The Fix Was In From The Beginning

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I threw the Constitution in the woods years ago, when I became aware of its true nature as a document empowering government rather than protecting the rights of the people. The historic fact is the Constitution was intended to gut the rights of the people; it was only as an afterthought that the Bill of Rights was tacked on, to placate those who were – rightly, as it turns out – suspicious of what Hamilton & Co. were up to.Con pic 1

The Constitution is all about “Congress shall have power…” and so on. Well, over whom shall it have power? By what authority?

The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is all about “Congress shall make no law… and “shall not be infringed.” It is a roster of contras with regard to government. An assertion of the positive rights of the individual. It expressed the popular feeling behind the Revolution that was subverted by the Constitution. Read it – the Bill of Rights – and you will immediately notice how it comports with the Declaration of Independence, whereas the Constitution’s enumeration of state power sounds a discordant, reactionary note. Hamilton and Co. were appalled by the freedom briefly enjoyed by average Americans. By the weakness (i.e., its inability to forcibly coerce) of the central government; in particular, its inability to “raise revenue” and impose its will across the land. See, for instance, the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. And so the Hamiltonians wrote the Constitution – without the authorization or consent of “the people,” in secret conclave – for the express purpose of “correcting” the problem, as they saw it, of too much liberty . . . and not enough government.

Still, America remained a relatively free country for several generations after the Revolution due to inertia and the cultural legacy of the Revolution. The Hamiltonians could only go so far. But the passage of the Constitution assured the inevitability of what became explicit – at bayonet-point – in 1865 and subsequently: The central government’s authority is unlimited in principle and the individual has no rights it is bound to respect.

Think about it: Can anyone name even one individual right that the government has not rescinded and turned into a conditional privilege?con 2

We no longer enjoy freedom of speech. Is it necessary to elaborate? At a time when a person must ask permission to be allowed to publicly (and peacefully) express dissatisfaction with the government? When the expression of certain views is sufficient legal warrant to provoke a “visit” – or worse – by armed men who are empowered to kidnap the speaker or writer? When the mere wearing of a T-shirt with “objectionable” slogans or images upon it is regarded by the law as sufficient warrant to “detain” (that is, forcibly assault) a person? What happened to “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”?

We are not at liberty to choose with whom we associate, even in private. Or do business with. We are subject to arrest and imprisonment if we decline to associate with persons the government decrees we must associate with, or do business without the requisite permissions (such as licenses) and according to the rules laid down by the state. If you are 17 years old, you must attend a government school. You are not at liberty to go to work and support yourself, if that is your wish. It is “against the law.”con 3

Everything – just about – is either “against the law” or requires the state’s permission first.

Our right to be “secure in our persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” is a nullity. There is no place – not even in our homes – that we are not subject to grotesquely unreasonable searches and seizures. Check Ikea Catalogue and innovations Catalogue. Is it necessary to elaborate? At a time when people are being violated in the most degrading way (roadside digital inspection of their body cavities) under color of law? When what would be considered sexual assault if done by any Mere Mundane is sanctified as “reasonable” by the courts? At a time when every single phone call, every single e-mail, is recorded and analyzed by the government? This is “reasonable”? According to the government, which interprets its own powers to suit, it certainly is.

Once, we were free to possess and carry arms. The Second Amendment formally acknowledged this absolute right: “. . .shall not be infringed.” Is it necessary to catalog the infringements we suffer? “Infringe” has become as meaningless as “reasonable.” Or rather, they have both come to mean their opposites in practice. It is a crime in most states merely to carry a firearm not obviously visible (i.e., “concealed,” for which one must posses a permission slip). In some states – and the federal capital itself – it is a felony to possess a firearm, period. So much for “shall not be infringed.”Hamilton pic

Americans are subject to being dragooned into the night, held without charge – for years – at the whim of the government. The fact that is has not (yet) been done on a large scale is not relevant. That fact is it could be, at any time – because the authority has been asserted and formalized into “the law” by executive fiat and court sanction (or refusal to not sanction). There is no appeal, no mechanism in law to protect the individual. Merely the hazy recollection that it didn’t used to be that way. Once that fades, the results will be predictable.

We are forced – under threat of lengthy incarceration – to provide evidence the government can and will use to prosecute us as “criminals.” Doubt it? Decline to provide the government with information regarding your business dealings, your assets, your salary – and see what happens.

The onetime right to a trial by jury has been end-run by “administrative” law. Pay up – or else.

So much for the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

We are allowed to own nothing of substance. Our homes and land are functionally owned by the state, which assess us rent in the form of property tax. Fail to pay the rent and you will quickly discover who owns “your” land.con last

Not even your physical person is your own property. The state owns you. It decrees you may not consume certain substance as this might harm its property. You may not mate or partner with another without permission – or only in certain “approved” ways. The children you produce are not yours to raise. They must be raised as the state decrees, properly “educated” in ways the state approves.

And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? A sick joke.

What “rights” has the federal government not arrogated unto itself? It forcibly injects itself into the most mundane and minute affairs of individuals; most recently, it has asserted that each of us must purchase health insurance – or else – and will shortly assert its “right” to micromanage our actual “health,” to include our personal habits and recreations – very probably, the opinions we hold.

So much for our rights.

They may continue to exist, of course. But they are not respected.

Just as was intended by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Throw it in the Woods? 

Spread this via Twitter: LibertarianCarG (they would not let me have “guy”).

PS: We depend on you to keep the wheels turning.  If you value alternatives to the MSM, please support independent media. Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079


  1. Eric,

    The COTUS is fine; the problems arise from not FOLLOWING it! In Article I, it lists something like 18 things on which Congress can spend money; it can’t spend money on anything else besides those things. We’re trillions in debt precisely because Congress HAS spent money on many other things.

    Thomas Jefferson said that he wanted things to be so that the average citizen wouldn’t have to interact with gov’t. Back then, we had tariffs and excise taxes; that’s how the fed gov’t was funded. The average Joe never had to interact with the gov’t. Well, thanks to the income tax, we can’t avoid interacting with gov’t.

    Finally, the Articles of Confederation were a mess. Each state had its own money. There wasn’t free trade across state lines. The Articles weren’t quite enough.

    Before I close, you might have heard of the Convention of States movement. It’s spurred by conservatives who want to add amendments to the COTUS to rein in the out of control central gov’t. Whenever someone brings up the possibility of a runaway convention (e.g. what happened in Philadelphia in 1787), the person is mocked and scoffed. What they don’t tell you is that the Founders ignored their instructions and limitations, thus giving us the COTUS. If it could happen once, it could happen again. Be WARY of the CoS, or Con-Con!

    In closing, there’s nothing wrong with the COTUS; the COTUS, I think, is a Divinely inspired document. The problems arise from not FOLLOWING it! A lot of that is on us, the citizens, because we didn’t take a more active role to rein in an out of control gov’t. Long ago we should’ve marched on Washington, rounded up the scoundrels, and hung ’em! Shoot, most people don’t even KNOW the COTUS anymore, so they can’t know what’s been lost.

  2. Rothbard was a light-hearted agnostic. Open to all kinds of ideas. As, may I suggest, even the devoutist of Christians might also consider being, at least in our company, because we mean them no harm and pose no threat.

    When Murray first encountered Rand in the early 1950s, Rothbard was mightily impressed. After hanging out in her apartment though, he found her followers wearying, and detected some strange customs such as an insistence on conformity with issues that had nothing to do with either philosophy or economics but rather with issues of personal taste and aesthetics.

    Branden had become the gatekeeper to Rand and the enforcer of her ideals on her followers. Murray stuck it out as long as he could but eventually ran afoul of the Rand circle in too many ways. He was lighthearted and outgoing, whereas he they were stern and serious. Objectivists had strict views on music and religion, whereas Murray was rather broad in his outlook on these matters.

    Though Rothbard was an agnostic on religion, he got along just fine with his Presbyterian wife. Branden insisted that either JoAnn Rothbard change her views or the marriage be ended!

    This was too much, Murray left the circle and the break was not peaceful. It led to the end of lifelong friendships, acrimony all around, and eventually a lawsuit by Branden against Rothbard, in which Branden claimed that Rothbard had stolen Rand’s original ideas and used them without credit.

    Mozart Was a Red – Murray Rothbard

    Understanding Ayn Randianism

    – – –
    Larken Rose’s YouTube channel has videos of him having conversations with pastors and devout Christians. His qualms are only with those who believe in the most dangerous superstition: government and the idea of authoritarianism.

    Larken Rose & Dann McCreary – Can a Christian Be an Anarchist?

    “I want to discuss how the morality of Anarchism works into religious morality. For anybody who doesn’t know, I’m not a Christian. but I very much agree with everything Jesus said. There’s a lot of confusion, and a lot of people think authoritarianism goes along with being good, but I don’t think so.”
    – Larken Rose

    Jesus would not self-identify as being religious. He was against religion. Religion is to belief and faith, what a corporation is to entrepreneurship and industry. Which is to say a detriment, and not in the least bit a requirement.
    – – –

    Kinsella believes in extending consequentialism to religion, which means if a Christian society is wealthy and free, then it’s underpinning philosophy, even if irrational, must be accepted as good, because the fruits of its goodness are clearly evidenced. Kinsella is not on the same page as Randians and Objectivists who say religion is harmful and incompatible with freedom.

    Ayn Rand, Argumentation Ethics, Religion, Intellectual Property and Bullying – Stephen Kinsella.

    – – –
    Walter Block considers religion a powerful ally because of its innate hatred of the secular state.

    WB quotes
    “The main reason religion sticks in the craw of secular leaders is that this institution defines moral authority independently of their power.”

    “He who wishes to oppose statist depredations cannot do so without the support of religion. Opposition to religion, even if based on intellectual grounds and not intended as a political statement, nevertheless amounts to de facto support of government.”

    “It will be argued that numerous innocent people have been murdered in the name of religion. True, alas, all too true. However, a little perspective. Just how many people were killed by religious excesses, such as the Inquisition? The best estimates are between 3,000 and 10,000 over several centuries. This pales into utter insignificance compared to the devastation inflicted upon the human race by governments. When comparing religion and government one must keep in mind these astronomical differences.”

    Religion and Libertarianism – Walter Block

    • @Tor – Alas we are all susceptible to being humans with imperfections. I think it inherent in nature. I have one woodpecker bird that visits my yard and thinks the bird feeder is for him and his fellow woodpeckers. His fellow woodpeckers coexist with the other types of birds there, but he can’t and tries to chase them off. Ayn Rand, Murray, Branden and her followers are not exempted .

      From John Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged, (1957).

      “As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality (of Death): the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter—the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit—the destruction of his mind.

      The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society—a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth—to his great-grandchildren.”

      Plot of a basically true story: A Beautiful Mind:

      In 1947, John Nash arrives at Princeton University. He is co-recipient, with Martin Hansen, of the prestigious Carnegie Scholarship for mathematics. At a reception, he meets a group of other promising math and science graduate students, Richard Sol, Ainsley, and Bender. He also meets his roommate Charles Herman, a literature student.
      Nash comes under increasing pressure to publish, but he refuses until he finds a truly original idea. His inspiration comes when he and his fellow graduate students discuss how to approach a group of women at a bar. Hansen quotes Adam Smith and advocates “every man for himself”, but Nash argues that a cooperative approach would lead to better chances of success. This leads to a new concept of governing dynamics which Nash develops and publishes. On the strength of this he is offered an appointment at MIT where Sol and Bender join him.

      Some years later, Nash is invited to the Pentagon to crack encrypted enemy telecommunication. Nash is able to decipher the code mentally, to the astonishment of other codebreakers. He considers his regular duties at MIT uninteresting and beneath his talents, so he is pleased to be given a new assignment by mysterious supervisor, William Parcher (Harris) of the United States Department of Defense, to look for patterns in magazines and newspapers in order to thwart a Soviet plot. Nash becomes increasingly obsessive about searching for these hidden patterns and believes he is followed when he delivers his results to a secret mailbox.

  3. “Just as was intended by the men who wrote the Constitution.”

    I agree 100 percent.

    Over the past 2 years (I’m 30), I’ve gone through a personal revelation that I am indeed an anarcho-capitalist libertarian; I was formerly a min-archist conservative who did not pay much attention to politics. Milton Friedman was my gateway drug, so I will always be indebted to him for that, all differences and offenses to liberty aside. Ron Paul was next, and Rothbard, Rockwell, and others at the Mises Institute helped round out my transformation. You could say I fell into full blown libertarianism by way of economics rather than philosophy (not to say the philosophical case against the state is any less devastating, which it most certainly is). It was like a landslide, shedding the years of indoctrination and government filth from public school education and mainstream media entertainment; slow at first, but with ever increasing speed and finality it all came down.

    Getting to my point, sorry, I recently have been reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers and was shocked to see how little I agreed with the authors of the Constitution (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay), and how much I agreed with many of the anti-federalist positions. By now it is clear, that many of the warnings posed by the anti-federalists have indeed come true, despite the condescending and pompous assurances from the likes of Hamilton and Madison. I would recommend any libertarian, as well as any statist, to read the anti-federalist papers. Here’s a good jumping off point:

    In my conversations with government lovers and apologists of all varieties, the #1 criticism I receive on libertarianism, is that it is Utopian or childish to believe that society can survive without a government to hold it together.

    To me the argument is much more convincing, that the true Utopian dream is that of a self-limiting government capable of maintaining and protecting its citizens’ liberties – to think that government can be anything other than a tyrannical self-serving tool of absolute power to be wielded against all who question its authority. Symmes, of the anti-federalists, put it rather eloquently:

    “In short, we know that all governments have degenerated,
    and consequently have abused the powers reposed in them; and why we
    should imagine better of the proposed Congress than of myriads of public
    bodies who have gone before them, I cannot at present conceive” – Symmes

  4. Hi Eric, Bevin, Helot, Garysco, Final, Escher, David, ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N, and anyone else gathered in motley assembly this fine day.

    Learning starts the day we are born, and doesn’t end until we die; and education comes from the Latin for “to lead out”, and stands in contrast to “indoctrinate”, which – also from Latin – means to “teach inwards”, or to thrust a particular set of doctrines down somebody’s throat. (which is what now happens)

    The difference between the two, though superficially similar, is fundamental. The first – leading out, helping a student discover things and ideas for which he is searching – is a perfect fit for human beings, since we are self-owners each making our own way through life.

    The second is a perfect fit for the opposite model; an inhospitable prison where government controls its subjects by telling them what to think, rather than helping them how to think.

    Orwell, in “1984”, was uncannily perceptive! – he illustrated one of the key things that government does, so as to bolster its control of the population, is to modify the language and confuse everyone, as in “war is peace.” His name for this insidious process was “Newspeak.”

    When would you say it is that human beings learn?
    A When a teacher calls them to order
    B When interesting information is placed before them
    C When they want to acquire knowledge

    If you chose C, then there is still hope for you. One can go through school and even obtain advanced university degrees without grasping this simple fact: humans learn only when they WANT to learn, when a question enters their mind which they feel requires an answer.

    Teachers can help, they can stimulate the formation of such questions, but unless the desire is there, the answers they hear will enter one ear and exit the other. At most they’ll acquire knowledge, though most likely not even that. A learner must actively participate and persevere against all difficulties, if they truly wish to answer a single question so completely, that they actually understand.

    If you want to see how our current system got so badly out of whack, you can inquire and check into the sad and tragic history of it all. Those so interested in the gruesome details of the awful truth could read Sam Blumenfeld’s research masterpiece “Is Public Education Necessary?” for all the gory details on the subject.

    By 1830 many admirers of indoctrinating systems from other countries paid visits to study and fine tune the American Automaton system. Among them were parties of Unitarians and others from the US elite. Most everyone that wielded state power quickly adapted the Prussian model that has to this day proven so effective and ideal for pacifying all of America.

    Back in Prussia, compulsion was the essential ingredient in the model – even to the point of removing children from their parents, if they resisted! Funding was by taxation – more compulsion. Government schooling from the very start was therefore antithetical to human nature, to a free society of self-owning sovereigns.

    The American visitors to Prussia reported back and worked hard to persuade State governments to enact copies of the Prussian model – most notably in Massachusetts.

