion except that one might want to provide it for free and nothing personal to gain. Though if it requires a knife or threat then it simply cannot be the truth. Truth never threatens another to follow its theory though there may be consequences to following a lie or untruth, the truth itself never does make a threat. Controlling men on the other hand do try to threaten by pompous threats of their own doctrines. I’ve said it clearly that I have no intention of converting anyone to my beliefs, I simply have quoted many intelligent people that have similar thoughts that coincided with my own. However each has the right to choose their own paths.

            Merry Xmas and happy holidays to all of the you.

            Best Regards,

          • Dear HR,

            Thanks for the thoughtful response. I saw nothing that I disagreed with.

            Far more importantly, I saw no suggestion that you would ever forcibly compel others to agree with you.

            To me, that is always the real key. Whether one is willing to violate the NAP based on the certainty that one is on the side of the angels. As always, this is the acid test for genuine champions of liberty.

            A libertarian is someone who does not append the word “but” to the statement “I’m a champion individual freedom!”

          • Bevin Says, “Far more importantly, I saw no suggestion that you would ever forcibly compel others to agree with you. ”

            No I don’t believe in force or threats is legit intelligence or Godly. But I must say one last thing as I’m very happy that I’m able to express my disgust toward the Christian Church and its members (and in particulare Apostle Paul) as this wasn’t always the case. Just a few lifetimes ago me sharing my thoughts as a heretic about the Apostle Paul being a deceiver would have been met with my body being racked and tortured. Thank God that good, Goldy, and intelligent men no longer have to hide in the shadows (like Newton and Galileo) out of fear of these ridiculous Paul pulpit bullies. I appreciate Thomas Jefferson seeing and calling out these Apostle Paul Charlatans by being one of the first to publicly denouce Paul’s nonsense.

            There is a reason that western society has marginalized the church, thank you Lord and God! And the church will be continued to be marginalized and atrophied whereas Christ’s words will not.

            In no way do I think that Apostle Paul type christians can truly be in coexistence with freedom. They are the bots that follow unquestioning as that is how they are taught to be subservient to men is the same as being to God. Their esteem comes in their fellow man, and they bundle together in pride and ego to defend each other even though as Thomas Jefferson said you ask 10 of them about the holy trinity and they all disagree on what it is. I mean they can’t agree with each other because they are toting a line of B.S. that is what anyone of intellectual integrity would have to conclude long ago. Anyone that disagrees needs to read one of those ridiculous chapters written by Paul. When people question what is wrong with the Church and its dogmatic and unquestioning followers be assured that it always has to do with this one man. I mean Christ drank wine (alcohol) and Paul prohibits it. The modern alcohol prohibitionist get their idea from Paul himself. The guy breaths heavy insults to alcohol and people with long hair (like Nazarenes). Christ made known that all things on this earth were placed for our needs and wants and cherishes the woman with the perfume bottle, and Paul condemns even the most insane things like make up on women. If this isn’t contempt for freedom I do not know what is.

            Here lies the biggest turn off as Godly people can smell a fraud 1 mile away and disarm a trap 20 feet away. But the victims of nonsense are the unaware as they fall fearfully inline. Eric said earlier that the Christians always make excuses for the abuses of the church in history by saying well that wasn’t really Christian. Here is my take on it. You see with this franchise of Jesus and Apostle Paul (his opposite) a preacher subtly can play good cop and bad cop whenever he wishes to change role and keep his followers inline. When he wants to attract the downtrodden he entices them with the true sweet and kind forgiving and logical words of the Christ and when he wants unquestioning followers he flames them with the deceptive words of Apostle Paul. Sweetness and truth followed by bitter and falsity keeps the Christian masses in love/awe and fear simultaneously.

            So when you hear a apostle Paul Christian excuse his churches history and cling to Paul you know a charlatan that is actually asking for more control from a pulpit to continue the same game as before. And I’d rather have government that has no spiritual pretense but to act like a goon, then have the people imprisoned to fear of nothing immoral being seen wrong in eyes of God simply minding their own business and harming no one, nor offending their God. I’d rather have a secular beast government then the Apostle Paul Pharisees type of one.

            I’m not the first to conclude that Apostle Paul was the great deceiver you can find it all online (tons and tons of obvious discrepancy between Christ’s words and Apostle Paul) if you want but I share a few of these contradictions here:

            Jesus: “DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, HE who is in heaven”
            (Matthew 23:9)

            Paul states:

            “For I BECAME YOUR FATHER”
            (1 Corinthians 4:15)

            “Jesus said unto him, Thou shall love THE LORD THY GOD with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is THE FIRST and great commandment. And the SECOND is like unto it. Thou shall love THY NEIGHBOUR as thyself. On these TWO commandments hang ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS”.
            (Matthew 22:37-40).

            Paul states:

            “For ALL THE LAW is fulfilled in ONE WORD, even in this: Thou shall love THY NEIGHBOUR (no LOVE FOR GOD) as thyself”
            (Galations 5:14. Romans 13:9)

            That man. That liar of liars and his pulpit followers!

            As Thomas Jefferson said its so easy to seperate the fruits of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. And you ask me why I think Edison found the truth was because he was following the true messiah’s message of peace and fruitfullness, whereas many of these dupes will get their great esteem here on earth amongst each other but will come to the father and be turned away. They have led most dishonestly and have therefore turned away the brightest and most intelligent from God’s true wisdom. The modern church is thankfully known by its fruits, they cannot spin words or deceive anymore.

            Again I’m no friend of the church nor in anyway do I wish for a theology to replace the current beast. But I’m also not one to use force against it or its followers.

            Hot Rod

  38. How many lampposts would be necessary to hang by the neck until dead, a juris doctor and a career office holder from each?