    They were often not well received; the new country was prospering, government was only slightly intrusive, and parents gladly raised their own children at their own expense and were doing well; they saw no need for such a big and potentially dangerous change.

    Horace Mann was a Massachusetts politician, by 1837 the Senate President. He worked to achieve a reputation as one who could take any cause and pilot it through the legislature to success; and in 1837 the tireless advocates for forced adoption of the Prussian model in that State succeeded in getting laws to pass control of “education” from Towns to the State.

    And it was Horace Mann they chose to act as Secretary of the new Education Board. They were not disappointed; he worked long and hard in his new-found cause, boning up on Prussian theory, touring the Common Schools and touting the new model and in particular, calling for teacher training colleges to be established under State control to give teeth to its control of what would be taught.

    By 1847, the dirty deed had been completed. Government schooling was a fact in Massachusetts and it had, meanwhile, been adopted in several other States already, and soon it would be adopted in all states.

    The Calvinist-Puritans, wanted to ensure the orthodox raising of children to guard against any parental neglect – but at taxpayer expense. So did the Unitarians, who desired the same thing for their own religious views.

    Also the Owenite Socialists, who also expressly intended to redesign human nature by re-education. All used this Prussian model against every single American child. And all at the expense of the victims. Soon even the more tolerant Protestants, saw the benefit of winning at the pulpit, and of walling up all of society against the long-feared Roman Catholic invasion. Everyone agreed of course, that once again, all this highly beneficial and sacred work, must only be accomplished using stolen money to carry out their devious and to be honest, even demonic anti-human work.

    Horace Mann held all these disparate moral interests together and ensured that they prevailed against all others. More than any other individual, therefore, he is the one whom we can blame the most for the horrible outcome of American education we all see today.

    Todays Government schools are so unbearably boring as to virtually force children to seek relief in narcotics, and instead of fixing the source of that problem they savagely hunt down the drugs, and patrol with school police and sometimes even conduct strip searches and other traumatic raids that permanently damage innocent young children.

    This is exactly what one should expect, when customers and markets do not exist. Where there is only government’s two-tiered reality. With masters treating slave minded children and adults alike as cattle and herding the youngsters from one classroom enclosure to another, every 45 minutes, in a mindless bovine fashion.

    Regardless of any interest the children might have in the subjects being force fed them. Without regard to how poorly and in how inhumanely the indoctrination and abuse is heaped upon them in what cynically and unforgiveably passes for them being “taught.”
    – – –
    No more into their fray. Deny their fights they claim are good. Live for oneself and die not for them today. Live always for ourself and never die for them on any day. This I took from a Liam Neeson flick The Grey. Saw only the end, so more than this I cannot say.

    Do we even have free will, or have the Randian State Scientists now proven it to be illusion? Paging Dr. Ferris.

    • Kick ass comment, Tor.
      I only wish I were in high school or Jr. High again and I could spread it to my fellow inmates in the co-ed prison, ‘er I mean, school.
      I’d add a few Star Wars graphics along the way.
      The storyline of each seems to fit.

      I imagine at least a quarter of them would get it.
      Of that, half of them would rebel.

      Hmph, seems like that’s where we are now?

      And to think, I might have thought that to be worthwhile.

      ….Or, maybe the odds are different now, in the age of The Internet?

      I guess we’ll know when The Fourth Turning is either a flop, or a Big Hit towards the freedom side?

      Isn’t that spooky, the fate of humanity resides with the youth figuring out how slanted the system is?

      • Well good news for you, Helot. You can stop thinking about the 4th Turning and get ready for the 5th Turning.

        Here’s a long wordy article all about the 5th Turning that I only skimmed the first paragraph of yet am linking so as to seem relevant and hip to youngsters with your facespaces and google glasses and all.

        Here’s some horrible pick up lines that will probably be of no use
        I may look like an Ewok, but I’m all Wookie where it counts, baby.
        Honey, you’ve been looking for love in Alderaan places!
        Why don’t we head to my bedroom, peel back my Star Wars sheets, and discover what a true Jedi can do with his light sabre?
        You, me, here… this couldn’t be any better if I programmed the holodeck myself!
        “You look like an angel that fell from heaven and hit its face on the pavement.”
        “You are almost as beautiful as my sister. But well, you know, that’s illegal.”
        “You have a beautiful head. It would look marvelous next to the other ones in my freezer. ”
        “Damn, you look good in beer goggles…”
        “You look like Carmen Electra’s deformed, burned, dismembered sister…”
        “How much will a 20 get me?”
        “I’m a man! You’re a woman! You do the math!”
        “You don’t sweat much for a fat chick.”
        “I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition. In my pants.”
        “Ish heav’n mishing a angel? Cuz… cuz… is heav’n mishn a… mishn a angel… yeah cuz… fuck it. C’mere suck my dick. [vomit]”
        “The word of the day is legs. Let’s go to your house and spread the word.”
        “That shirt is very becoming on you. If I was on you, I’d be coming too.”
        “Are you from the Netherlands? Because you are one big dyke!”
        “You know, pants are a vestigial organ. Yours look infected.”
        “I bet you 100 quid you can’t turn me hetero.”
        “Please, I am needing wife to get green card, but Immigration is wanting, how you say, proof of consummation.”
        “You’re hotter than my daughter.”
        “I’ll give you a nickel to tickle my pickle.”
        “Do you take ebt?”
        “I’m the biggest lady-killer around since O.J. Simpson.”
        “Roses are red, violets are twisted. Ready or not. You’re about to get fisted.”

      • Many of the youth HAVE figured out how slanted the system is.
        They’ve decided to take their gonads and go… nowhere.

        Not rebel.
        Not rage.
        Not fight.
        Just Acquiesce.

        Slave obedience, slave mindset – everything should come to them…. Scraps from Massa’s table is Mana from Heaven…

        • This is what they’ve been taught to do. In the process, they have lost most of their capacity to think creatively, to solve problems creatively. They think they have no choice. Freedom is slavery.

    • Morning, Bevin!

      I’ve long been fascinated by the JFK thing. This is pure conjecture (though based on some relevant known facts about him):

      He was a member – by birth – of the “in” club; one of the elites. Groomed for his role. However, he himself was a reluctant puppet, in part by nature but also because he knew (and we now know) that he was not going to live a long life (Addison’s disease was serious business in the early ’60s and he had a number of other serious health problems). That “freed his mind” in a way. He seemed to resent being controlled – and began to act contrary to “orders.” His refusal to go along with the Hut! Hut! Hut! invasion of Cuba, for instance. That drove them nuts, from what I’ve read. Some of the maniacs behind the scenes were actually pushing for a nuclear first-strike against the Soviet Union. But it may have been his attempt to end-run the Fed that sealed his fate. JFK was a “loose cannon” – and had to be eliminated.

    • Dear Eric,

      “However, he himself was a reluctant puppet… ”

      Yes. That is my take on it too. His defusing of the Cuban Missile Crisis was perhaps the most high profile example of non-cooperation.

      But his refusal to go by the Illuminati playbook on the CIA and the FRS were probably the real deal-breakers that motivated the PTB to take out their contract on him.

      The FRS in particular. The Fed/Treasury/IRS and legalized counterfeiting. That is how they rob us blind by turning our money into “their money.” That is how the PTB remain the Powers That Be. Their ill-gotten wealth sustains their ill-gotten power.

      Much of this is new to me. It wasn’t that long ago that I dismissed JFK conspiracy theories the way most sheeple do.

      When the film “Executive Action” first came out in 1973 I thought it was paranoid nonsense.

      Even Oliver Stone’s film “JFK” seemed like the product of an overheated mind at the time.

      No longer!

      • Somewhere in this mess of mine, I have a telling quote attributed to JFK. It was along the lines of:

        “We’re all dead men eventually. What are they going to do, shoot me?”

        I’ve read a great deal about the guy – and while he wasn’t a Libertarian or anarchist by any stretch, my sense of him is that he wasn’t a psychopath.

        Unlike, for instance, LBJ.

        And Nixon.

        • I went searching for the quote you alluded to and stumbled across this:

          “The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.”
          — John F. Kennedy

          To use clover’s formulation, I’ll bet a million dollars the Illuminati were not amused by that declaration!

          Here’s another ironic quote. FYI.

          “If anyone is crazy enough to want to kill a president of the United States, he can do it. All he must be prepared to do is give his life for the president’s.”
          — John F. Kennedy

          • Bevin,
            I really must write in a more straightforward manner, and help spread a great picnic blanket of confidence over not only myself, but also over others like yourself about the value of what we each are saying.

            Please accept my assurance that I truly meant that what you wrote to David was wholesome and good. There was no hidden or second meaning meant whatsoever.

            I am generally suspicious of executive brain functions, even my own, and will go to great lengths to find work-arounds for this peculiar attitude of never simpling calling a spade a spade.

            I only meant to say I wouldn’t consider myself at a high enough level to advise someone not already in distress or in a state of perplexity.

            That doesn’t mean I always check myself before I go off the rails and wreck myself. But it does mean that in hindsight, I see that I’ve gone outside my place and realm of useful expertise.

            I consider myself such a craftsman as you might call a fixer. I repair things that are greatly broken sufficiently that they work again. And always in a limited way that is most useful to me. But usually not much more, because where is my advantage in doing that?

            For example, I hope we fix things up enough here that enough profit margin is made that the site stays in operation and everyon’e comfortable. But I’d hate to fix things so much, that my kind is no longer welcome here.

            People who don’t need other people for something are incredibly boring for me. There’s nothing for me to do with them, but to wish them well, and to head elsewhere to where the dice my roll and the action might occur.

            I prefer to surround myself with the kind who are forced to take risks, make bargains and come to compromises. Where expectations are being lowered, and discounts are being applied. Where the smell of desperation, anxiousness, and abandon is all around.

            Where someone will make a foolish decision, and I will be the foolish beneficiary. Where a really big fish might just be landed by just the right angler in just the right place at just the right time.

          • Dear Tor,

            I confess that sometimes I can’t quite make out what you or ozymandias are saying. The subtle allusions are a bit too subtle for my taste. They leave me scratching my head.

            My own preference is for unambiguous, on the nose clarity.

            I wouldn’t worry about it too much thought. I chalk it up to different styles of expression. Do whatever feels right for you.

  5. I haven’t reported my business dealings or earnings to anyone since 1999 and I have yet to hear anyone complain about it… (be self employed, barter & trade whenever possible, use alternative currencies, do not use a bank account and do not deal in more FRNs per year than their minimum filing requirement dictates and you too can be ‘IRS-free’!)

  6. Clover says: “Lets see, I have all the food I could ever want, multiple vehicles and other expensive toys, I own two nice houses, I never have the government come after me or beat me or point a gun in my direction.” Same here Clover, only I don’t own two houses, since I don’t want to pay the property tax and upkeep on two of them, but suit yourself. However if I saw the benefit to it, I could afford a summer home too. So what? I’ve accomplished my level of affluence through years of showing up for work on time and providing products that other people want and are willing to pay for voluntarily. Exactly what is it you do for a living again Clover?

    As I pointed out to you previously, “your” government (it sure as hell isn’t “mine”) pointed a gun at my head for the heinous crime of sitting at a dead-end cul-de-sac talking to my girlfriend and attempting to retrieve “my papers” as the cop-thug demanded. I was still a minor, not doing a thing wrong and minding my own business. That was probably one of the things that turned the light on for me about what government really is and what it does “for me.”

    Shortly after that I had a state trooper pull me over for (in his words) “driving too good.” It wasn’t enough that I was running below the speed limit and holding a perfectly straight line. No, it was obvious to him that I must have been “hiding something.” Well that “something” was I was nursing my vehicle home on five out of six cylinders and a wheel bearing that was singing its death knell. Trooper Nosy was bored and lonely, so he pulled me over. It never occurred to him that stopping me for no good reason could have resulted in my being stranded in the middle of the night our in the country. He didn’t care. He had no probable cause, all “my papers” were in order and he had no choice but to let me go. But the fact remains that he should never have bothered me to begin with. That is if the “trooper’s pledge” (i.e. oath of office) he took meant anything at all. You know, that inconvenient little part about “I shall obey the laws of the United States of America and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and shall support and defend their constitutions against all enemies whomsoever, foreign and domestic” (which includes the Bill of Rights).

    Those two incidents occurred in Virginia back in 1977. But just last year, my 28 year old son had a gun aimed at his head and was forcibly put on the ground for the egregious offense of driving a black pickup truck. Better yet, he was on a private parking lot at the time. I guess the additional criminal act was picking his wife up from work. The cop didn’t even bother to ask for an I.D.; he just jacked him up. Why? He was driving a truck that fit the general description of a vehicle some distraught woman identified as being involved in a “domestic dispute.” After the cop forcibly stole his wallet and ran my son’s ID, he realized he’d f’d up. But the cop never so much as apologized for the mistake. So don’t give me this bunk about ‘all you have to do is obey the law and you’ll never have a cop’s gun pointed at you.’ I know it isn’t true. I suspect you know that too; so quit trying to cover for “your” enforcers. We already know you’re a liar Clover, no need to continue reaffirming that fact.

    • Boothe, Clover has never been an individual. It will never suffer the abuses that come with being an individual.

      Clover will never be out late at night on a country road. Clover will never drive a black pick up.

      Clover drives some sort of common bland driving appliance to work and back and shops on the weekends like nearly everybody else. Clover follows the herd and thus will never be chosen for a gun pointing.

      When I got my there are at least three more of these in the same color in my immediate neighborhood alone sedan it was remarkable. I am left alone. I am invisible. I can drive that car harder and faster than I drive my fords and I am left alone. It is invisible to cops. It is a remarkable freedom. Damn why can’t ford make a nice hot-rod Lincoln on the mustang platform with an MT? It would be perfect stealth. But I digress. Americans are free so long as they are like everybody else. Clover is like everybody else.

      Occasionally though a clover does get accidentally like an individual does. Those stories make the news. Today an local mother was pulled over by police with their guns drawn while picking up her kids from soccer practice… It happens but it’s so rare it’s news. Maybe our Clover can experience it, but like all clovers do they’ll just accept it was an ‘honest’ mistake. The people who get treated like this every day largely deserve it, but mistakes happen. Officer safety comes first!

  7. On Moderation:

    I find it amusing that Tor quits the forum one day, then comes back a few days later offering to moderate it; that’s rich. But it’s exactly the pattern I’ve seen in fora like this one, Eric. A few “heavy hitters” (post count and length, if not distance in the old ball park!) pose modestly (“if not me, then SOMEONE) near the bat rack, flexing their muscles and just itching to take some of that management burden off your back.

    Been there, seen it, many times. It’s the beginning of the end of said forum. Really, it’s already almost too late, when you have a small group of five to 10 posters who carry the direction and end vector of nearly every thread. I realize that’s the nature of libertarian debate, ironically enough, but after awhile, it gets to be boring for most readers, and the forum usually dies a slow death.

    Don’t even consider setting up moderators. And do your due diligence regarding anyone coming to you offering to be one.

    • I agree DR. I’ve said at least twice I’m maybe the tenth or twentieth best poster here. I assume you feel you give more than you get, & you’re doing what you can? Our complaining to the chef about his free lunch is just human nature I guess.

      Most forums are sparsely traveled. Or affiliated with big institutions or megacorporations and hence toothless. This site is a rare independent voice. I promote it in my amateur way on reddit, twitter, etc. and also do so for maybe a dozen independent sister blogs of the people who are regulars here because I want us to thrive.

      As Fred Reed recently said: “Bloggers, who don’t make any money anyway, are the only journalists not under the crippling, controlling conflict of interest between telling the truth and getting paid. If I choose, I can write that Jews eat Christian children, that Southern Baptists copulate with snakes, that Hillary had a Martian transmitter implanted in her head.”

      Eric in particular should lead with a killer pithy first picture and a descriptive yet eye popping must read title if he wants to garner more visits from redditors for example. A general truth that requires no special privileges on my part to see and articulate.

      I recently gave lowly anpog a shout out, when he updated his site. His attacking his sales prospects before they buy is another peculiarity of human nature it seems. Maybe he is the second coming of Mencken, only time will tell.

      I like that here you can see your work instantly. You can’t do that at Chinadesk or Thepriceofliberty to name two other resident bloggers. Most of these free lunch counters baffle me, I must admit. Nom nom nom, gulp. Delicious, nutritious, no guilt, and no charge.

      You bring up some good points that deserve careful consideration. Your Peak ideas have merit, but don’t deserve extra volume to shout over other ideas to plead their case. Nor do my sketchy ideas and cringeworthy meanderings. (as I imagine you see them)

      I think our ideas have merit, and heartily concur that neither deserve to careen this forum down a rabbit hole or drive it off the edge into an abyss.

      By no means do I think I’m the best candidate for someone to be given moderator rights. You need not concede that it isn’t a position of authorial direction or exclusionary control. That a moderator would merely mimic Eric’s practices and execute his delegated functions, nothing more. Are you trying to win an argument, or trying to establish a more perfect forum. A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it.

      It would be like a 7-11 allowing a food truck in his parking lot. This vendor would sell hot dogs and be a second set of eyes, but only be a tenant. Not a principal. At most, the hot dog guy could do light duties for the business owner he was explicitly told to do. Maybe his truck is filled with 100 kilos of baled hashish, and the hot dogs are a front, there’s always a risk.

      My vision would also facilitate a top level article on Peaking.

      Peak Humanity and tunnel vision is the real problem. How is there all this food, yet we burn excess in our cars and tens of thousands starve each day?

      Do people really lay awake at night crying over sucking holes of petroleum, while mothers hold their dying babies in their emaciated arms as they gasp their last shallow breath?

      I think our new Mod should be cool. Unflappable, genial, and good natured. She should have a good editorial eye and a good feel for keeping the forum in good health, to paraphrase and reframe what you’re saying.

      This place could stand to be slightly more chivey, but without the vapidness.

      The mod thing is a new possibility that just became available to wordpress. (I believe) Just throwing a wildcat into the discussion. Who is DR? What’s in DR’s Gulch? (atlas shrugged reference)

  8. All YouTube preppers will die come SHTF – Edwyrd Karn

    Hell, watch all of Edwyrd Karn’s videos

    Why you should stock up on Hydrogen Peroxide – LowBuckPrepper

    They took David Sarti’s guns, but he keeps on prepping.

    Prepping to be Offended . (Jerking Off. )

    Poultry processing

    How a car engine works

  9. Some of the powers in the Constitution are vague and potentially unlimited. The commerce and general welfare clauses are good examples. These intentional flaws were a serious concern to many (outside the much smaller pro federalist mercantile class) from the very beginning. The Supreme Court has recently reconfirmed (in regard to Obamacare) that the power to tax is also unlimited and has no problem with the income tax reaching 100 percent if government decided to make it so. The rebellious independent nature of early Americans (Shay’s Rebellion, The Whisky Rebellion, Fort Sumter) kept things in check for a while but that spirit has literally been bred out of us. Apparently, the ability to think clearly and long term has been extinguished at the same time. Domesticated animals are far more docile and controllable than their wild and in some cases extinct free living ancestors. Today Americans are far more concerned about being “kept” safe and getting their fair share of promised entitlement booty than shrinking government. Pens and grain bins have been substituted for a free range existence.

  10. Hey Eric,
    I’m still reading the posts here. Is it possible you could supply me a mop and bucket and I could serve as a comment janitor here?

    Add a real Comments Moderator Role to your powerful WordPress Blog! Download Version 1.5.

    Just install the plugin, activate it: You can now change a user’s role to “Moderator”, he can now moderate comments (all or only his), and only do this!

    Or if not me, then maybe someone else?

    Possible moderation opportunities.

    1 Correct obvious errors. Edit comments of others by their request. Fulfill edit requests by trusted, esteemed, regulars.

    2 For articles that appear on Lew Rockwell. Keep comments SFW and mixed company friendly. Mitigate extreme profanity, gore, trolling, flaming wars, long rambling, verbosity, calls to violence, unrelated spam, and other such comments. Replace them with a hyperlink that readers can click on to access the content outside the article itself.

    3 Some discussions deserve/require their own top level post. Posts about depopulation and killing, bible study, ad hominem attacks Why not let minority voices (Sovereign Citizens, Tinsley, et. al.) be heard, but somewhere in the periphery? The market solution is an open agora, not a sanitized echo chamber where you get shouted down by crotchety old men and keyboard kommandos.

    4 Long comments could be shortened exactly as they are on Lew Rockwell. Call it Page 2. After so many words, a hyperlink appears to take you to the rest of the content so you don’t have an overwhelming eight page comment.

    5 Start a libertarian lifestyle section. Call it Page 3. Here is where e-cigs, tp oil filters, booze, cigars, drug culture, men’s magazines, mercenary magazines, hip-hop, pimping, whoring, militia forming, sedition plannings, and everything else for sale or discussion in agoras everywhere.

    6 Initiate an extreme agora section. So far outside the box you can’t see the box anymore. Outside every known matrix. Call it Page 4. Here’s where you discuss rabid delusional conspiracy. Unlimited hedonism. Absolute old testament sharia. Vent your disgust, rage, bigotry, misandry, misogeny, anti-semitism, righteous indignation, attack each other personally.

    Ask and receive answers to taboo questions: If you had to poison someone, commit strong arm robbery, or cut off your pinky, which would you choose? Must choose one: sex with an animal, smoke crack and shoot heroin, sex with a family member, donate an organ, someone rapes you, someone has sex with your wife…

    7 Back on topic: Is the fix really in for us? Aren’t the fixers the same short-pants wearing dandies we overcame last time?

    Why cower in fear from McCain, Christie, Obama, Bloomberg, and all the rest of the limp-wristed limo lizards? We can easily coopt enough thugs, cagers, droners, and surveilling middlemen, and then together pull out the roots of tyranny without mercy at the source.

    • Glad you’re still around, Tor!

      I do my best to moderate the comments – meaning, weed out the “fuck you, your (sic) a dick” stuff. On length: The problem is some people like ’em long. Some don’t. Rather than artificially control it, I’ve taken the path of naturalness; I let the thread grow as they will.

      On the McCain, et al: I use my real name; they know who I am – or can easily find out. But that’s my choice. I won’t presume to make it for others. As far as I’m concerned, people are free to use whatever handle they like – or their real names.

      • I liked a lot of Tor’s ideas. Especially #’s 2, 3, and 4.
        Perhaps you’ll reconsider, later? You know, for those times you’re asleep at the wheel? An, ‘I’m away and I’ll be back in ten minutes’ kind of thing? Heh, j/k. Sorta. (…And where the hell’s dom?)

        At the same time, I like the naturally grown organic method.

        An, ‘Ooops, I shouldn’t have said that’ button is such a tricky thing.

        And, sometimes I Do come across as personally attacking someone when I didn’t mean to, or afterwards felt maybe it was a bit too harsh while using a few too many cuss words.

        I mean like, David, paragraph breaks, mang.

        Heh, it’s like we’re in a garage full of cars and tools with a keg in a fridge,… and sometimes girls stop by. …And, where was I? Oh, why would I want to change that?
        Maybe it’s like the bars are now that smokers have been driven outside like some kind of second class citizens?… So the baby-momma’s can come in with their kids in tow? Yak! (Or, is that, Eck!?)

        Hey! If it helps to reach their minds and open them up to The Red Pill, I’m all for it. How-freaking-ever; I doubt it would do much good.

        I was going to post a video to the song, ‘Summer time. Summer time. Sum sum Summer time’ but the gooberment ad at the beginning of the video just ruined it! I can’t hardly wait to see who replaces YouTube. It would be nice if it was a better thing. …But who am I kidding?

    • 2nd time i’ve read your desire to (co)mod(ore) beyond yourself. lots of ideas, no explanations…what’s your intension (as in coiled springiness…)?

      “Editors can be stupid at times. They just ignore that author’s intention. I always try to read unabridged editions, so much is lost with cut versions of classic literature, even movies don’t make sense when they are edited too much. I love the longueurs of a book even if they seem pointless because you can get a peek into the author’s mind, a glimpse of their creative soul. I mean, how would people like it if editors came along and said to an artist, ‘Whoops, you left just a tad too much space around that lily pad there, lets crop that a bit, shall we?’. Monet would be ripping his hair out.”

      ― E.A. Bucchianeri, Brushstrokes of a Gadfly

      “Authors who moan with praise for their editors always seem to reek slightly of the Stockholm syndrome.”

      ― Christopher Hitchens, Blood, Class and Empire: The Enduring Anglo-American Relationship

      “Everything, indeed, in a work of art should be unedited,–and even the words, by the manner of grouping them, of shaping them to new meanings,–and one often regrets having an alphabet familiar to too many half-lettered persons.”
      ― Remy de Gourmont, The Book of Masks

      Heinlein got the idea for the novel when he and his wife Virginia were brainstorming one evening in 1948. She suggested a new version of Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book, but with a child raised by Martians instead of wolves. He decided to go further with the idea, and worked on the story on and off for more than a decade.[3] His editors at Putnam then required him to cut its 220,000-word length down to 160,067 words before publication. In 1962, it received the Hugo Award for Best Novel.[4]

      In 1991, three years after Heinlein’s death, Virginia arranged to have the original uncut manuscript published. Critics disagree[5] over which is superior. Heinlein preferred the original manuscript and described the heavily edited version as telegraphese.

      • 2nd time? more like my 18th time my beautiful babblebrook brittunculus!

        The kind of person you meet at certain dismal, dull online affairs. center of a crowd, talking much too loud, running up and down the stairs. It seems to me that I’ve seen too much in my far too few years. And tho I’ve tried I just can’t hide my eyes edged with rage tears… too late to stop… or look around… here comes my 19th NRVSBKDN!!

        • musta’ been elsewhere for the other 16x. (damn!) maybe the 19th obsessive or compulsive “tavistock-ian”refrain will finally charm & you’ll get that authority you seek?

          but i’m here now, & yet again, you’ve done quite a bit other than answer the question.

          • i can see that you’re busy, tor-o, wheeling round your own outer perimeter. the question-cape, other accoutrements as well, if need be, invites you to the center….

          • I think I see what you’re getting at there, ozymandias.

            In a so-called ‘public setting’ I could see where you’re coming from.

            In a private setting (like here) not_so_much.

            I mean, in my household I’m a dictator forcing none to stay.
            My way, or the frickin’ hyway.
            Nothing NAP violating about that, right?

            It’s the same here, isn’t it?

            Or, am I missing something?

            Thick and Thin

          • This dick measuring contest is getting stale real fast-like. Why don’t you two just whip ’em out and get it over with?

          • thx, helot…cocktail hour is fast approaching & i might not have been able to give it the full, undivided attention it deserves with this other delectable just hanging…

            whose private setting is it?

            and, “be(ing) the change you wish to see” is about the most solidly upright posture there is, isn’t it? to extol the virtues of napancap in the blogosphere & then invoke “private property” to qualify that “position” is…pick the expletive. so far, this is the only spot of virtual i’ve rambled into where the proprietor walks the talk. i’ve enjoyed traumatizing other proprietors for their hypocrisy in this regard.

            scratch a lie, catch a thief… scratch a noble gasser, catch a tyrant. or a wannabe. even napancap gassers.

            as for you, inconsistencies, maybe a commodore tor is just what you need, since you seem to have an inability to control your own eyes….

          • meant to point out the critical fulcrum of your post, helot…in my household I’m a dictator…the hierarchical nature of the beast does begin early, & at home…..

          • “dick measuring contest”?

            Where are the girls?

            I could coach them?
            [… If my better half doesn’t beat them in a totally Primal tribal way.]

            And here I thought this was about something else.

            Or,… can’t you two/three guys just make-up and hug? Ha.

            Fuckers. You know we all love ya. You’re all so-anti-NAZI. That’s more purdy than a new set of snow tires.

            O! Five O’Clock Full metal Jacky is on, I’m outta here.

          • Oh no, ozymandias. What you meant to point out was: you don’t own yours, and private voluntary contracts don’t apply.

            “the hierarchical nature of the beast” is Not the same as the family unit.

            It’s an area of contention.
            I’ve been over that already here.

            A dictator of the willing with a way out is not the same thing as a dictator of the unwilling with no way out.

            I mean, are you saying the family unit is just a voluntary thing and a five year old child can just say, “You’re not the boss of me, I’m out of here” and on down the hyway they go with a thumb in the air and every parent should be ok with that?

            …Pardon me, it”s rehash of an old argument. Don’t respond. What’s the point. W.F.D. anyway. And… as I said, I’m out of here. Seriously.

        • Oh wow, you’re really on the attack, ozymandias.

          Just because I appreciate a woman means I, “have an inability to control your own eyes”?


          I should avoid art galleries, too, I suppose? All because I appreciate women and think they are beautiful and worth seeing?

          And apparently you think private property equates with it being your property?
          It seems that way.

          RE: “to extol the virtues of napancap in the blogosphere & then invoke “private property” to qualify that “position” is…pick the expletive. ”

          Again, WTF?

          How is controlling your own property a violation of the NAP?

          Ya, pick the expletive. ”

          Anyway, wow. With friends like you, who needs enemies.

          • as for you, inconsistencies

            we’re not friends, helot. we’re not even acquaintances. i don’t know whether you need to slow down, or speed up…

            as for me, time to slow down….

          • I was going with the idea that anyone who was a friend to liberty and followed the NAP was also a friend of mine.

            I’ll have to reconsider that approach.

          • Don’t be derailed or discouraged, Helot.

            For a brief shining moment we were both in some agreement about a way things could be better. You altered and adapted my flawed conceptions, and it was starting to sound feasible.

            It’s almost like there’s some kind of cosmic sprinkler system that is switched on to quickly dampen any kind of fellowship fire of enlightenment before it can even begin.

            I think someone like you with a default positive outlook is sorely needed here.

            If I had moderator privilege, I’d likely alter or delete about 70% of what I’ve written. And little else. It is crucial to have the capability to fling bile and invictive at your enemies of the moment. But after the fact, it is nice to go back and wipe the slate clean.

            It goes without saying that comment tenders are under strict orders from site owners. There is no authority of their own whatsoever. An ideal candidate would be someone with a history of stability and trustworthiness. Not necessarily me by any means.

            As we age, and rage, we learn a little goes a long ways. And more often than not, collateral damage is inflicted by your perceived self-defense that greatly overshadows what small measure of sovereignty you attained with your salvos.

            Unfortunately, as one’s teeth lengthen, the rage takes on a life of its own, and it often erupts without control with little warning.

            And we stubbornly cling to our old ways, though they may fail again and again ad infinitum.

            In many ways, that is in the main, most of the meaning of a man’s life. What his true legacy is.

            A man is what he bitterly clings to keep himself afloat as he slowly sinks into the vast deep abyss of fading memories and long forgotten achievements and failures.

          • However rare true love may be, it is less so than true friendship. ~ francois de la rochefoucald

            Rare as is true love, true friendship is rarer. ~ jean de la fontaine

            Opposition is true friendship. ~wiliam blake

            first two are what i had in mind. blake makes a qualifying, poetic, point, tho.

            most that you’ll meet will be acquaintances. including closer relations people mean by “family”. virtual “encounters” online are not even that.

            i think an approach reconsideration is a good idea, even if reproach is what you mean to convey.

          • Should we? Mine’s 310 Kelvin. We’ll multiply ozy’s by 20 to keep the competition fair.

            Ironically OZdas is one of the main culprits along with myself that annoys a few OTHER (not me) posters who complain and drop turds in the punch bowl about those of us with longer and more numerous turds.

            I posted in this article, because it’s where Eric posted. I have no authority, so post away amigo, be sure to crap center stage most popular article. Light it up good and bright, cause baby you’re a firework.

            Eric’s efforts at entrepreneural efforts are less important than our entremanureal droppings, right? Maybe some other time, as I intend to do this a lot. Every chance I get.

            I think next week I will be able to send more money, as I may have more work. My friend Patty promised me.

            There you have in a nutshell the hole that never heals. People who use their real names, willingly uncloak to the matrix, and seek a real living from their efforts.

            And the vast internet abyss and gadfly agora of Smiths and Neos who can’t be bargained with, can’t be reasoned with, who can’t feel pity, and absolutely will not stop, ever, until they are moderated or banned.