    Elections alone will never bring about respect for the American Ideal expressed with incomparable eloquence in the Unanimous Declaration. However, Knowledge, along with Fully Informed Grand and Petit Juries can do the job.

    Petit Juries can nullify bad law and Grand Jury Presentment Power can crush the Evil Ones and the Incompetents who now control governments in America. WE the People need only use our lawful power.

    Tinsley Grey Sammons (1936 –)

    • That is impossible because both the jury pool and the members of the grand jury are selected by the state to eliminate anyone that will not do whatever the prosecutor and judge wants.

      • That’s true as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it means that anyone wishing to nullify must lie their way onto a petit jury during voire-dire. Also, in some states (the one I live in being among them), the only way to ensure that you’re part of the jury selection pool is to register to vote, something that this writer refuses on principle to do.

    • Puh-leeze Tinsley…..

      First off, source for your 35,000 MVAs…..

      And how many are alcohol related?Clover

      Now you want data try NHTSA…..Try MADD…Hell,try AAA stats…..

      Now you DEMONSTRATE to me that every time a driver crashes under the influence of alcohol and kills another person… show me how many bars and bartenders are sued and jailed…..

      The reality is……virtually NO ONE !!!!!

      Thus I laugh at you and particularly Eric’s hysteria…..oh we’re losing freedum!!!

      Really ? Ever have a loved one killed by a drunk on wheels ?

      Guess what, the DEAD are no longer FREE to live because of a drunk !!!

      Where is your vaunted PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY now ?????

      • Greg,

        Not everyone who could be sued (or criminally prosecuted) is sued or prosecuted. The fact remains (as regards what we’ve been discussing) that they are open to being sued or prosecuted in terms of the law. If “Jones” can be sued/prosecuted, then so can “Smith.” Precedent, principle – fact.

        That’s all I stated.

        Do you pay your income taxes, Greg? Most people do so not because they want to but because they fear being audited. It is a valid fear because it is based on a real threat, even if most people do not get audited. Exactly the same as regards barkeeps potentially being sued. The fact that it has not yet become commonplace is irrelevant as well as not what I said (but which you claimed I said).

        • Here are your exact words Eric: ( To Wit ) “I do not establish right or wrong based on what a majority decides it to be. “Clover

          YOU establish right or wrong ????? So all the Universe bows down to YOUR determination of right or wrong??? YOU are the “decider” of right or wrong???!???

          So the definition and final and absolute determination begins and ends with YOU????

          In your world Eric……but not in the REAL world !

          • Eric,

            Despite his rambling, I think he makes a valid point. His conclusion is wrong, but his logic is sound. This is exactly why I think Christianity is so important.

            Aggression is wrong. Says who? Greg rightly asks the question. Quite frankly, you are not a moral authority, nor am I. Frankly, the majority is an arbitrary moral authority as well. What gives them this authority?

            Yet, if there is no higher standard, who can tell them they do NOT have this authority? You might say stealing and murder are wrong. But who defines stealing? Who defines murder?

            I questioned you once along these lines, and you replied with the Golden Rule. This is good. But the Golden Rule can only have authority if the person proclaiming it has authority. Otherwise, its just another arbitrary authority that can be rejected. Why don’t we go with “Survival of the Fittest” for morality? Why not assume the State, since it has all the power, is the “Fittest?” Or why not define morality by majority rule? Why is the Golden Rule any better than either of these standards?

            I would argue that the reason is because Jesus Christ, God in the Flesh, said so. His words carry authority. And thus I can reject the humanistic, majoritarian arguments of people like Greg, because they do not fit with the words of Jesus Christ, and the Bible that he inspired.

            What argument do you really have? That it seems better to you? Greg is right, you aren’t an absolute standard any more than he is.

            • Morning, David!

              Ok, I am just now working through my first cup…. let’s see what I can come up with in re your question.

              First, some semantics. I prefer to speak of ethics as opposed to morality with regard to our external actions. It is, to me, the difference between a crime and a vice.

              I’ll return to that in a moment.

              Now then. I see no necessary reason for an external authority to justify the NAP. I do see a practical reason, though.

              Logically, it seems to me that if I would insist that others not take my things, or harm me, I am obliged to not take their things, or harm them. Quid pro quo. If do take their things, then I have lost any logical basis for objecting to their taking my things – and so on.

              But there is more to it than mere cold, calculating self-interest. There is also empathy. I do not like being hurt. I therefore understand – emotionally as well as intellectually – that other people do not like to be harmed. A psychologically normal person seeks to avoid harming others – and also the reverse (to help them, when possible) because he gets that being harmed – to speak in prosaic terms – sucks.

              Of course, this has been perverted by various collectivist doctrines, but the underlying principle is nonetheless there. And it does not require belief in a god, must less the specific god(s) of Christianity.

              It is not difficult to posit an objective (and secular) definition of theft: It is the taking of that which does not rightfully* belong to you. Similarly, murder is the deliberate, unprovoked taking of another person’s life.

              So, I agree, I am not an absolute standard. The absolute standard exists independently of me. And without necessary recourse to a deity.

              Those are my ethics. For me, morality is a more nebulous – and subjective – thing.

              For example, homosexuality. Ethically, I regard it (as such) neutrally. But for the religious person, it is a moral issue – premised on their doctrines, their “thou shallt nots.” That’s fine – insofar as their personal beliefs – but I cannot embrace any action to restrict or restraint or control or punish homosexuals (per se, I am assuming consenting adults, etc.) as I would embrace action to restrict/restain/control/punish those who steal or commit murder, etc.

              It’s crime vs. vice.

              (* Through your own effort, or which has been freely given to you by someone else who either earned it through their own effort, or to whom it was freely given by someone who earned it through their own effort – etc.)