            I thought I found out what my special purpose was long ago, but I was afraid to tell you.

          • If one could do that among two different bodies each with a shared single consciousness. Then one could truly go and f*ck themself. Possibly already in early trials. Someone book the Red Eye to Tavistock and check it out.

  11. The proverbial frog boiling & construct of which ever idol is approved by the beast.
    Yet many of the same people who are in a delusion will fight with you when you point out the house is on fire – they almost always willingly run back in and call you the arsonist.

    • So which federal agency do you work for, and how much (or little) do they pay you to troll dissident web sites? (Only a federally employed troll would execute such a clumsy attempt at disruption.)

      • Young WWII bomber co-pilot & veteran pilot over Germany,
        Co-pilot : How do we know we are near the target?
        Pilot : When we start taking flack.

    • Dear “Patriot1” [sic!],

      Wow. You certainly proved your case. You marshaled both logic and evidence and left “this Peters guy” a quivering mass of jelly.

    • Hi Patriot,

      You’re welcome to disagree with me; I enjoy debate. If you have something to debate. But tossing out insults in lieu of debate is pointless.

      Awaiting your response…

      • You only enjoy debate when your “secular” presuppositions are accepted implicitly by the other party beforehand. You have no interest in debate that actually challenges your presuppositions. And, when you are not even willing to debate someone who actually agrees with your political conclusions (well, 98% of the time at the very least, I think we may disagree on abortion) yet challenges your presuppositions, you are going to be downright hopeless against Christians who disagree with your presuppositions AND your conclusions.

        And it would be a downright shame, considering you have the correct conclusions on these political matters. And the people who would beat you in this debate do not.

        I know I said I wasn’t going to post here anymore. And I don’t mean this to insult you. I just think its sad. Like it or not, religious faith is going to exist in an NAP society. You have every right to ask that it not be discussed in your house, whether your literal “house” or your website. Maybe I’m even stretching this guideline by posting this here. But I don’t think what you are trying to do here is helpful for libertarianism. All you are doing is giving people the impression (even though the impression would be wrong) that libertarianism is fundamentally secular. It is not. Libertarianism makes absolutely zero sense from secular presuppositions. It makes a lot of sense from Christian presuppositions.

        I don’t think you have to agree with me on this point to be doing useful things for the spread of libertarian ideas. But I think forbidding it to be debated is hurting your success, especially among Christians. And I’m not talking about cultural Christians here, I’m talking about evangelicals, fundamentalists, and the like. I’m already an evangelical libertarian and there’s nothing you can do about either of those things. But what about the rest of Christianity that isn’t? Do you want to feed the impression that libertarianism must be defended from secular premises only? I am telling you that not only will they reject such a libertarianism, but they would be correct to do so.

        Once again, good luck, and its really a shame. But that last post was dishonest. You’re not interested in debate. You’re only interested in the debates you can easily win. Beating clover in a debate is easy. Defending a flawed presupposition, not so much.

        • Hi David,

          I have no issue with your right to have religious belief – no matter how much I may personally regard such belief as kind of silly.

          I merely take issue with your pushy proselytizing.

          The only presupposition that concerns us here is opposition to aggressive violence. You insist that one must “believe” – and not merely “believe” but “believe” in your particular religious dogma – in order for the NAP to not be an arbitrary construct. It only makes sense because “Jesus Is Lord.”


          Objectively provable nonsense.

          In the following sense:

          None of us – save those with serious mental problems – likes to be harmed. It follows as a matter of logic that if we harm others, we should accept that others may harm us in return – and we ought not to complain about it.

          Axiom: Human interactions can be based on voluntary cooperation and free association – or violence. Each is a logically consistent system. Pick one.

          From this, everything else flows.

          No reference to theology is needed.

          I am not your enemy – but if you insist on force-feeding me your religious dogmas, then you are at least implicitly mine.

          Keep in mind, by the way, that you are also a non-believer. You don’t believe in Utnapishtim. Or Osiris. Or even Muhammad.

          Oh. I forgot. Those “gods” are not the real gods! They don’t exist!

          • Duuuude! that was so next level meta, that even my all knowing mind was blown!
            – God

            This is only anecdotal, but I would claim that today’s religions have been so thoroughly regimented and militarized that they now represent the most powerful and destructive weapons in existence anywhere on Earth.
            – Tor

            The rightful place for natural and health religion, would be next to other serene art forms, like jazz, classical music, and impressionist painting. It could be cool, if it wasn’t so toxically twisted.

            Many love jazz. Others don’t. Many are indifferent or unaware of it, and wouldn’t even be able to identify it even if you offered them a thousand dollars to do so. That’s what religions, if they are to continue to exist, should aspire to be like. Good old groovy jazz for Jesus.
            – Libertarian

            Mind=Blown: Atheism

            • My pleasure, Tor!

              One of the cools things – to me – about Libertarian ethics is that you aren’t put out by what others believe about anything. So long as they don’t try to force it on you (or anyone else).

              Believe in Klingons? Great! Go have a convention! Enjoy!

              Believe in an HP Lovecraftian Cthulhu? Set? Or a run-of-the-mill Anton LaVey? Like to dance around the bonfire in goatskin leggings? All night orgies?

              Have at it!

              Or: Hairshirt it up. Lifetime celibacy. Funny-looking stiff costumes and oddball rites. Dances with rattlesnakes. Gabbling in “tongues.” Whatever floats your particular boat.

              But – for the love of god (rhetorically speaking) – leave me out of it if I’m not “down.”

              Feel free to bring up whatever beliefs you have. Maybe I’ll be interested. But if I make it clear I’m not even remotely interested,then – please – put it back in your pants! Pack it up, take it away. Be silent – around me, at least. Save such talk for the interested and like-minded.

              Such an easy concept, yet so hard for some to accept.

          • Tor, this is just about like the line, “And this too shall pass”: “It could be cool, if it wasn’t so toxically twisted. ”
            Suitable for every situation?

            Anyway, I sooo agree with this bit, it’s so Very 80’s (Imho. Maybe it’s 70’s or 60’s and 50’s too, I don’t know):

            “Feel free to bring up whatever beliefs you have. Maybe I’ll be interested. But if I make it clear I’m not even remotely interested,then – please – put it back in your pants! Pack it up, take it away. Be silent – around me, at least. Save such talk for the interested and like-minded. ”

            Maybe that’s why I get the, “I’m gonna kick your ass vibe” when I try to discuss liberty and freedom at the local watering hole?
            …I’m not the silent type. But that’s definitely ‘the look’ I get from some, Even IF they continue dialogue.

            And, my problem is, if they weren’t, “remotely interested” then why do they continue to talk to me?

            I’m seeing some parallels I don’t intend to draw.

      • Dear David,

        Perhaps you are not familiar with the concept of “market segmentation?”

        Market segmentation is a marketing strategy that involves dividing a broad target market into subsets of consumers who have common needs and priorities, and then designing and implementing strategies to target them.

        Eric Peters is the owner of EPA. Like it or not, he has chosen a secular oriented market strategy targeting secular or at least non-evangelical libertarians.

        If this sticks in your craw, try to remember that libertarianism is predicated upon open competition in the free market place. Any seller is free to offer any product he sees fit. Any buyer is free to reject any product that fails to appeal to him.

        If you don’t like what Eric is peddling, shop elsewhere. No skin off your ass. His website after all, is not subsidized with your tax money. Nobody is forcing you to keep returning to EPA to post your unwelcome sermons.

        If you seek a website that will put up with your compulsive proselytizing, why not seek out some devoutly Christian website, or even create your own? Who’s stopping you? Not Eric, that’s for sure.

        So why don’t you? Why must you keep coming back here attempting to browbeat others into submission with your “Libertarianism must be rooted in Christian theology otherwise it’s all bullshit!” nonsense?

        I’ve come to the dismaying conclusion David, that you have a CLOVER mindset when the issue is religion.

        That’s why I never trusted your lip service to the NAP. The psychological compulsion to browbeat others into submission and accept “Christian anarchism” as the only valid anarchism was way too intense. It made me question whether you would really adhere to the NAP if you suddenly found yourself wielding immense power.

        • Bevin, I hope David appreciates your taking the time to answer his query and to provide him your guidance and insights.

          I will only add that I think what David is most interested in debating, is religion itself.

          I don’t see this as a problem, because here one finds this very market segment up and ready to serve all seekers of just such an auspicious oration. 21,000 subscribers who are greatly interested in that very same thing.

          There is no artificial boundary between this site and all other webpages. Go forth and debate to your hearts content and then return here, tell us what you’ve learned from these tussles that might be of interest to us.
          – – –
          Here is a question any liberty loving Christian should be comfortable answering:

          What do you respect about atheists? Please tell us from a theist’s perspective. What about secular agorists, anarchists, and libertarians, of the freedom movement. What do you admire about them, and how do you integrate their writings and deeds with your own? How do you reconcile them into your worldview?

          Atheist accomplishments:

          Maintaining and advancing a system of morality absent of a religious justification. Being able to navigate the daily struggles with fellow humans in a compassionate and graceful manner, without the hope of heaven or the fear of hell.

          An admirable emphasis on reason, usually accompanied by a firm grasp of the principles of logic.

          Atheism is usually associated, with extreme generosity in extending tolerance/regard towards all beings. The best example of this was Carl Sagan’s depiction of chimpanzees in Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

          One must be highly secure in one’s own dignity as a Homo Sapiens to extend a form of personhood towards one’s primate cousins.

          Often the arguments between theists and atheists are contentious, let us make sure we can all come away with mutual respect for each other and our commonly held belief in the axiom of self-ownership.

          – – –
          Here’s a cross and clover, bear in mind I am in no way authorized to present this, nor am I implying in the least that it should be given to your prior post.

          – – –

          secular – denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. Latin: saecularis – relating to an age or to a period.

          enjoying debate – are you demanding Eric or someone here engage in a debate they do not enjoy? Why should anyone do such a thing?

          Will you at least provide some kind of payment or other benefit as an incentive to transact with you in this manner? Do you have Google Wallet? Garysco brought it up earlier, I’d like to know all more about it, sure looks incredibly easy and convenient to use.

          Perhaps you can read and record these articles on YouTube, there might be many people who prefer that format to words and pictures.

          You are like the servant who has been given the talents, you must give something before you can expect to receive, just like in the parable.

          • Awesome reply, Tor.
            Pretty much what I was thinking.
            I was disappointed when he didn’t have a website of his own creation attached to his comment.
            It’s Summer Time now, it seems to me he’s got no reason not to do so now.
            If I was …

          • Hi Tor (and Bevin)!

            The religion thing is a non sequitur as far a I am concerned. So long as people agree on the one non-negotiable principle – no aggressive violence – what they believe about the supernatural is as irrelevant as whether they prefer blondes or brunettes. It’s a matter of personal choice and no concern of mine. They are welcome to believe whatever they like; no need to justify their preferences about anything to me.

            But when someone insists on arguing with me that blondes are better than brunettes – or that “Jesus saves” – then I have a problem. Then we have a problem.

            In terms of here, this web site, the problem is that such a “debate” turns people off. Because it’s really just an argument – and one that cannot be won. One person “believes” – the other does not. Whether blondes are superior to brunettes – or Jesus saves – cannot be proved. It’s conjecture and feeling.

            And feelings isn’t what EPautos is here for!

        • Dear Tor,

          I doubt David will be amused by my response. But given his tactless allegations, I feel my blunt response was well warranted.

          Naturally Eric is the “final authority” here, given libertarian respect for private property rights. Under a libertarian system, house rules apply.

          I rushed to Eric’s defense because on that particular issue I happen share his beliefs, and was equally irritated by David’s endless sermonizing.

          If I spoke out of turn, I apologize — to Eric.

          • Dear helot,

            By “non-evangelical libertarians” I meant Christian libertarians who aren’t preachy bible-thumping proselytizers.

            I’m sure you realize I enjoy my exchanges with you. If you didn’t before, let me assure you now that I do.

            Besides, it’s not really up to me to say what is and isn’t okay at EPA. It’s up to Eric. Not because his is “authoritay,” but because EPA is his private property.

            Quite a few regulars at EPA are Christians, but they are nothing like David. They are content to “agree to disagree” about whether libertarians ought to be Christians. For that reason, I have never had any issues with them, and enjoy the back and forth with them.

            What bothers me about David is that he refuses to “agree to disagree.” He refuses to leave well enough alone. He has an irresistible compulsion to denounce secular libertarians as sinners who are damned because their morality is not based on the Christian god.

            My position is NOT the flipside of his. I do not insist that Christians cannot be bona fide libertarians. My position is that if combining libertarianism with Christianity works for others, more power to them!

            Their adherence to the NAP is all that concerns me. Their other beliefs are none of my concern.

        • RE: “a secular oriented market strategy targeting secular or at least non-evangelical libertarians.”

          Crap, I guess I’m not in the targeted audience circle?

          I feel so,… secluded,… or something?

          And Mang, Bevin. Your response is a lot like what I get when I simply try to talk to people in real life. I never considered my attempts to persuade others to be “browbeating proselytizing”, but maybe that’s what some people think when I even mention the word liberty, or freedom, or the NAP or some such. Right off the bat they think they are being browbeating proselytizing towards?

          Just use – one – word and they think that.

          Saying the word, ‘freedom’ to some people equals the word, ‘Boo!”?

          The reply I sometimes get is, “it’s all bullshit!” nonsense”.

          Interesting insight.

          • One thing I’ve noticed when observing women speak IRL, is they’re always gauging the person they’re talking to’s expression. Before they speak, while they speak, and after they speak.

            I never think of this when speaking to anyone. (I’ve been told I do the opposite, looking at nothing while acting like I’m doing a favor even deigning to speak with them.) But it certainly seems like a useful technique.

        • The problem is that without a religious base, the NAP is just another opinion. There is no objective reason to state that aggression is wrong. The aggressor has every bit as much right (absent some absolute moral system) to his opinion as you do, and its just as valid. The term “absolute morality” doesn’t even make sense absent some religious system. Where does it come from?

          This came up because Eric said that Biblical law was arbitrary and I responed to him. Rather than responding, Eric simply chastized me for bringing up the subject, even though he brought it up first. To do so and then to say that you like debate is dishonest, and frankly, pathetic.

          Its not because I don’t like Eric’s product that this saddened me. Its because I DO like the vast majority of what is posted here, but to make comments about the Bible or Christianity and NOT expect a response is lame. He has a right to do it on his property, but its still lame. And in my opinion it greatly reduces the value of the website.

          For what its worth, I have never said that only Christians can be libertarians or anarchists. By contrast, if you believe that aggression is always wrong, you are a libertarian, no matter how much or how little sense your reasons make. The position that I am arguing is that it doesn’t actually make sense for an atheist/agnostic to be a libertarian, because ultimately atheism or agnosticism doesn’t provide a coherent objection to the idea that the majority gets to decide.

          I appreciate the contributions of secular libertarians such as Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, Larken Rose, etc. There’s a heck of a lot to be learned from these people.

          But ultimately, at the end of the day, I believe in the NAP for a different reason than these people do. Which I guess is ultimately the issue.

          You could make a case for just not debating that. After all, we’re dealing with presuppositions, assertions that must either be accepted or rejected, and can’t really be proven.

          I could see the merits of this approach if this site is primarily for libertarians. We could simply assume the NAP is correct (because it is, even though it isn’t my first axiom) and discuss its implications for society, our personal lives, and so forth.

          But, when you have people here who are saying the NAP is wrong, and that the collective actually does have a right to impose its will on all of us, its impossible to refute this without using some type of epistemological justification.

          Now, I don’t necessarily have a problem with just letting Eric engage the clovers and not doing so here. But, when Eric is going to say Biblical law is “arbitrary” I feel that I should have the right to respond. Not a legal right, mind you. I understand that Eric is not violating the NAP by refusing to permit such a response on his property. But I feel that it is somewhat poor taste not to do so.

          I also feel that it is dishonest to say that one is interested in debate if he is unwilling to defend his presuppositions.

          As for power, I want none of it. The State is evil. We agree on that much. I don’t know where you are getting this idea that I don’t believe in freedom, or that I am a “clover” from.