          • No Greg, I am not the Great Lawgiver.

            I merely adhere to the greatest law: Do not commit aggression (first-use of violence).

            You, on the other hand, arrogate unto yourself the authority to commit aggression – to threaten to hurt people – if they do not Submit & Obey.

            Do you like being a thug?

            You can accuse me of hysteria, of being selfish – etc. But I want nothing from you, except for you to leave me be. I don’t want your money, I have no desire to direct the course of your life in any way. You may not like me, personally. You may elect not to deal with me. And I might not like you – and would choose not to deal with you.

            The difference is I am content to go our separate ways in peace – while you just itch to force me (either yourself or using a proxy) to “help” or do this – or not do that – none of which entails anything more than thuggery.

            I hope some day you come to your sense and repudiate the life of violence and oppression you’ve chosen thus far.

          • Hi Eric.

            I’m not sure what distinction you are making with regards to ethics vs morality. I know you’re trying to make a distinction between vice and crime, but I’m not sure how that relates to ethics or morality.

            Regarding your issue of homosexuality, you are indeed correct in your assessment, at least as far as criminality goes. Homosexuality being criminal would be a violation of 1 Corinthians 5, yet it is still sinful as per Romans 1.

            You appeal to psychological normality, but I feel this is an invalid argument. First of all, most people are not truly psychologically normal by the definition you use, since they are indeed OK with theft, as long as its done by the government. But then, where does property come from to begin with? If not from government (And I agree it does not) it has to come from somewhere else. Homesteading is logical, but why is it wrong for me to take your resources? I get your point about empathy, but you are presupposing the golden rule here, that our interactions with others should be based on how we want others to interact with us. I don’t have a big problem with this presupposition, but where are you getting it from? People who subscribe to the theory of evolution (which I don’t) subscribe to “Survival of the Fittest”. So why isn’t that a valid standard for morality, instead of “Do unto others?” I would answer that “Do unto others” is the standard because God says so. I also believe the rest of the Bible, including the doctrine that Christ’s death on the cross saves people from their sins, that homosexuality is a sin (note that I said “sin” not “crime”) etc. You’re presupposing that Jesus was correct about one particular thing, while rejecting the other claims he made about himself. I guess you can do that, if you like, but why? And why is your presumption better than Greg’s “Majority rules” presumption?

            Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that its better. But I actually have a reason why I believe that its better. God is the highest authority, a higher authority than any worldly government, and God commands… among other things… adherence to the golden rule. But without belief in God, its impossible to PROVE that theft, murder, etc. are unethical, or that “survival of the fittest” is not moral.

            • Hi Dave,

              Second (no, wait – third!) cup of coffee now… .


              There are lots of issues and sub-issues to deal with.

              The appeal to god as the source-waters of “right conduct” is an appeal to authority. But this presupposes god exists – and more, that “god” is a specific god – both of which are matters of faith, not fact.

              As far as fact:

              Most people value their lives – and their property. God is not necessary for life or property to have value to those who possess them.

              If I assert ownership of my life and my property, then logically I cannot assert ownership over the lives or property of others. I do not see that a “higher standard” (i.e., a god who says it is so) is necessary to take this logically consistent position. Greg’s position, on the other hand, amounts to hyena-ism. The pack – and the rule of the strong – determines the validity of any given action. But whereas in Greg’s pack, an individual’s very existence is a condition of his strength within the pack hierarchy (and even great strength is fleeting) in a society governed by the NAP, all individuals enjoy the same rights, irrespective of their status. No act of aggression is legitimate.

              The NAP system is consistent with everyone’s self-interest. Even the strong – because ultimately, even predators become prey.

              The foregoing is a strong argument from a logical, utilitarian, self-interested (and empathetic) point of view. Is it necessary to back it up with “god says so”? Does the lack of such (overt, factually not debatable) “god saying so” mean the NAP system is no better than Greg’s system – in absolute terms?

              No, of course not. Because man is the measure of all things.

              You write:

              “You appeal to psychological normality, but I feel this is an invalid argument. First of all, most people are not truly psychologically normal by the definition you use, since they are indeed OK with theft, as long as its done by the government.”

              But most people, arguably, have not thought it through – and do not recognize the commonality. That theft is theft, whether done by a common street criminal or a criminal in a special costume. I believe most people do recognize that theft (and so on) are wrong – and it’s just a matter of getting them to see the bigger picture, to apply the principle to the particular.

              Now – all that said – the cynic and pessimist in me is susceptible to the argument that many people (perhaps most people) need an external authority – the fear of external authority – to provide them with a sort of reflexive/automatic morality. God, religion have (historically) provided that and helped keep the proverbial hounds at bay.

              It may be that only a relative minority of human beings could live in a Libertarian, NAP-based society because it requires conscious (and conceptual) acceptance of intellectual doctrines such as self-ownership that, perhaps, many (perhaps most) people are simply not capable of comprehending.

              Greg, OHS and Clover, for instance.

          • Eric,

            When you said “man is the measure of all things” you ultimately undermine the rest of what you said. Hence, the problem.

            I agree that I can’t prove that my God exists. Proving that God exists is pretty easy, IMO. The same reason I know somebody created the computer I’m currently typing on, I know the universe too has a creator of some sort. This, to me, is simple logic.

            But my particular God? You are right that I can’t absolutely prove that. I remember linking you recently to a page that talked about the book of Isaiah mentioning King Cyrus before he was even born. The division of the Roman Empire into Eastern (Byzantine) and Western Empires was predicted in Daniel 2 (See here There are numerous prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament that were fulfilled. But can I absolutely prove that these aren’t coincidences? I guess not. There’s also my own personal experiences and those of people I know, but I get that that doesn’t really carry any weight in this discussion.

            At any rate, my point is this. Maybe the NAP system is better than that supported by Greg. I happen to think it is. But if you’re going to say that man is the measure of all things, you completely defeat this argument, because there are more men who agree with Greg than that agree with you. Thus, either Greg is right, because men predominately agree with him, or there is a higher standard.

            If the NAP was truly in every person’s self interest, it would be in force, because people act in self-interest. The Powers that Be do NOT benefit from the non-aggression principle. I’m with you that more people would benefit than not, but this really isn’t a good reason for morality. Bombing Dresden was no doubt convenient. Might have been utilitarian. But it was still murder. It was still wrong.

            Regarding your comments about theft, I think you’re right that there are many people who just haven’t thought it through, but I don’t think its nearly half the population. I’ve debated with countless people who think the government grants property rights. I, of course, claim that God imputed those rights to us when he said “Thou shall not steal”. Most people laugh at the proposition that taxation is theft, even though its true.

            Regarding your comments about authority, I’d actually argue that God’s real authority is what makes the pretend authorities of government illegitimate. I know there are too many Christians who don’t “Get it” but just look at the Bible’s outlook on tax collectors. The Pharisees hated Christ even for eating with them. But why did Christ eat with them? Because he approved of them? Of course not. Because he wanted to see them get saved, and ultimately, as Matthew did, to QUIT their wicked profession.

        • Yeah…..You rant on hysterically because of a paranoid distant “possibility” that exists through your tortured extrapolation of a “what if”.
          On income taxes….So you admit you pay only because you are “afraid” ???…God man!!! Grow some balls!!! Afraid? Bah, makes you sound like a little girl.

          I pay my income taxes…….fearlessly !!! Because I am a patriot and I happen to agree with the concept…..I pay my way!

          Libertarians don’t want to pay for anything ! Because they are afraid !!!

          • Another well conditioned voice heard from. The conditioning is to get people to love their servitude. To love being part of a collective. It’s this love serfdom that humans have that is so baffling.

            The modern income tax arrived during the Wilson administration and was designed as a tax only the very few most wealthy americans. Of course the slippery slope has made it into a tax turns the middle class into share croppers or serfs. We should use the old terms for what the modern systems effectively do. It gets the point across of what they really are.

            Although folks like Greg here think he’s doing his part for the collective and he’s a team player. But I’ll wager Greg has never voluntarily sent a dime more to the US treasury than was demanded of him, not knowingly a dime more than would keep him out of prison. If paying income taxes was such a noble thing to do, why is it that the people who like it never send the government an extra check? They do accept them and they don’t force people to take deductions.

            So Greg, sleep well in all the people who have become wealthy on your back.

          • Dear Greg,

            Thanks for sharing that. I needed a good laugh.

            Never mind that your humor was unintentional. That did not make it any the less amusing.

          • @Greg – “I pay my income taxes…….fearlessly !!! Because I am a patriot and I happen to agree with the concept…..I pay my way!”

            And what do you expect in return for being a patriot who pays his way?

          • Dear Gary,

            As you reminded me recently:

            Murray Rothbard on Etienne de la Boetie.

            This, then, becomes for La Boétie the central problem of political theory: why in the world do people consent to their own enslavement? La Boétie cuts to the heart of what is, or rather should be, the central problem of political philosophy: the mystery of civil obedience. Why do people, in all times and places, obey the commands of the government, which always constitutes a small minority of the society? To La Boétie the spectacle of general consent to despotism is puzzling and appalling:

            I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they… [10]

            And this mass submission must be out of consent rather than simply out of fear.

            “Greg” is almost a parody of this very personality type. If he didn’t appear here of his own accord, one might suspect us of making him up as a shill.

          • @Bevin – As you reminded me recently:
            Murray Rothbard on Etienne de la Boetie.

            Bevin, we do look through a glass darkly don’t we?

            I am always aware that most people’s view of time and events centers around their birth year. That idea is accepted wholly and reinforced by our betters (politicians, bankers, teachers), who want and demand compliant confused cows with no accurate knowledge of the past. Otherwise they may be shown to be the Emperors with no clothes.

          • @Bevin – Thisw is high on my list of books to read.
            The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out – by Leonard Peikoff .

            To oversimplify somewhat, Dr. Peikoff argues that modern education has so disintegrated the nations conceptual character, that it has given rise to 1) the destructive nihilism of the sixties, and 2) a people who are now too intellectual disarmed to mount a rational response, and that therefore the people are turning to fundamentalist religion because it is the only bulwark against nihilism that they know.

            That’s quite a sophisticated point of view, and it requires an active-minded reader to appreciate it. This book is what you would expect to find in a dynamic, serious culture, not this one. Dr. Peikoff is clearly outside today’s mainstream, and this book is written only for people who are open to that.

          • Dear Gary,

            Peikoff is an interesting representative for “Orthodox Objectivism.”

            I think he has something re: fundamentalism as a makeshift bulwark against nihilism.

            Human beings do indeed need to believe in something. If it isn’t something sound, then even something unsound will be perceived as better than nothing.

            At one time I was in almost complete agreement with the Orthodox Objectivist world view. But when Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand split, I sided with the “Neo-Objectivism” Branden espoused. Branden’s revisionist Objectivism, or as Tor put it, “Reform Objectivism” struck me as psychologically healthier. Far healthier.

          • Greg,

            At one time – and not very long ago – people were free to travel, to come and go, without being randomly stopped by men with guns and forced to submit to physical searches of their persons and possessions. Such would have been inconceivable as routine practice as recently as the 1980s. Yet it is routine practice today.


            As I have explained, because the precedent was set – random “sobriety checkpoints” – and hysterics like me pointed out that the principle established would inevitably be expanded to other things.