            • Why, his (of course!)

              That’s why I refuse to get sucked into debates over whether this or that religion is “right.” Until Sky Daddy incarnates on live TV and sits down for a chat with Oprah, we are dealing with He said vs. She said. Hearsay.

              I saw a UFO!

              Well, if you say so.

          • Oy vey, David –

            You are making a simple exercise in logic a convoluted exercise in the etiology of your particular brand of that ol’ time religion (which of course varies in its true meaning – and intent – depending upon who happens to be parsing “the word”).

            Now, lookee here:

            As a matter of logic, if I do you violence, then I have no basis for objecting to you (or anyone else) doing me violence. QED.

            No reference to a supernatural whatever is necessary.

            If, on the other hand, I reject the use of aggressive violence (and abide by this) then I have a very strong basis for objecting (and responding) when you or anyone else does me violence. Because no one (other than the mentally disturbed) likes to be the object of violence. This includes “the stronger” of Plato’s little chat with Thrasymachus. It does not matter that “the stronger” manages to dominate. The fact remains that he will – or would – object if someone stronger came along and did him violence. Therefore, those who do violence to others are hypocrites.

            QED, once more.

            And sans the need to say, “Because Jesus!” (or whomever).

            I understand you feel the need for Divine Intervention. Your particular brand of it (as opposed to the myriad other varieties, which of course are all wrong by definition – and possible eeevuhl ). But it is not necessary to refer to Sky Daddy for the proposition – the NAP – to function as a logical, coherent system or code for human interactions.

            As I wrote earlier: You can choose to interact on a peaceful/voluntary basis. Or you can choose to interact using force. Each approach is logically consistent within itself.

            Ok. Back to Gilgamesh and Osiris for now. Those dudes rock. Keep in mind, by the way, that that resurrection myth (like the flood story of Utnapishtim) predates your resurrection myth.

            Just saying.

          • The position that I am arguing is that it doesn’t actually make sense for an atheist/agnostic to be a libertarian, because ultimately atheism or agnosticism doesn’t provide a coherent objection to the idea that the majority gets to decide.

            what if comparative mythologists are added to the atheist/agnostic mix? but for name changes, christian mythology is virtually, often wholly, indistinguishable from many other, & older, groups’ myth systems.

            doesn’t that, a religious base that’s been plagiarized & passed around, scaffolding this or that tribe, pose a problem for your epistemological justification?

          • David,

            I too believe in God and am also a believer in the NAP. I wouldn’t say I have a religion per se, but I do believe in a great designer/engineer who created existence through the “natural” laws we have discovered and those we have yet to. I believe there is a reason we are here, since we all seem to be so obsessed with reason, and since reason has allowed us like nothing else to peer deep into the inner workings of nature and human action.

            I think many libertarians are turned off by religion simply because of the authoritarian nature of it. After all, being a libertarian requires a certain level of hatred toward authority. The church tells you how to live your life, and expects offerings from you in return. Its like a mini-government that can manipulate people based on their fears of excommunication and eternal hell fire. I have been to many Catholic and Episcopalian services, so I’m not just speaking out of my rear end on this. There is a social pressure to conform and to give that is carefully cultivated and nurtured by the church staff. After all, it is a business and must pay the bills. One church I attended even made its congregation hold up their donations (for all to see) so that the priest may bless the money before it is collected. Subtle…

            Having said all that, there is still something beautiful about church and the gathering of fellow believers in God, even if their individual perceptions of Him may be different. I believe God still dwells in the churches and everywhere He is sought, though He may be shaking His head at all the coercion, theft, and utter ridiculousness carried out in His name from time to time.

            I agree with you that prominent libertarian figures like Eric, could help the cause of liberty by outlining the ways libertarianism and religion are compatible (I would say ideal), rather than demeaning those with a belief in God, but this is his choice. Its not as is if he is saying they are incompatible; he just thinks it’s silly. One of the beautiful things about a voluntarist society is that we can’t force anybody to be nice, especially on their home turf.

            As for you atheist libertarians, I respect your position immensely, and I see no contradiction between believing in the NAP with or without God, though I disagree with you whole heartedly whether or not God exists. The world is much too beautiful and elegant to be an accident, despite all the evils we humans are capable of. That is simply my belief, and I would not force it on anyone, even my own children.

            • Hi Texas,

              I was gently ribbing David; not trying to mock him.

              Hope it didn’t come across otherwise.

              As I’ve told him (at length) I have absolutely no problem with religious belief. Any religious belief. Provided it’s peaceful – and provided the adherents don’t expect me to buy in, or condemn me for not buying in.

              We can make reasoned, factual arguments in defense of a voluntaryist vs. coercive society – and without having to refer to (or argue about) “god.”

              Maybe such a being exists; maybe not. We each have our own opinions on that.

              But here’s the important thing – the crucial thing:

              I don’t need religion to justify my decision to eschew using violence to get what I want in this life. I don’t use violence against others because I do not want violence done “unto” me – and would be a hypocrite were I to expect others to not act violently toward me while I acted violently toward them.

              My appeal works on both empathetic and self-interested levels.

              Isn’t that sufficient?

              We are all in the same basic predicament. We’re living beings, trying to make the best of things. If we’re normal in the head, we don’t like causing others grief who’ve not caused us grief. We like having friends, the respect of others.

              Violence is anathema to all of that.

              It destroys what makes us human.

          • @Eric – Please tread lightly. They did take me up into the ship, inject me and examine my brain. Then they left me in that crop circle with the denatured cow. I swear. If you had been there to see it you would believe me.

          • @ Eric

            I agree completely that the fundamental rule for a libertarian society is the NAP.

            Each individual must choose for him/herself whether God does or does not exist, abstaining from the decision is also a choice, and what role if any they want Him/Her to play in their life. It’s a personal decision.

            I’m new to the site, and I get the impression David ruffles the feathers of many on here with his comments and his surprisingly firm position that the NAP is unsound without a religious underpinning, but it did seem as though he was being mocked a bit. I don’t agree with him that the NAP can only be rooted in religion, but I certainly wouldn’t call him a “clover”. I suppose my opinion is tempered by prolonged exposure to the sea of statism that is Huffpost, but I would consider him an ally for sure. He had me at “state is evil.”

            You have to admire him for trying though; for an evangelical, libertarian atheists must be the most difficult non-believer to convert, with their rigidly defined principles and tendency toward rejection of authority, supernatural or not.

            By the way, I love the site and will support with what I can. I’m having a blast going through old articles. Rock on brotha and may God bless you and yours! Seriously, you’re in my prayers now and there ain’t nutin’ you can do about it!

            • Hi Texas,

              David’s a good kid (he’s only about 19; smart & well-read). We disagree about religion – but not much else.

              I’m sure he thinks I’m a kook for being a pagan/gnostic (or whatever you want to call it) whereas I, for my part, find his certainty with regard to Biblical inerrancy and divine authorship baffling and odd.

              I figure as long as we agree on the “one thing” – the NAP – everything will sort itself out.

              At core, we are on the same side – and he’s definitely not a Clover!

              Good to have you with us, by the way – and thanks for your support!

  12. While your take of gov’t control might have been at the forefront of the mtg in Philly, I’m concluded that the main reason for the Constitution was that the new Republic was either about to enter in a 70-yr international bankruptcy, where some freedom would still exist, or go directly back under complete British rule and the war was fought for naught. There was a war-debt that had to be dealt with. Most folk don’t know what to do with that detail. Thanks for your time.

  13. If the American People had stayed vigilant and protected their rights as presented under The Constitution we wouldn’t be having this problem.
    Any time you give a group of people power, even limited power, they will try to extend and increase that power.
    The Constitution is a contract and as with all contracts it is up to those involved to make sure that all provisions of the contract are being enforced.
    Read Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and what you will find is that Congress, the Federal Congress only has authority over Washington DC and any Federal property.
    Since, the States are not Federal property Congress has no authority over the States. Each State has its own legislature and so there is no reason to have a Federal Legislature over the States’ legislatures.
    We mistakenly allowed The Federal Government to exercise powers and authority that it doesn’t really have and that this our mistake. We have to expect the government to over-reach and we have to call them on it when they do.
    The problem is not with the Constitution, it is with the apathy of the People!

    • The USC (at best) is a contract between the state governments and the federal government they created for their mutual interest. The people were never a party to this contract. Furthermore, if it was a contract between governments, the contract was fatally brocken in 1860. You can decide who, why, and how for, but we do know that it was broken by one or more parties. The end result was the state governments were greatly diminished, regardless of what side they were on in the conflict.

      As to people, well here’s Spooner:

  14. Ayn Rand — ‘We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.’

    Posted today at Martin

    Former IRS official Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a congressional hearing in March, something courts have done away with in the corporate world saying that applies to individuals, not corporations. How working for government is not also an artificial entity rather than a person is beyond me. She should have no such right since anyone working privately has no such right. It just seems that what applies to us does not to those in government. The actual LEGAL position as to how I was held in contempt was that “me” the INDIVIDUAL was never in jail, it was only the CORPORATE OFFICER who has no rights. This is how law really works – they manipulate everything to their advantage. If you work in the real world, they have completely eliminated the Constitutional rights. Argue back at a judge you go to jail – no First Amendment rights there. Try to march down Broad Street in protest in NYC – oops, no permit – jail time. Again no First Amendment. The Constitution is a story for children and the delusion for adults.

    Now the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims they miraculously “lost” all incriminating evidence – her emails. Congress had voted to hold her in contempt, yet she is not in jail. The IRS told Congress Friday it has lost ALL of the emails to and from Lois Lerner, who remains the key central figure in the agency’s targeting of the Tea Party for tax charges. This is clearly a refusal to turn over evidence that will impact the future of the IRS.

    How can you have the Executive Branch in charge of everything including the prosecution of contempt when the head of the Justice Department is doing the same thing? As long as they say I do not remember (which cannot be proven) then they do not lie to Congress and they can cover-up anything. There is no way to get honest government any more.

    Now comes the REAL interesting part I bet the NSA never considered. I reported that when I spoke to people on the Hill 2 years before Snowden, they told me then the NSA was collecting even their emails. When you collect everything, guess what! They have all the incriminating evidence, Congress has now asked the NSA for the missing emails. OOPS! See what happens. I have warned that this treasure trove of info can be subpoenaed even in private lawsuits right now. What happens in a divorce case when someone wants to prove their spouse cheated? The NSA may have stepped really deep into something they never considered.

  15. Lysander Spooner stated it best: But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

  16. P.M.Lawrence – “hat trick,” as I used the term, is appropriate. The three consecutive “wins” by government were these: The first was convincing the people that “Government is your servant.” The second was convincing them that “Government is your partner.” The third, and worst, was “Government is your master.” As William Penn said, “Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.”

  17. I agree, I’ve always thought that the Bill of Rights was too ambiguous and that our founders made it that way purposely. I mean, it only took about 15 years for the supreme court to set itself up as an oligarchy, and less than a hundred for the executive to become a dictator.

  18. Authority is an illusion and our collective belief in it is the cause of all of our problems. To live in an illusion is to not live in reality and when one doesn’t live in reality then nothing good happens…just ask the person who believes that the white lines of a crosswalk will protect them from the 2,000lb hunk of metal coming at them at 40mph.


    You were born to this world with sovereignty over your mind and over your life. Your abilities to think, to feel, to learn and to love are your liberty. In you, these capacities are infinite. You have infinite worth.

    Evil seeks to destroy your liberty. It seeks to be in authority over you. It does not want you to have liberty. Evil seeks to destroy you so that it can use you as a puppet.

    The implementation of evil is called authority. Authorities are what evil implements as it exercises control over the lives of people. Authority limits your ability to learn, to think, to feel, to love and to grow. This is why authority is evil.

    Authorities are not accidents. They are specifically created by intelligent people to control you. There are two tools that evil makes use of in order to accomplish this. Both tools destroy freedom. They are culture and violence.

    Each of these tools of authority have weapons which are used to attack your liberty. The weapons of violence are theft, imprisonment, torture, rape and death. The weapons of culture are law and the control of speech.

    Evil is implemented by force in the lives of people. Evil wants you to obey its authority. It uses the weapons of violence on everyone who will not obey. It uses the weapons of culture to sustain whatever obedience it manages to achieve.

    And here’s a fantastic lecture on Natural Law:

    • just ask the person who believes that the white lines of a crosswalk will protect them from the illusive authority of a 2,000lb hunk of metal coming at them at 40mph.

      reality protestants, mantra nailing one (a)door(ed) (my)thesis up all over virtual town & a few bucks will, possibly, get themselves an authoritative cup of coffee…but then again, authoritative coffee is hard to find, which is why it is usually best to make your own. (the uncle joe i like in my mug is kicking horse 454 horse power, ground fine, bodyweight tamped, in a moka pot. yummm. ☻)

      hierarchical authority is real; the natural world. how it should be isn’t. & you’re right: living in, or for, the isn’t, ain’t good. the selling & buying of dispensations, luther was piker opposed, but a prolific piker; his progeny are all over the place.

      • Yes, we’re talking about the illusory authority of man and the real authority of nature.

        I didn’t realize that I had to spell it out.

          • A good friend of mine says we are part of nature and nature doesn’t make mistakes. Therefore, whatever happens next is OK.

          • well…i’d say it’s impossible to “make mistakes” when “she” (the old anthropomorphic bugaboo) doesn’t give a damn, one way or the other. but, “ok” from my perspective is a little more particular. ☻

  19. Eric –

    A few years ago I went through an exercise which validated what I have long known, that the constitution was written by statists who sought to increase governments reach. I read the entire thing first of all. Not just the first ten amendments but the whole enchilada several times. Then I cut and paste into a text file and highlighted the words that are devoted to what government can, shall and must do. Finally I did a word count and guess what? I found that 95% of the words in the document are devoted to what government has the power to do while a mere 5% are devoted to the rights of the individual. That’s it. It was pretty powerful to see that the balance of power rests squarely with government. The 16th amendment, 17th amendment and Article 1, Section 8 provide the most tyrannical combination imaginable.

    Finally, it would be good for people to understand the notion of “negative law” versus “positive law” because this is the crux of what ails America. The Declaration of Independence was written mostly from a negative standpoint and enabled liberty to flourish for awhile. The constitution converted that negative law into positive law. Well, maybe didn’t convert it but set the table for it to be interpreted in a positive way. It took me awhile to wrap my brain around this nuance but once I it opened my eyes. I would suggest people study negative law and positive law to truly understand the situation we find ourselves in today.


  20. In the woods or on your desk, either way, your state and federal constitutions can’t defend themselves. The job of defending them was never the responsibility of the government; it has always been up to the People. “The People are the only sure reliance for the preservation of their liberties. (Jefferson). “It’s a Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.” (Franklin).
    It’s our, the People’s, fault that we are in the mess we are in. We, the People, allowed it to happen. The vast majority of the People and the vast majority of public officials know little of the history, meaning, significance and effect of every provision of the Declaration of Independence and their state and federal constitutions. Instead, we have come to rely entirely on the electoral and judicial processes to secure our Rights. Result? The rule of whim/man has replaced the Rule of Law.
    The People, at least by the written words of their state and federal constitutions, have structured and regulate the government. By their terms the People are speaking, telling their state and federal governments what they can and cannot do and what they must do.
    I also see the last ten words of the First Amendment, words that guarantee the natural Right of the People to hold the government accountable to the rest of the Constitution, a Right that is also guaranteed in every state constitution.
    When the People have some evidence that the government is violating any provision of the Constitution, the People can petition the government for a redress of the grievance. Government is obligated to respond, responsively, to every proper petition for redress.
    If government first ignores the Constitution and then ignores a proper Petition for Redress the People are justified in engaging in nonviolent civic action until their grievances are redressed. “When rulers want money from the People and they have oppressed the People, they may retain their money until their grievances are redressed and thus peaceably procure relief without relying on despised petitions and without disturbing the public tranquility.” (Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Quebec, 1774).
    Individuals and small groups cannot prevail.
    However, three percent of the population of any state could effectively organize to intelligently, rationally, professionally and nonviolently keep their local and state officials within the boundaries drawn around their power. Three percent of the population of the country could do the same regarding their federal officials.
    Acta, non verba.