            As it has been.

            We now live in a country where people are told how much soda pop they may consume (or sell). And yes, I know, it is “just” New York – and so, I am a hysteric for being concerned that the principle established will be expanded. In the same way that the principle set with regard to seatbelt laws has been expanded. In the same way that smoking has been rendered just shy of a felony offense – even in one’s own home.

            And yes, Greg, I am afraid of monolithic, arbitrary authority that can at its whim simply take my things, and put me in a cage – or kill me.

            PS: I do pay my own way, Greg. I simply object to being forced at gunpoint to pay for the “way” of other people like you.

      • Holy Shit! There are 234,094 reported bathroom injuries per year. Perhaps Greg should really help educate people instead of just seeming to. He could do more good teaching others on bathroom safety than traffic. I’d give him an “F” for his attempts here. I mean seriously, there are more people shitting than driving! Crusade on crusader! Greg, it’s a perfect mission for you or any clover. After all, ya’ll are ass clowns!

        • Ha.
          Er’ I mean, careful dom, they might like that idea.

          If some Mad Mothers get a whiff of that idea, it’s cameras and foam helmets in every bathroom.

          Clovers and Mad Mothers, what a combination, or do I repeat myself?

        • CloverHey Dom……..I see with your bathroom injury false equivalence comment why you were never picked for the debate team……lolol

          No crusading here buddy……just laughing at your argument

        • @Dom – Damn!. Does that mean bathrooms are more dangerous then bicycles? Maybe RothbardianamericanHelot has something there. I say protest, tax. penalize and jail the potty industry until they comply comarde. It is for the children!

          • Garysco, I highly recommend Piekoff’s works for you. . Orthodox Objectivists support a sufficiently capitalist and democratic a state, such as Israel & the US, having a monopoly on the use of force.

            The DIM Hypothesis

            A proper philosophical underpinning will be far stronger than propping up your rationalizations with tired tropes about violent ghettos filled with thugs trying to “kill you for your Nikes.”

            If you merely visit a ghetto out of uniform, and without giving off the “cop vibe”, you would discover how ridiculous that sounds.

            Get an old beater car and some second hand clothes and walk around Oakland and see for yourself, don’t take my word for it.

            A citizen’s lifespan is maybe 4 years shorter in the worst of the American high crime areas. It is not in immediate danger of being terminated, it’s delusional to claim otherwise. You’re better than that.

            Following Ayn Rand need not involve Libertarianism or Anarcho Capitalism whatsoever. She supported Goldwater for example.

            To many people, maybe even most, police and soldiers are regarded as vital protectors of order, and have an important role to play.

            Orthodox Objectivists even support pre-emptive military actions, drone strikes, and the war on terror.

            We Have Seen Better Days – Yaron Brook

            Here is the current list of approved Mainstream Objectivists.

            Christian Beenfeldt – Andrew Bernstein
            Harry Binswanger – Yaron Brook
            Edward Cline – Alex Epstein
            Robert Garmong – Onkar Ghate
            David Holcberg – Elan Journo
            John Lewis – Edwin Locke
            Keith Lockitch – Scott McConnell
            Leonard Peikoff – John Ridpath
            Peter Schwartz – Bradley Thompson
            Robert Tracinski

            “The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.

            A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force.

            The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

            But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of man’s deadliest enemy, from the role of of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against the victims deprived of the right of self-defense.

            Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.”


            A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

            If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

            This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

            A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

            The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.

            The difference between political power and any other kind of social “power,” between a government and any private organization, is the fact that a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. This distinction is so important and so seldom recognized today that I must urge you to keep it in mind. Let me repeat it: a government holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force.

            No individual or private group or private organization has the legal power to initiate the use of physical force against other individuals or groups and to compel them to act against their own voluntary choice.

            Only a government holds that power. The nature of governmental action is: *coercive *action. The nature of political power is: the power to force obedience under threat of physical injury—the threat of property expropriation, imprisonment, or death.

            The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force.

            It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.

            Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act.

            A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.

            This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.”

          • Yes. Bicycling is a rather safe activity if we judge it relative to other things we consider safe. But the safety zealots are not rational. Their perception of danger is what drives them. I don’t wear a bicycling hat. Why? Because I don’t like them, but more rationally if I started wearing one for bicycling I would need to wear such gear for many other things. Things where most people would consider it silly, like climbing stairs or getting in a car. Sure I can fall and hit my head on a curb when bicycling. I’ve fallen more times climbing stairs in my life than bicycling… I could just as easily hit my head on a concrete or steel stair as a curb. Statistically bicycling is safer and my own experience bears this out.

            Am I taking some degree of risk? Sure. Is it unusually high? no. I’m too much of a coward for high risk activities. But the safety zealots think I am reckless not wearing a foam hat. But then they’ll go off and consume industrial foodstuffs with a much higher risk to their long term health while bicycling, even with the risks, has a long term net benefit statistically. The best industrial food can do is not hurt.

          • @Tor- “tired tropes about violent ghettos filled with thugs trying to “kill you for your Nikes.”

            Sorry Tor no trope here, and that incident is taken from real life. As is most of my thinking. Reading and understanding theories and history merely adds definitions and words to my vocabulary.

            P.S. I grew up in a ghetto long before any uniforms were comtemplated.

    • @Tinsley – Confusion and conflicted actions abound, as predicted by this gentleman.

      …But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other…

      John Adams, Charles Francis Adams. The works of John Adams, second president of the United States: with a life of the author, notes and illustrations, Volume 9. Little, Brown and Company. 1854.

  39. No surprise given the state where this attempt takes place. I would not be surprised were this anywhere in New England or Maryland. That part of the country has diverged so far from respect for individual freedom that no unjust governmental act should surprise anybody. The wheels are coming off with reckless abandon and tests of the sheeples’ endurance of tyranny like this one will continue to accelerate. As Elvis Costello once sang….” I used to be disgusted. And now I try to be amused”. Remember that the public school experiment started in Massachusetts based on the Prussian model of complete obedience the state. The result is that people in that region tend to have a very soviet like tendency to obey whatever absurd rules their masters throw out there will little more than a whimper of pain. I have relatives in New England who I love dearly but who are just as brainwashed as any of the proles in the USSR ever were. If you want a model of what inspired Orwell’s 1984…..well England of course, but New England is right there. Freedom is Slavery……in other news, the coffee is particularly good this morning…..

    • “I would not be surprised were this anywhere in New England or Maryland.”

      In a Stephen King novel, the author expressed the idea that New England was “soured ground”, a place where evil or evil spirits had great influence over humans. HP Lovecraft had a similar view, as did Nathaniel Hawthorne .

      The idea makes sense, in a way. Chattel slavery was first codfied into law in Massachussetts. Puritan faux-Christian doctrines evolved into Unitarian radicalism in New England, and other collectivist schemes were nurtured there leading up to Lincoln’s war of treason against the states and the establishment of a national government under the control of the New England radicals after the crushing and subjugation of the states.

      The practice of total war was made the norm in their war against state sovereignty. Public schooling by law came from the same soured ground. Name an evil that is practiced by the central government here and it’s a good bet that it originated in New England. Naturally, the yankee pestilence has spread into New York, Delaware, New Jersey Pennsylvania, Maryland….. the whole continental US.

      This new legal fiction is nothing new, just more advancement of the yankee disease, progressing as usual.

          • Aristotle
            Fear is pain arising from the anticipation of evil. He who has overcome his fears will truly be free.

            It is better for you to be free of fear lying upon a pallet, than to have a golden couch and a rich table and be full of trouble.

            I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

            We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

            I fear a cage, to stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.

            Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

      • Well, no, skunkbear. It depends upon a person’s perspective, eh?
        From my vantage point here in the Midwest, “Boston strong” means they strongly support and believe in, The empire.

        They strongly wish to give up their liberty.

        They strongly refuse to box outside the think.

        In the world of double-think, it makes perfect sense.

      • Skunkbear, you’re right. It even sounds retarded, doesn’t it? it’s a silly slogan invented by someone who needs the rest of us to be as stupid as he is for his bullshit to gain traction. The news media plastered it everywhere fo the weak minded to repeat, while stronger minded people got busy and documented the fraud of the smoke bombing.

        “Boston strong” was invented by some idiot who has probably never been to Boston. The Southie/Townie term “serious white people” is a real term, and describes strong people, but the news media will never mention that one because it’s just too politically incorrect.

    • To Eric……

      I find your articles to be excellent insight into a particular mindset….

      And that mindset seems…..a bit hysterical

      • To Eric,

        Good God man, what kind of sissy bars DO YOU go to that would cut off a customer at two or three drinks ???!???Clover

        I have never seen that EVER happen ANYWHERE !!!

        Thus your analogy is doo – doo…….

        • It’s not an analogy, Greg – it’s a legal reality.

          A bartender/owner who knowingly serves any person “over the limit” is in legal peril of being charged in the event that customer drives drunk – as defined by law – and there is an accident.

          Most people are legally “drunk”as a matter of law once their BAC level approaches .08 – a level the average person gets to after three drinks over the course of an hour or so (depending on body weight, metabolism and other factors).

          Now, there’s no law – yet – imposing a “three drink limit.” However, given the fact that, legally speaking, a bartender can be charged as per the above, it’s prudent for them to cut people off, whether they appear to be “drunk” or not. Whether they actually do that in all cases is, of course, immaterial. The point is: There is legal pressure for them to do exactly that – and many do. The airlines do it routinely, as a matter of policy.

          What you’ve seen – or not – is irrelevant insofar as the question at hand is concerned.

          Buck passing/cost shifting leads to all sorts of nonsense and inequities. The case discussed in the article being an example that may soon become common practice.

          • To Eric,

            Baloney Eric ! Every ADULT knows bartender business is a LAW!Clover

            And one that is ignored again and again…..Plus you stated that bartenders cut off ALL patrons after 2 or 3 drinks……Again more BUNK !!!

            Plus you are hysterically using this law as an analogy of what is to come of the legal proceedings of the 2 boys and girl and the crash

            • “Every ADULT knows bartender business is a LAW!”

              I cannot parse the above. It is incoherent.

              “Plus you stated that bartenders cut off ALL patrons after 2 or 3 drinks……Again more BUNK.”

              I don’t think I made a universal statement. Did I? No, I did not. Here is the exact language, from the article:

              “Bartenders, for instance, are legally obliged to keep track of how much patrons are drinking – and to cut them of when they’ve had “enough.” If not – and the patron subsequently drives and wrecks, the bartender (and the owner of the bar) can be held legally responsible. Criminally as well as civilly.”

              You’d do better to critique me for the things I’ve actually written or said rather than the erroneous things you claim I wrote or said.

              The fundamental issue is that anyone who serves alcohol is potentially responsible for the subsequent actions of the person who drinks. Fact. This puts bartenders and so on in the position of having to monitor and gauge the sobriety of their patrons – fact – and that, indeed, they are legally obligated to “cut them off” if they appear to be legally drunk. Fact.

              Whether they actually do cut them off is another question.

              It’s a fact that, legally speaking, a person is defined as “drunk” once their BAC reaches .08 – a level typically reached after consuming about three drinks over an hour or so – and therefore, it would be prudent (insofar as shielding oneself from legal liability) to cut off any person who has had that much to drink.