    • In the woods or on your desk, either way, your state and federal constitutions can’t defend themselves. The job of defending them was never the responsibility of the government; it has always been up to the People. “The People are the only sure reliance for the preservation of their liberties. (Jefferson). “It’s a Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.” (Franklin).

      Problem is, as Eric has pointed out, constitutions, state or federal, ultimately not only have nothing to do with “preserving liberties,” but are in fact designed to do quite the polar opposite. The issue isn’t defending/preserving constitutions, but defending/preserving liberties (more accurately stated, natural law rights). In fact, one could argue that burning the former to ashes might be a good start in accomplishing the latter.

      • Dear lib,

        You got it.

        The whole “constitutionalism and the rule of law” approach to libertarianism is intrinsically flawed. I only came to see that over the last decade.


        Because “constitutionalism and the rule of law” purports to defend our natural rights by establishing an institution that must by its very nature violate our natural rights.

        To implement “constitutionalism and the rule of law” one must first create an organization that points guns at everyone’s heads and says “Everyone has to obey our rules, or else!”

        The game is lost before it is even played.

        That realization is what transformed me from a Lockean Classical Liberal to a Rothbardian Free Market Anarchist.

  21. Eric, thank you for taking a very unpopular but extremely important stand. Idols die hard. In Acts 19, the Ephesians cried out for the two solid hours “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” Americans (ironically, led by conservative Christians) have been crying out “Great is the Constitution of the Americans!” for 227 years!

    You and others here might be interested in our online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which I devote a chapter to EXAMINING every Article and Amendment by the Bible. It can be found at

    If you will take our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar, you’ll receive a complimentary copy (postage paid) of the 85-page “Primer” of the 565-page “BL vs. USC.”

  22. Americans are subject to being dragooned into the night, held without charge – for years – at the whim of the government… The children you produce are not yours to raise. They must be raised as the state decrees, properly “educated” in ways the state approves.

    I suspect you don’t know what dragooning is (and, Frank, a hat trick is pulling off three wins in a row without a break; it’s a term from cricket). Dragooning is something with a particular and precise meaning, that same billeting of troops on householders at their expense the better to hold them down, that there was such a fuss about in those days (it was also used after the ’45 in Scotland). Guess what – that was just precisely how the first compulsory schooling was enforced in the U.S.A. in the early 19th century.

    Since Clover is making out that government is not a threat, I should tell him that the first time people tried to kill me was when I was six years old and part of the European community in a newly independent African country; the official paramilitary police force killed their European officers and then started in on us. Now that’s racism. Luckily our particular town had some warning and forted up for three days until a paratroop colonel still in the country disobeyed government orders and rescued us (so, no, the government doesn’t get any credit for the rescue).

    On the question of working the laws of the system, it’s like a (rather good) system for winning a rigged gambling game: once you find one, you just make a few small bets the other way to everybody else, and even though the house will realise what you’re up to it will still let you win small amounts just to keep things running smoothly. It just doesn’t scale up to the point where everybody can do it or where one player can break the bank and make a killing.

    Jeremy, contrary to Etienne De La Boetie, governments are not limited by the acquiescence of the ruled. As the Ottomans and many others showed, if they don’t have that they can simply replace their subjects – unless outside constraints prevent that. Sure, you end up with a smaller cake, but at least you have the cake. That’s why guerilla methods weren’t that effective in most times and places; the Danes of the North of England resist William the Conqueror? fine, no more Danes in the North of England (the Wasting of the North has been estimated as halving the population of all England, and that’s counting the parts that weren’t harried, so you can imagine how – literally – devastated the North of England was). Bevin can probably confirm how it took the native Chinese a lot of fast talking to persuade the Mongols to settle for ruling China rather than turning it into more sheep country with no remaining Chinese; if they had done that they would probably still be there today, apart from where peripheral nations could push in (whereas they were eventually thrown out once they had degenerated).

    • dra·goon

      a member of any of several cavalry regiments in the British army.
      synonyms: cavalryman, mounted soldier; More
      a mounted infantryman armed with a short rifle or musket.
      verb: dragoon; 3rd person present: dragoons; past tense: dragooned; past participle: dragooned; gerund or present participle: dragooning.

      coerce (someone) into doing something.
      “she had been dragooned into helping with the housework”
      synonyms: coerce, pressure, press, push; More

  23. Eric:

    Why are you fussing?

    You know that words on paper don’t bind the powerful if, when and where they don’t wish to be bound. The ordinary person — which, I suppose, is most of us — has little to say about laws and constitutions. He or she sticks his or her finger in the air, judges which way the wind is blowing and looks to stay out of trouble.

    Think of tyranny as the rule of the dinosaurs. An ice age comes to strike them down. The chipmunks and squirrels hole up in their off-the-grid burrows. So it will be with the decomposition of America. Nature will take its course and those who live below the radar will have the best chance to emerge from the collapse.

  24. Think about it. Each State Constitution prior to the American Revolution was based upon Biblical Law. Go read this for yourself. Each colony was governed by biblical law and the local church (not corporations like the churches today) played a huge role in governance. The war was fought to return back to biblical law for King George promised the colonists they could govern themselves. This is what they chose. Why do you the black robes were so feared by the British, it was because of the influence they had amoung the people!

    • Hi Johnny,

      Biblical law is just as arbitrary and authoritarian as the secular version. No thanks.

      I’m with Jefferson and Paine, who were either deists or gnostics but who in any case believed religious belief (or the lack thereof) to be an entirely private matter.

      Religious moral injunctions are something people of varying beliefs will debate to the end of time because until one of their respective gods manifests on the White House lawn, it’s all just conjecture and assertion.

      The injunction regarding aggression violence, on the other hand, is an ethical principle that requires no “god says so” argument to back it up. It’s a simple, logical and absolutely equitable basis for human beings to interact with one another. A means to clearly, objectively, determine what is right vs. what is wrong.

      It’s the only “law” we need.

      • Thanks for pointing out that the NAP is about the ONLY thing within religion worth keeping – throw the rest into the woods. “Do unto others as…” Bilge the rest of the swill, especially the power-hungry institutions of religion. There are a few blog sites that get picked up by WRSA and others (Free Northerner, Ann Barndhardt, for two) that have NO business being cited by anyone interested in freedom, imo.
        The problem with any institution of religion is that, just like a state, it ALWAYS grows into a power structure, and it NEVER leaves “non-believers” alone. Most of the wars fought, along with the motivating factors to entice/force the sheep into bearing arms against one another, are pretexted upon some kind of religio-nationaistic premise of “we’re better than you.”
        To the woods with all of it.
        F – I. W.
        the NAP
        Keep it simple folks. And forget linking “patriotism” and religion to any of this. It’s a fools road and a sucker’s game – has been for centuries…

        • Dear DR,

          I agree.

          A debate has recently been simmering in libertarian circles over “thick” and “thin” libertarianism.

          Thick and thin are two approaches to libertarianism, with “thin” libertarianism being understood as “a narrowly political doctrine” and “thick” libertarianism as integrated into some broader set of social or cultural values. Libertarian thickness, therefore, measures the degree or mode of association of libertarianism with other values.

          The “thick” version of libertarianism is bundled with contexts in addition to the non-aggression principle. It promotes libertarianism with other values, and denies that libertarianism can be advocated by non-aggression alone.

          The “thin” version of libertarianism is solely approached to studying the non-aggression principle, without any cultural contexts bundled with it.

          I think it is dangerous to make “add ons” to the NAP. Religion is definitely a dangerous add on to libertarianism. Historically, organized religion has been a force for authoritarianism.

          • I think it is dangerous to make “add ons” to the NAP.


            I’ve reached the point where whenever the argument over “what is libertarianism?” erupts (which is at least once a week) and discussion degenerates into an offering of every contorted and perverse definition of the word imaginable, I say very simply “libertarianism is the observance and practice of the NAP. All other features of libertarianism extend from the NAP.”

            Not a perfect definition, I realize, but I find it hard to see how anyone can argue with the idea that without the NAP as a foundation, no other feature of libertarianism is possible, let alone makes any sense.

            Oh, and needless to say, such a simple and clear definition gets lots of push-back from people with agendas (i.e., leftist liberals and reich-wing tradcons, to say nothing of Beltwaytarians).

          • Dear lib,

            “libertarianism is the observance and practice of the NAP. All other features of libertarianism extend from the NAP.”

            I like it. Sums it up nicely.

            The fact is, we’ve had “thick libertarianism” before, under a different name. Back then it was called conservatism, specifically, Bush Senior’s “kinder, gentler conservatism” that tacked on altruist ethics based welfare statism to advocacy of the free market. We all know where that ended up.

            We’ve already been there, done that. We’d be idiots to replay our mistakes.

        • Hi Johnny,

          I’d rather not get into a religious debate – because there’s no objective way to argue such a thing. You’re welcome to believe in whatever you like and I while I may believe in different things, so long as we both agree the aggressive violence is always wrong, then we’ve got no conflict and could be good neighbors, as well as good friends.

          Just my 50 –

          • @Eric – After 200 something years I feel like pounding my head into something solid when people can’t disassociate religion (choose one) and governance of a whole country. The Founders made it perfectly clear that individual choice in the matter was guaranteed, but did not substitute for a civil government.

            I don’t see a conflict unless someone brings it to the table. Just look at the beheadings’ in Iraq toady if you think it should be different

            • Agreed, Gary.

              It seems to me the thing to focus on is rejection of aggressive violence. Get anyone to agree with you on that and all else follows.

      • I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “Biblical law”? If you’re talking about theocracy, I agree with you that that is both wrong an unnecessary. And way too many Christians, while not theocrats in a proper sense (theonomic reconstructionists are the closest thing to actual theocrats), mix a kind of quasi-theocracy and half-baked Biblical basis with authoritarian, nationalistic ideas, and it is (in my opinion, this could be debated, and I could see why homosexuals in particular would disagree with me here) even worse than actual theocracy (which is theonomic reconstructionism, more or less.)

        So, if you mean “Biblical Law” as some kind of revamped statism that uses the Bible as a code to impose on everybody at gunpoint instead of the whims of Washington DC’s bureaucrats, I will agree with you, and we can drop the subject. Throw that in the woods too.

        On the other hand, if you’re referring to Biblical law as a MORAL system as being arbitrary, I strongly disagree. I have a few reasons why:

        First of all, consider private property ownership. In any moral legal context, we own ourselves and also the fruits of our labor. But, (assuming Christianity is true) who created us? God. Thus, there is nothing wrong with God giving those who he has created moral commands. Even using libertarian ethics he has the right to do this, after all, he is Biblically compared to a potter and we are the clay. He owns us, period. Who are we to talk back to him?

        Second of all, God has a GOOD reason for the commands he gives. That is simply part of the definition of “good”. For human beings to make up an ethical system to hold God to is not only arbitrary, its absurd. Where do we, any of us, get that authority? By contrast, if God fashioned the entire universe and everything in it out of nothing, his word is NOT arbitrary. In fact, the very mind you are using to question him was created by him. So, its only arbitrary if you reject the paradigm that Christian thought exists in. If Christianity were false, than the Bible would simply be the words of men that could be ignored at will. I take it as axiomatic that this is not the case, and everyone else knows this too (See Romans 1), though unrighteous men (those who do not believe in Jesus Christ) suppress this truth in their unrighteousness. Christianity is presuppositional, not evidentalist, it is a complete system of thought and not something that can be reasoned to starting from axioms that we all agree on. So I’m just going to leave you with the assertions and let you do what you want with them. However, I am going to move on to another point.

        Third of all, Christianity gives us a basis for saying the State is evil. Really, I know first hand how hard this is, looking around at so many Christians, some confused and some false converts, who continue to believe the lie of statism. However, their assertions are not Biblical at all. 1 Samuel 8 clearly condemns the Israelites for wanting a human king. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 clearly holds any human kings that do exist to God’s eternal law (including laws against theft, murder, kidnapping, and so forth, which rules out things like taxation, warmongering, laws against peaceful activities, and so forth). Matthew 20:25-26 clearly condemns people of the world for trying to set up kingdoms and trying to get themselves positions of power, saying that the Christian should instead be a servant. If everyone, or even most people, did that, could the State continue to exist? Of course not. Unfortunately, too many Christians either haven’t read this verse, don’t know what it means, or don’t believe it, and so they continue to try to “lord it over each other” through trying to win political offices (I’m talking about people who are trying to increase government or run it their way here, I am not talking about people like Ron Paul who are simply using politics as a platform to shrink government as much as possible), trying to win political power, serving the State in the military, committing murder and laying down their lives for something other than God (the State) while within it, serving in the police force and agreeing to enforce the endless edicts of the State, IRS workers (need I even mention what the NT has to say about tax collectors? lol) and so forth. Its a problem. Its a serious problem. There are some churches that I don’t even consider Christian at all because they have whored themselves with Caesar (US govt) to such an extent that I view them as idolatrous. I heard of a southern pastor recently who said cops were doing “God’s work by defending us against domestic terrorists” when they flashbanged a child while trying to arrest some drug users. Do not be deceived, this is not Christianity and these people are not Christians, they have a divided loyalty between God’s law and America’s, and America has won out. Its downright disgusting, and I want nothing to do with it. I can’t help but hope some day that at least a large portion of the Christian church becomes disgusted with statism as government grows more and more blatantly anti-Christian. I’m not holding my breath, but I am hopeful. In the meantime, I’m in an extremely frustrating position. I anger non-Christian libertarians and non-libertarian Christians alike. I’m more frequently induced to anger by the latter group than the former. I can usually shrug off anti-religious comments by libertarians because I know they just don’t understand what they are talking about. But to see Christians advocating coercion just disgusts me. And its frustrating because they think I’m crazy and out of left field. Does this discourage me? Yes. But I will not stand down because I know the truth, and my aim to please God, not man.

        By contrast, what real basis does the secular libertarian have? The best arguments they use are taken right out of the Bible anyway. The golden rule for instance. Its a great thing. But without a context, why can’t one just reject it? Or, why can’t one twist it? Why are your morals better than those of a more violent (statist) persuasion? You are a man just as Adolf Hitler was. You both perceive things. In a vaccuum, you both have an equal right to make moral claims. This is where the evil of democracy comes from. Moral relativism is an essential result of denying an absolute moral law-giver. Moral relativism leads to democracy. If man is the measure of all things, you are no better than the liberal or the conservative, because it is all subjective. Now, before I close, I am going to say that I believe you are better than the liberal or conservative, as far as ethics goes. Its not even close. But I can only say that because I have an absolute moral standard to make such a claim by. That standard says that aggression is morally wrong. It also says that God is the sovereign lord of all his creation.

        Without such a standard, your arguments with clover are fundamentally relativisitc, and thus, meaningless. The only reason ethical arguments even have meaning is because there is an absolute ethical standard that exists outside of ourselves. It also explains the absurdity of arguing ethics with God, or with saying Biblical law (again, going under the assumption that we’re talking about Biblical moral law, and not theocracy) is arbitrary. Your saying that is arbitrary.

          • Wait, so you get to call Biblical law “arbitrary” and yet I’m not allowed to respond?

            Well, I suppose Boothe is right. its your house. But I cannot engage in discussion on those terms. I’m not going to post here anymore. Best of luck. If you ever want to have a serious discussion, let me know.

        • Eric, if I may:

          David – First of all, Eric has warned you about this before. As a brother let me remind you that this is Eric’s house (or village even) and we are here as his guests. I will also remind you that morality predates Christianity, Judaism and every other organized religion: it is Natural Law and we come with it built in. Even a two year old knows that it hurts when you bite and that it’s wrong (I won’t get into psychopathy just now). Although the Bible is “the way” for you and me, it is not the way or the final authority for a lot of other people. That is their choice and their free will. Respect that.

          I realize you are still young and when I was your age I had all the answers too…or so I thought. There are many different ways of witnessing and it has been my experience that what you are doing here will turn more people off to “God” than it will ever evangelize. So I suggest you carefully read Matthew 10:14 and pray for comprehension (please excuse the cite Eric).