              My point is that, increasingly, the system seeks to punish Jones for the actions of Smith. Or to make Jones responsible for what Smith may do.

              It’s not a figment of my imagination. It’s a fact, a reality. Is it “hysterical” to mention this? To extrapolate from “a” to “b”?

              You write:

              “Plus you are hysterically using this law as an analogy of what is to come of the legal proceedings of the 2 boys and girl and the crash”

              In law, precedent is everything. If the courts agree that these boys are criminally culpable not for anything they did but because they did not intercede to forestall the actions of another person, then a legal precedent – a doctrine – has been established that will inevitably be applied generally, to other things.

              Am I “hysterical” for pointing this out?

              It is exactly of a piece with the way random, probable cause-free checkpoints for “drunk drivers” have been expanded and routinized to the extent that people must now submit to having their bodies pawed and their possessions rifled in order to travel by air – or even to attend a a fuuuuhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttball game.

              But you don’t see it.

              Or can’t.

          • eric, that sue the bar bs had just cropped up on the national scene because of a couple lawsuits filed trying to get some people off after having fatal accidents involving others by putting the onus on the bar. This was back in the 80’s, when you were a child and didn’t even read the newspaper or know what’ they were talking about on tv so it’s not something NEW. A friend called and rightly pointed out it was happy hour somewhere, and we knew where. a town about 50 miles away with national chain restaurants and excellent bars so we tore off. We’d had 2-3 drinks in the bar before our table was ready so we then went and ate. I asked this little college(3 “christian” colleges in town, sheesh)prick for another round and he said he couldn’t serve us any longer. There was another good bar just a few feet from that one so we just paid up and walked next door. Hey, come on in, what’ll yall have? This bunch didn’t give a shit since they had no college boys to harass us. We spent the evening there and nobody said crap about a “limit”. But it is there, always there with clovers being waiters. Oh, and I’m normally a big tipper but not for him. Everybody else knew I was before the night was over. Now had we been falling over we could have been cut off and rightly so. I don’t want to sit around with people doing headers onto me but that wasn’t the case. BTW, we made it home a-ok.

          • Dear Eric,

            You said: “In law, precedent is everything. If the courts agree that these boys are criminally culpable not for anything they did but because they did not intercede to forestall the actions of another person, then a legal precedent – a doctrine – has been established that will inevitably be applied generally, to other things.”

            If the courts agree that the boys are criminally culpable, then it stands to reason that the “good cops”, who stand by — and don’t restrain their comrades-in-arms who are abusing a mere mundane, should be open to lawsuits as well, because they did not intercede to forestall the actions of the other cop.

          • @Linda. That should be the case, but when the “law” is no longer objective and is made up as you go, you end up in Animal Farm.


            Orwell wrote the book from November 1943–February 1944, when the wartime alliance with the Soviet Union was at its height and Stalin was held in highest esteem in Britain among the people and intelligentsia, a fact that Orwell hated. It was initially rejected by a number of British and American publishers, including one of Orwell’s own, Victor Gollancz. Its publication was thus delayed, though it became a great commercial success when it did finally appear partly because the Cold War so quickly followed World War II.


          • Linda, there you go, using logic. See that’s the problem we aren’t dealing with logical rational people.

            You bring up an excellent point and I would go further. The government’s courts have long stated that the government’s police forces have no duty to protect us or our property. That’s why a cop doesn’t have to respond, doesn’t have to intervene, doesn’t have to do anything. That’s why we can’t sue the government if we get robbed or injured. Yet if we had a private security contract we could sue or at the very least cancel the contract and stop paying them. But I digress…

            If these boys are convicted someone is going to sue the government for not protecting them from a drunk driver. Logically this would result in the previous court decisions regarding police not making positive action to prevent crime, injury, etc to be reversed.

            Of course that won’t happen. What will develop is a great big double standard.

          • @Linda – I no sooner write a comment to you, then stumble across this:

            The Federal Reserve’s cult of secrecy is unmasked

            The recent audit of the Federal Reserve by the Government Accountability Office is particularly disturbing if read alongside the last report to Congress by the Fed’s Inspector General.

            The GAO audit found a huge number of serious conflicts of interest at the Fed. Employees and contractors were allowed to own stock in the companies receiving financial assistance from the central bank.

            By the way, your taxpayers’ dollars have already paid for this document. So feel free to download a copy from this URL:

            The Government Accountability Office determined the Fed’s policies were too weak to mitigate the harm to the taxpayers that could result of these widespread conflicts of interest. When the conflicts of interest were so blindingly obvious that they could not be ignored, the Fed simply waived them.

            The Fed has its own internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General. That office somehow managed to fail to notice any of these problems in its most recent report to Congress. As with the GAO audit, you’ve already paid for it through your taxes, so feel free to download a copy from this URL:

        • Greg just wants to argue, pay him no heed. Greg is a good illustration of how people are duped by their media comsumption. He’s focusing on his emotional reaction to what you wrote, rather than actually reading/comprehending what you actually wrote. Perfect little politically oriented prole actually. Probably believes he can keep his doctor, that we can unendingly support all forms of “help”, that government and its various law enforcement agents are “heros”, that the rich should give up their weatlh (whilst not defining what is rich and what is wealth, let alone zero understanding of private property) etc… all because the idiot on the idiot box told him so, wrapped in a protective cocoon of emotional bubble wrap to make sure he feels cuddly safe.
          But, I’m sure it is for someone else’s own good!

          • Hi Tomas,

            I don’t mind an argument – provided it’s logical and based on facts (and things I actually said or wrote).

            Greg wants to argue about things I never wrote or said – and apparently cannot comprehend the concept of legal precedent leading to general practice.