  25. Read the Constitution carefully and you’ll notice this subtle wording: “Congress shall have the power to…” We tend to confuse “power” and “authority” but they’re not the same thing. “Power” is the ability to do something; “authority” is permission to do it. And where does this permission come from? From whoever has the power to control what you can and cannot do. For example, I have the power (that is, the ability) to carry concealed but I need authority to do so legally (a government-issued permit).

    And therein lies the hat trick. The Constitution enumerates what the government has the power to do (which is most anything it wants to do – read closely), not its authority to do so. That authority supposedly derives from the so-called “consent of the governed.” This consent is extracted from the governed by threat of force, “force” being simply the exercise of power.

    The Bill of Rights was designed to limit authority, not power. But, as we all know, when it comes to government, power trumps authority in every case.

    Remember what Mao Zedong (pronounced “Mousy Tongue” in these parts)said: “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao might have been a filthy, murdering Commie scumbag but he got that one absolutely right.

    • Right you are, Frank.

      It’s important to remember that most of the men involved in writing the Constitution were lawyers. Expert at the flim-flam.

      The obvious example being Hamilton’s choice of “common good.” As a lawyer trained in the parsing of words, he knew perfectly well that he’d gotten the proverbial foot in the door thereby – and that the average naive boob would never notice until it was already too late.

  26. Hi Eric,

    I’d like to add to your excellent analysis by asserting that, whatever any particular constitution, articles of confederation, bill of rights, etc… says, legally limited government is impossible, in both practice and theory. I say “legally” limited government because, when our minarchist friends use the term “limited government”, they really mean “legally limited government”. All governments are “limited” because the resources available for appropriation are finite. In addition, as Etienne De La Boetie pointed out, all governments are limited by the acquiescence of the ruled.

    So, the question is, “can a government be constrained by law?” I answer no. The widely accepted definition of government is “the institution that maintains a legal monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area”. However, as part of the monopoly of legal force, governments also claim a monopoly on judging it’s own actions relative to the “law”. This necessarily means that governments exist outside of, and above the law that theoretically constrains them.

    Many people assert that the “separation of powers” between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of the Federal government overcomes this problem, but it does not. If the purpose of the Supreme Court is to serve as a check on the power of government then the institution, and its’ members, are uniquely unqualified for the job. Supreme Court justices are chosen from a pool of government lawyers who have displayed a lifetime of fealty to the idea that the exercise of government power is legitimate. They are nominated by a president who has no interest in seating someone who is hostile to the exercise of executive power. They are confirmed by Senators who have no interest in seating someone who is hostile to the exercise of legislative power. In short, the function of the Supreme Court is not to check government power, but to legitimize it.

    Still, most people suffer from the delusion that “State” power can be limited by law. To illustrate the absurdity of this proposition, let’s place the claims of “limited government” advocates in the private sphere. Imagine that Goldman Sachs set up an internal ethics division that was charged with ruling on the legality of the actions of Goldman Sachs. Let’s suppose that the members of this ethics division were nominated by the CEO of Goldman Sachs and confirmed by the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. Let’s further suppose that they receive their pay from Goldman Sachs. Finally, let’s suppose that this division of Goldman Sachs claims a monopoly on judging the legality of the actions of Goldman Sachs. Is it believable that the CEO of Goldman Sachs would nominate a “justice” hostile to the interests of Goldman Sachs? Is it believable that the board of directors would confirm a “justice” hostile to the interests of Goldman Sachs. Does anyone seriously believe that such an institution could be trusted to limit the power of Goldman Sachs?

    Yet this absurd scenario is precisely what we are supposed to believe with respect to the Supreme Court serving as a check on the power of the State.

    Legally limited government is impossible, in theory and in practice. It is long past time to recognize the State for what it is, a predatory, violent and coercive institution that exists to serve the interests of the predatory class. Its’ pretensions to serve the interests of the “people” are just a smokescreen to obscure its’ real purpose. It is also long past time to recognize that society functions, not because of the machinations of the State, but because most people are naturally inclined to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. Whether this stems from an innate moral sense or from enlightened self interest is, ultimately, irrelevant.

    Governments have always been created through conquest and predation. This means that some society, worthy of conquest and predation, must have existed prior to the creation of monopoly government. Statist apologists never tire of claiming that “anarchy” doesn’t work. However, if “anarchy” didn’t work, their beloved governments could never have come into being.

  27. @Mama: Back in the day, he got it by birthright. James the III provided the charter and much of the resources for a number his subjects to move to the New World and spread the British Empire. Of course now we recognize the fact that we own our bodies and our property and are responsible for them. Lots of folks however still want all the benefits of ownership without the responsibilities. Moreover, although the feudal system was replaced in America with the Kings defeat, it is now coming back into view as the Oligarchy matures and the average man and women are put deeper and deeper in debt through the debt based currency system of the Federal Reserve.

  28. While on the subject:

    Another Example of Liberal Tolerance
    Really? In America?

    A union representing federal employees at Eglin Air Force base in Florida is demanding that two senior management officials be removed from their posts because they put decals on their personal trucks supporting Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson.

    This turned into quite the kerfluffle around here.

    Never mind that there’s this thing called the First Amendment and the bumper stickers were on personally-owned vehicles.

    It never ceases to amaze me how the left continues to bleat about people’s right to be different (e.g. gay, whatever) and yet when someone dares to be “different” and that “difference” is a belief in Christianity, or supporting someone who strongly believes in the Bible, suddenly that alleged “value” and “right” goes — right out the window.

    The union lost, by the way — on First Amendment grounds.

    • Dear Gary,


      As everyone knows, I am not white. But even I can see how in certain respects whites are victims of PC style racism.

      Don’t you just love the liberal PC euphemisms?

      Diversity. Tolerance. Pro-choice.

      Every time some liberal talks about pro-choice in abortion, which I support, I immediately say

      “Yeah! Right on! We should have a choice in whether or not to own a gun.”

      Gets em every time.

      • @Bevin – You are aware of my former employment. Twice I scored in the top 10 written/verbal / background/ advanced state issued credentials etc. countywide for promotions with “stripes”. In those years they promoted about 20 to 25 to that rank. I was never one of the political pals with an “in with the boss” and never got it. I was told behind closed doors that it was because the push was on from the feds to do the minority thing. They had to reach wayyyy down on the list to actually make the promotions. In later years those people showed an amazing ability to be totally inept and borderline incompetent in return for their paychecks. I shudder to think of what is out there today flying positions with secretaries and mahogany desks if you know what I mean.

        • Dear Gary,

          If I remember correctly you were once a cop.

          Re: “Affirmative Action.” It’s pathetic.

          As Thomas Sowell and others have noted, it’s demeaning to “people of color” to be “race normed.”

          It automatically makes everyone who falls under the classification a charity case, presumed to be inferior. I can’t imagine any minority group member actually wanting to be collectively discredited and unable to prove that he or she made it on actual merit.

          But then clovers come in all colors.

          • @Bevin – No. It is a learned/ taught form of brain washing. Like the OJ Sipmson jury never even thinking to convict a fellow brother of killing a white woman. That is why ghetto areas never improve thier lot, but think they are owed a free ride.

          • Dear Gary,

            The OJ verdict. Yeah, what a farce that was.

            My only worry is that developments such as the OJ verdict might provide pretexts for the elimination of Trial by Jury and Jury Nullification, two of the last firewalls against state persecution.

          • Dear Brent,

            I would say that the OJ verdict was a farce even if OJ didn’t do it.


            Because as far as I could tell from the news coverage, which was abundant, the jurors did not render their verdict based on the merits of the case, but instead on race.

            Basically it was the flipside of past trials with all white jurors in the Deep South in which they automatically acquit a white defendant of murdering a black victim merely because he is “one of us.”

            Neither scenario represents true justice.

          • The just-us system is a farce. OJ is doing time for it now what he was convicted of wouldn’t have been treated that way if it had not been for the earlier case.

            With OJ the private investigation produced a theory that matched the evidence.

  29. @Garysco – I will have to respectfully disagree that it can’t be “unraveled” at this point. There is nothing to unravel. The law is the law and they must follow it. Everything they do must be congruent with all four laws or the action is not legitimate. I insist on honest government. I use their law to force them to prove the source of their authority and to who it applies. The results are liberating because once you understand the fraud, the “United States” is a very small place scattered over a very wide area.

      • @Garysco – Reply to previous comment thread.

        I agree whole-heartedly about toys, games, cupboards, fridge, closets, chairs, rugs, everything in the house leads children down the wrong path of behaving like pampered unskilled zoo creatures.

        I should have started with radical Feng Shui from the beginning, it’s far too late now.

        At a minimum, everything would be in component form. Kids would have to assemble things, put A with B, attach C and so forth before they got anything at all.

        Sort of like Montessori but from birth. No handing them a rattle, bib. Give them lots of items that can be assembled into lots of other permutations.

        Over thousands and thousands of kids, all kinds of cool things could happen.

        TVs radios computers can be around kids, but by default all programming is blocked. They’d have to come to an older kid, adult to get something made available. And even then, it would be more like some kind of video game.

        The good thing about video games is, you have to do makework and perform specific tasks before you get to view any content. It would be better initially if this is always the case.

        Maybe an indoor/outdoor room full of grass and soft twigs and clay. Kids could develop in tandem with archeological records.

        by age 1, they’d know what 9000 year old man knows.
        by age 2, they’d be up to 7000 year old men know.

        They would cooperate with each other and with animals. Make basic tools, make some safe version of fire, and so forth. Nothing centrally planned is intended, just a mindset of making the entire world lego pieces or lincoln logs or blocks.

        They’d get nothing by default, they’d have to beg an older or wiser kid for things if they wanted to go the charity route. Teaching kids to do things for adult approval and attention is the lowest form of education, more appropriate for the dumber dog breeds, not human babies.

        Anyway, yes absolutely. TV is very passive. Stupefying. Psychologically damaging and all the rest. The ultimate babysitter is to put children in such a situation of controlled scarcity that they must expend their attention and effort to getting by, they’d never even consider bothering adults if they stuck to their guns and didn’t interfere with the necessary life lessons.

        It’d be better if 9 out of 10 kids perish even, if the 1 who survived would really be worth something. Okay, maybe not literally die, but you could put them up for adoption into mainstream society once they fail your rigorous program, and get the wife to work having your next potential NAP self-sufficient superstar progeny.

        Move over Jewish Mother, Tiger Mom, and Asian Dad, Libertarian parents could be the hardest to please parents of all.

        High Expectations Asian Dad

      • Dear FA,

        As Eric rightly noted, “If they obeyed their own laws, I’d be inclined to agree with you.”

        He’s right. As Eric, myself, and I’m sure you know, they don’t.

        That “if” is like the “if” in “If pigs had wings, they could fly.”

        As anybody who follows Pro Libertate, Cop Block, or Police State USA knows, the “rule of law” is rule by those who make (and enforce) the laws.

        The law only limits us, not them.

        Nope, “constitutionalism” and the “rule of law” have had their day. Game over. Time to wipe the slate clean and start over, completely fresh. Time for a new paradigm, for the NAP and genuine, not phony freedom.

        • Dear Gary,

          Carlin was dead on. I left a comment:

          Bevin Chu
          1 second ago

          Carlin is dead on.
          The Latin incantations used in our legal system to make us obey “The Law” are no different than the incantations some witch doctor mutters to keep the natives in awe of the tribal chief’s “authoritay.”
          Legal mumbo jumbo, including terms such as “authority” and “jurisdiction,” are nothing more than voodoo incantations.
          Individuals are born free. No one has the right to demand that we obey rules they made up (“laws”) and pay them money (“taxes”), merely because the formed a gang and called it “The Government.” 

    • Dear FA,

      I have to agree with Gary. The time for “Restoring the Republic” is looong past.

      Years ago I was in that camp. No more. This video pretty much covers my own thinking on the matter.

      Minarchism: Great Start, Horrible Finish

      Rose is correct. Minarchism led to maxarchism in just over 200 years. From the Republic of the Founders to the Bushobama police state.

      There is absolutely no reason to imagine that the results would be any different a second time around.

      Time to move on. Political evolution has brought mankind to the threshold of free market anarchism.

    • Hi Final,

      If they obeyed their own laws, I’d be inclined to agree with you. But – as I’m sure you’ll agree – they often do not. They simply ignore their own laws, when it suits them. Or apply them arbitrarily. The game’s rigged – and not in our favor.

      • Hi Eric:

        From my perspective, as a former Federal employee, they DO obey their laws. The presume you and I are working on their property, using their credit, and generally making a mess of things. They make a show of certain things but at end of the day renters don’t really have much in the way of “rights”.

        I know that they do not like being reminded about the Organic Laws. It took me almost a year and a number stern letters to obtain my current passport based on Article IV of the Articles of Confederation. Now, I have documented proof that the Department of State will follow the law when forced. They don’t like being caught lying on paper.

        To find America, you must first understand its nature. The Declaration of Independence is very simple and to the point. It is law. The Articles of Confederation created a Confederacy of States. You and I are not part of that club but we can make choices based on that law and as supporters of the perpetual Union. That part takes study and hard work.

        The latter two Organic Laws, the Northwest Ordinance and the United States Constitution were created together in 1787, largely because some politicians were afraid of things like Shay’s Rebellion popping every where. They did what politicians do best – and misled people. You can learn a lot by sitting down and reading all four laws in order. You must read critically and with the knowledge that some of the best lawyers in the world at that time wrote that last Organic Law, in secret and burned their notes.

        The game is certainly rigged but once you understand the nature of the game and ALL of its rules, you can quit playing their game. I have.

        • “i have” details might blow the secret decoder ring air out of this assertion. but, even so, the notion that liberty, or something closer to it, is a matter of the one correct legalitarian procedure is another magical conch wave at the lord of flies.

          not a few have been imprisoned at the end of similar tacks (“i have – & youcantoo”). schiff’s father still is, i think.

          • Nonsense.

            It is in plain sight if you take the time to read 4 laws in order and think for yourself. No one can do that for you.

            Your use of fear as a reason not to read 4 critical laws and do some work suggests that you allow fear to drive your life. That is not my style.

            • Hi Final,

              I’m with you – in principle (and have read the documents). But you know perfectly well what will happen if, as an example, you make the arguments you’ve made in a “tax cheat” case brought against you. Or any other case.

              As a practical matter, “the law” is whatever those who wield power say it is. Period.

          • It is not my intention to be cryptic so lets try this:

            King George was the sole owner of his Colonies in the America’s. He granted his subjects the right to live there as long as they paid their “taxes” and where loyal subjects – in other words, did his and his agents bidding. Some of those subjects decided start a little rebellion. After a long war they managed to kick him and his agents out by force of arms.

            The governments of the former colonies had very little property that they owned. Most land was in farms and forest being worked by now “free inhabitants”. See Article IV of the Articles of Confederation.

            As part of the war spoils, King George gave up a large chunk of his property to the Confederation. Read the Treaty of Paris. That property became land owned by and under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States of America and is know as the Northwest Territory. The Confederacy needed a way to manage the land and make some money off of that property so they passed the Land Ordinance of 1784.

            The Federal government still had trouble paying its debts even though they started selling some land to investors and farmers. Then came Shay’s rebellion. That scared the crap out of some of the big dogs. Some lawyers and politicians decided that something needed to be done so they proposed to amend the AOC. Problem was that amending or repealing that document required agreement of ALL 13 now free and independent States of the perpetual Union. Not going to happen.

            A new plan was developed to establish a new, “more perfect Union”. They do not say who it is more perfect for. In the process of creating the new and second Union, they create the Northwest Ordinance and the so called Constitution of the United States. They logically and properly make null and void the 1784 Ordinance while laying the propaganda to imply that this new document would replace the AOC. While in fact it must be limited by the previous laws unless they are repealed. The document itself is written in secret. People like Jefferson and Henry are not there.

            If the Northwest Ordinance is still in place, and it is according to the Federal government. That land has a specific character. It is land owned by or otherwise under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States of America. The Constitution of 1787 is by logic and law limited to land of the same character, even today. There is very little of that land left, especially east of the Mississippi. In Floyd County Virginia, the only land of that character I am aware of is the Blue Ridge Parkway but I have not done a specific search.