            He doesn’t worry me.

            What does worry is that there are tens of millions of emoting, perfectly programmed drones out there just like him.

        • Yeah……love that clover you inserted in my posts

          Forgot that is your term for anyone who disagrees with you

          How very dismissive of youClover

          I imagine soon you will be editing the words in my posts into a more pleasing ( to you ) order

      • Eric is writing about principles. Not making a precise statement of exactly when a bartender cuts off someone who has had too many. And for exactly what reason.

        Greene County, Indiana News

        “Indiana’s Dram Shop Act statutorily allows for civil liability in certain situations when one furnishes alcohol to another who then causes an injury due to their intoxication,” per the 1999 case of Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnson.

        The measure, similar to those passed in 37 other states, is a legislative push which holds those who serve or furnish alcohol responsible for the acts of others and can result in civil suits under Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15 and 7.1-5-10-15.5.”

        The principle of what Eric was saying is supported by this article. 37 states hold those who serve or furnish alcohol responsible for the acts of those they served drinks to. Do you deny this would alter the bartender’s behavior, and cause them to cut patrons off at an earlier point, “just to be safe”.

        Laws using this same principle could be passed in other venues. Take morbidly obese patrons of a restaurant. Restaurants could be held legally liable for the health problems of their patrons.

        “Your server saw that my client was 300 pounds overweight, yet she negligently served him two desserts, My client is now hospitalized, and we are suing you for the expenses related to him going into a diabetic coma.”

        Laws using this same principle could be passed in the adult lounge industry.

        “My client told you he was married, Miss Lapdancer, yet you negligently provided 10 lap dances for my client. His wife saw your glitter on his face, and now he has been served divorce papers, and is facing substantial financial loss, and loss of spousal support. Your honor, we are seeking damages in the amount of half my client’s projected losses.”

        Do you support such laws? Do you condone these types of interventions into commerce? Are you too busy laughing hysterically to think about such things?

        Baby Laughing Hysterically at Ripping Paper

        • Yes…..I am still laughing at your paranoid fantasies

          You are really worried about things that don’t happen….

          Let me ask you this…..of the tens of thousands of motor vehicle accidents that have occurred because of alcohol…..How many bartenders have gone to jail as a result?Clover

          And the law against serving the obviously inebriated have been on the books for years and years and years….

          Three or four barkeeps….

          Oh yeah, now THERE is something to worry about

          • Greg, the US had about 35,000 deaths from motor vehicles last year, a record low, not from safer vehicles as the govt. would have you to believe, but from lesser miles driven, mainly due to less disposable money. So where do you get tens of thousands of motor vehicle accidents? Do you have lists of vehicle accidents from every state you have compiled into a database? Just wondering. You roll those “tens of thousands” of motor vehicle accidents off as though that’s a fact or an accurate statistic. Strawmen, build them when you have nothing else. Of course you must be aware that “alcohol related” means finding an old beer can, even faded to the point the brand can’t be read, in one of the vehicles involved in an accident. I’ve known people cited for “open container” who had only beer cans with dirt and sprouted weeds growing out. Well, they learned quickly to throw their cans(of any sort)out of the vehicle no matter what. That’ll teach ’em not to litter. I never littered in my life until this little shitty took effect. But if my wife and I stop to get a six pack on the way home, we toss the empties since that’s “evidence” of our “open container” crime. Laugh, Greg, …..until it’s your ass. The other side of your mouth and all that ha ha.

          • Greg,
            I can see hypothetical reasoning is beyond your ability.

            If you’re going to make claims, include a link to support your claim, don’t waste our time with unsupported assertions.

            The more you post, the more you reveal you have no insight. And nothing to say of substance whatsoever. You’re just a giggling Toon Patrol Weasel.

          • Greg,

            Is it really necessary to point out that such things build momentum over time? That it begins with a law or legal precedent that, over time, encompasses more and more – based on the principle at issue?

            I gave you the example of the initial assault on the Fourth Amendment: Random, probably cause-free “sobriety” checkpoints. 30 years ago, if you as a specific individual were not doing something tangibly definable in a court of law to suggest you’d committed or might be about to commit a crime, the cops had no legal authority to interfere with you. Well, what happened, Greg?

            The courts ruled that it was ok to violate the 4th Amendment for the supposed “greater good” of getting “dangerous drunks” off the road. By presuming the guilt of every driver until proved otherwise.

            Now, as a direct result of that legal precedent – of the normalization of “exceptions” to the 4th Amendment – Americans are routinely forced to submit to random searches and interrogations, may be detained for literally no reason at all beyond generic “you might be a …. (insert here).”

            Ah, but I am “hysterical” for pointing such things out.

        • Yeah…..Eric approaches debate and consensus like a 14 year old girl….Clover

          Not only does he have to be right, but EVERYONE else has to agree as well…..

          Having had a 14 year sister once upon a time I understand the mindset….however SHE grew out of it

          • Greg,

            “Consensus” means majority rule. I do not establish right or wrong based on what a majority decides it to be.

            I do not insist on being right – I just insist on pointing out when someone such as yourself is wrong. As when you manufactured words I did not write and then criticized me for “writing” them!

          • You stumbled on a point when you pointed out that Eric was claiming to believe in absolute morality without a source for said morality. That doesn’t change the fact that you are an idiot who has no real argument. All that you really proved is that a Creator is necessary for absolute moral standards to exist.

            In spite of my comments in my previous post, Eric is a smart guy. And it just so happens that, despite not having a solid basis for it, Eric gets more morality right than many Christians. You, on the other hand, are an absolute failure, and not intelligent enough to be worth talking to.

            Frankly, if you’re actually posting on this forum and haven’t seen the tyranny of this government yet, you deserve it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here