            You may do what you want with that information. I use it to make choices and eliminate errors by poorly educated agents of government. Mostly government clerks. Occasionally government lawyers. Never a cop at the side of the road. The latter has a gun and is typically poorly educated in the law.

            Hopefully that is specific enough for you. Back to work now.

        • @Final – The whole subject is shrouded in mystery, very difficult to decode and a maze of legal wranglings by lawyers of the “state” (like Obama’s ACA, – which is unreadable by a normal human). Read any federal agency rulings and you will wish to get drunk and run over by a car instead. Then you have to deal with the human zombies the agency hires, and wade through each one’s personal preferences and stupidity to get anything done at all. If they don’t “loose the paperwork” or “close the case” without any notification.

          I have toyed with the idea of getting a United States passport from the United States Department of State( State Department) as a “non-resident alien”, which gets me into a different legal class of resident, but with benefits, and removes me from being a “United States citizen.”

          Going down the rabbit hole.

          The passport application form I read clearly states that “I declare under penalty of perjury that I am a United States citizen (or non-citizen national) and have not, since acquiring United States citizenship (or U.S. nationality), performed any of the acts listed under…….bla, bla, bla. And also on the form is “US PASSPORTS ARE ISSUED ONLY TO US CITIZENS OR NON-CITIZEN NATIONALS. EACH PERSON MUST OBTAIN HIS OR OWN PASSPORT”….bla, bla,bla. The first is a “citizen of the United States.” The second is a NON-CITIZEN national of the United States. No one ever asks what a “non-citizen national” is and why they are listed on the passport forms as OK to get an official US passport.

          Historically a person (a term of the legal arts) can only get rights from one of two ways. I can acquire my Rights the way the founders felt they acquired theirs, from nature and Nature’s God. Notice the founding documents use the capital “R.” The only other way I can get rights is from man. These may be called rights but they are actually privileges. Privileges are given by man and can be easily altered, changed or taken away entirely by man. These privileges are now called “civil rights”, and by a trick of government have replaced the God given rights the Founders used. Those God given rights were removed and replaced with “civil rights” when I answered “yes” to “are you a citizen of the United States. A legalized trick played on me and all of us. As the lawyers are fond of saying “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

          • What a load of nonsense. How did Georgie-poo manage to become sole owner of the colonies?

            Each human being owns him/herself – lock, stock and barrel. They have the only legitimate authority there is to control and live that life as they see fit. They also have the only legitimate responsibility for that life and the consequences of their choices and actions.

            Most have been duped into accepting your version, one way or another. That’s why we’re in the mess we are now.

          • @Gary: I understand where you are coming from. I actually started to read the ACA, mostly out of curiosity. I think I got about 400 pages in and said to myself: “well this will be fun to watch”.

            I do my best to keep everything simple and to the point because the “drones” are ignorant. That is not entirely their fault.

            We have been trained for a long time to think that “statutory law” is really all the law that matters and that “forms” reflect the “law”. That is not entirely the case. Whenever I interact with any government agent or instrumentality (i.e. banks), I do my best to do it in writing and in as simple a manner as I can. My goal is to simply remove any presumption that I am a “citizen of the United States” and have my political status as a “free inhabitant” on the record. It is not always easy. For my current passport, I took the simplest route I could and engaged them with their form that I made corrections to. They objected and claimed I was a “citizen by way of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”. I pointed out the 4 Organic Laws, the legislative history of the 14th Amendment and that unless they had evidence that I was a former slave their assertion had no bearing on me. We went around the tree a couple of more time while I continued to make “corrections” to their form as it is incomplete and misleading and pointing out that they were being arbitrary and capricious and that by law I was entitled to a passport (see Article IV of the AOC) . Finally, we ended up with a single statement just above the signature line of the form: “I am not a United States citizen. I am a free inhabitant pursuant to Article IV of the Articles of Confederation”. They then came back with “your picture is out of date Mr. Final”. With that response, I knew I was in. I did yet another form, got a nice fresh pic of my mug, made the agreed upon “correction” and posted it. A couple of weeks later the U.S. Passport office delivered my passport. I might take a different approach today but I know that one works – in time.

            As an aside, if you read 22 USC 212 you will note that citizenship is not a requirement for a passport, only allegiance. They agreed to that fact as well. Actually hard for them to deny it since everything they do in writing should be congruent with all the laws that they are responsible for keeping. You may also recall that the two primary functions of the AOC was making war and foreign affairs. I believe the State Department, at least the General Counsel, is very well aware of that and also recognizes the fact that one of the first things that happened after the Declaration of Independence was that the Congress sent men like Jefferson and Adams abroad to seek money and alliances. Their real authority is in the AOC.

            I agree entirely about what you say regarding Rights. Mine come from my Creator. Most people have no clue and have been brain washed to give up their superior Rights – mostly by fraud of omission. You will find no federal form with the word “free inhabitant” on it. I am certain you never will.

          • @Mama- What is your answer to the question: what country do you claim citizenship of? The one you use on your taxes, any licenses, gun purchases, school application or questions any government official asks you.

          • Garysco said:
            @Mama- What is your answer to the question: what country do you claim citizenship of?

            None. I am not a “citizen” of anything. A citizen is one who is owned, one who owes allegiance and fealty to some “governing” entity. I do not owe allegiance to any but my family and my true friends.

            The USA and the state of Wyoming claim me as their property (citizen), but that does not make me their legitimate property, and I owe these governments nothing. I avoid conflict where possible and ask nothing from them except to be left alone in peace.

            I love my land, my country (the geographical reality) and many of the people here. That is a totally different thing that fealty to any government.

  30. For those who desire an in-depth look at what Eric is alluding to read “Hologram of Liberty” by Kenneth W. Royce

    The book that woke me up completely.

  31. The “authority” to make laws in the United States is based on the proprietary power that any owner has over their property. You are correct that the fix was in from very early, but not exactly at the beginning, and not in the way you think. Everyone should take the time to review the four Organic Laws of the United States as found in Volume One of the United States Code. I was shocked myself a few years ago when I saw that there are 4 Organic Laws and noticed that they are all four in place in the law books and are ALL still valid laws. That legal fact changes everything. The four Organic Laws are:

    1. The Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776
    2. The Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777
    3. The Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787
    4. The Constitution of the United States of September, 17, 1787

    The people alive at the time the last two Organic Laws were created were duped by some highly trusted men (Washington, Madison, etc.) who were afraid they were loosing control. They used the territory granted the Confederacy by King George as spoils of war to sneak in Amendments to the Articles using the so-called Constitution of the United States in a way to centralize power in the Federal Government. They probably did not foresee the results but we live with them today. If you want to begin to unravel the secrets that robbed Americans of their birthright, read all 4 laws in order. You can do it here for free:

    When reading, pay attention to dates and specifics of what was required to repeal or make amendments to the Articles of Confederation. Try and figure out how many Unions there are and their nature. It is also helpful to figure out how many Presidents there are and who they work for, as well as, the difference between the United States of America and the United States.

    With study you will start to see what happened and you can begin the process of restoring the perpetual Union that is the United States of America. You can also begin to deny tyrants, petty and grand, authority over you and your property when they have no legitimate proprietary claim. The law is there for your use but first you have to learn it.

        • Why to you say that? None of that stuff is mentioned in any one of the Organic Laws. It is a historical and legal fact that the Articles of Confederation have never been repealed. At least that is what the House Law Revision Counsel indicates whenever they publish their big red law book known as Volume 1 of the United States Code.

          If you can cite the date and statute that repealed the Articles of Confederation, please do so. Also feel free to cite the date the and statute that repealed or replaced the Northwest Ordinance. I am sure the experts in the Law Revision Counsel Office would love to not have to print those extra documents in that book.

          • @Final Authority – I am not disagreeing with you at all. Those that I mentioned are a continuation of the legal snare we all live under. There is no way to unravel it at this point. To do so would require an aware, thoughtful and involved public. I will be singing Irish ballads with St. Peter before that happens.

          • Do you really think you (and any number of your friends) could write a contract that would be binding on all future generations, not just including your own families, but any person born or who came to the same geographical area?

            Why does anyone think that those who wrote either the “Articles” or the “constitution” had any such authority? Did you sign up for either one – personally? I did not. I will not. Yet it is assumed that they give authority to whatever sort of “government” comes along claiming it. And if I object strongly enough, the agents of that “government” will be happy to cage or kill me, and my children.

            The Declaration of Independence is a unique historical document, and we resonate with it greatly, but it was not a contract written by those who claimed authority and power to bind their descendants in perpetuity to anything in it… and, in fact, it clearly states that people should and must retain control over their own lives.

            That individual control is simply not possible if authority is delegated to any sort of collective, at least not without the absolute power of the individual to withdraw consent and participation.

          • these were not “contracts”, ever. that just sounds better, is more palatable, less inflammatory, than “edicts”. the former panders to “free will”, the latter is the unadorned rules of the various sub board games.

            rule of law is another better sounding bite. ruse of law is the indigestible truth.

            war is merely the continuation of politics by other means. ~ clausewitz

            notice the commutative property. noble gassers will (r)use political verse first. but if that fails, or stalls, the jackals will be sent. that’s it & that’s all, human history in a nut(ty)shell. the dynamics detailed in perkins “economic hitman” book(s) are “the rules”, the only real ones.

            so, if the con-stitution had not stuck to the wall, that would not have been the end of it. more rusery, or “other means”, would have followed.

            peopetual motion machinery. rights & wrongs have as much to with it as they do with gravity. it just is. & for those whose role in the stage play is defiant mouse, that too, just is.


          • It is a historical and legal fact that the Articles of Confederation have never been repealed.

            Y’know, that’s true. In fact, it’s one of those “blinding flashes of the obvious” that no one seems to have noticed. There is NOTHING in the preamble to the Constitution that makes any statement to the effect of “the Articles of Confederation are hereby repealed with the ratification of this Constitution.”

            Of course the question then logically becomes “how does one reconcile the AoC with the Constitution, which enables laws and powers of the federal government that are polar opposite of and contradictory to what the AoC contains?”

      • Hi Gary,

        In Final’s defense, he might be right – technically. But it’s as irrelevant as pointing to the Bill of Rights and its prohibition of unreasonable searches and telling the cop at a roadside checkpoint that what he’s doing is against the law. It is. But, so?

        The law (Constitution/Bill of Rights) has become whatever they say it is, adjustable to suit.

    • Dear Final Authority,

      Leaving aside the ominous undertones of your alias, you are missing the point entirely.

      Laws as conventionally understood, are all part and parcel of the Myth of Authority. They are rules some people made up that they expect other people to obey, or else. Contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, laws as conventionally understood, can never be morally justified. They invariably involve unilateral demands for obedience without the sovereign individual’s consent.

      The “rule of law” is something I once believed in, until I cleared my mind of ingrained preconceptions regarding “implied consent” and “social contract.”

      Implied consent is non-consent. A social contract is not worth the paper it isn’t printed on.

      • I’m puzzled why you impugn pseudonyms. It’s a weak stretch to claim “Final Authority” is some kind of collectivist because he hasn’t chosen to use his real name, don’t you think?

        Is Boothe a good guy, because he chose a name of a president killer. This pseudonymology is all a red herring if you ask me. You’re misusing your intellect and cleverness on a sith’s errand.

        Isn’t the whole evil of facebook and google the fact that they are draining the anonymity out of the internet?

        If no one knows who we are, there are no crimes or online authority in a general sense. Cybercops can’t fight cybercrime if we maintain several unique identities, each of them plausibly real. Or if we always use monikers that have no ties to reality.

        Saying you only use your real identity is courageous. Would be like me saying I only walk around unarmed and that makes me courageous.

        Anonymity is hands down my all time greatest defense. IIRC Mama Liberty called being anonymous sad, and that she was proud to be known in her community.

        That isn’t fair. And its an important libertarian prep you should be assisting others in understanding. I get that you’re a “real” journalist, and it’s to your benefit to be yourself. And I don’t deny it’s courageous in your case to always be open.

        And I exempt Eric, because this is his site. And he has the authority to try to make money, which might be easier if he knows who we are.

        But it doesn’t follow that anyone who uses an alias is somehow a coward. Someone to be catcalled to admit their place of residence and occupation. This is the kind of collectivist bullshit that is the backbone of facebook and google privacy destruction.

        Haters of privacy, including google, are indeed very evil. This isn’t a good place for exposition and sophistry. This is life and death.

        One of the reasons I can live in dangerous areas, is because I never ever disclose my real name or “get made.”

        Wouldn’t you agree that you could do a lot more good in some instances, if you went all out, and only called yourself Jade Anarchist, or some other pseudonym. And thus had only your ideas, and no self-authority or curriculum vitae to back up your words? And also no tethers to saying anything and everything that came to mind?

        • Hi Tor,

          I have no problem with aliases; whatever handle a person chooses to use is fine with me. I absolutely understand – and share – people’s concerns regarding privacy and anonymity.

        • I do not “impugn pseudonyms.”

          I impugn some people who use pseudonyms, based on context.

          Hope that distinction is clear.

          • my mistake. somehow i perceived even a modicum of compliance with the principle of solitary state issued and tracked identities as the greatest of evils imaginable.

            your distinction, from Latin accusative distinctionem, the action noun of distinguo (“I distinguish”). as used in English from the late 14th century. as the present active infinitive of distinguō. was quite transparent. thanks.

            what if everyone melted their state issued id’s? and anarchists blew up all dmv’s? wouldn’t that mean the long overdue death of me’s and thee’s and authorities? wouldn’t we finally be free’s?

            investigating mehitabel’s morals

            naked before the state bare as the day you were born truly a signatory in your maidenform bra

        • In all honesty Tor, I did not “choose” Boothe; my mother did. And although I think that my namesake did America a great service, albeit too little too late, I merely use my real name because it is my real name. It has nothing to do with my contempt for the dictator Lincoln nor any love for the assassin that sent him away. And there are sufficient clues posted on this website for anyone who’s really determined to find out who I am. Frankly considering my military enlistment, a nearly two decade stint in nuclear power, years of filing tax returns, buying and selling real estate, etc., the biggest nastiest gang of all already know who I am. If they decide to “disappear” me one night for my stated views…well…they’ll (eventually) send enough men to get it done, now won’t they? Really, who can make war with the beast? The best we can hope for is to change the hearts and minds of others using non-aggressive methods and count on reaping what we’ve sown to protect us. So far it’s worked for me, but YMMV.

          • Tor – What Eric said. I have no problem with you or anyone else maintaining your anonymity. As you may be aware some of political writers at the founding used pseudonyms for the very reason you cite: self preservation. I just want the eagle to know exactly who it is that’s flipping him off before he eats me. 😉 Of course, there is this little issue with me being a porcupine, not a mouse… But if you thought my post was somehow intended to send you elsewhere, perish the thought! Mr. Tor I thoroughly enjoy your posts and look forward to reading them (you are the quintessential anti-clover in my not so humble opinion). I’ve learned a lot from your research and where it has indirectly led me. So by all means, stick around. Heck, you’re practically furniture here anyway (and I mean that in the most well worn comfortable easy chair sort of way). This site wouldn’t be the same without you.

          • My recent comments regarding pseudonyms were not intended as blanket indictments.

            They were a response to ad hominem insinuations about my character. They were narrowly targeted, not sweepingly general in character.

            It was my way of pointing out how some actions can be wrongly characterized as “cowardice.” That includes the way Eric (and myself) advocated handling traffic stops, and the use of pseudonyms when posting comments online.

            As methylamine, Mithrandir, ozymandias, helot, et al know full well, I have never once criticized them for using pseudonyms.

          • adios? really? its not like a tow is necessary to hang(10) these virtual waves.

            if yes, really, then not for the first time, just more than ever before, your stuff has me flashing on kevin kline’s character in “sophie’s choice”. manic rat-tat-tat, followed by, now, a bad primer.

            if its any consolation, coming from ozy whose apples you like to shine(on), you’re right, imo. but names, given or chosen, signify nada – the whole thing’s a where’s the beef enchilada. ☻

            rack slide, depress trigger…cuz bad primers, broken pins, hot barrels, & emptied mags are part of it (a bigger part than many seem to want to admit).

          • It kinda seemed to me that Tor’s ‘adios’ was in response to this line: “The best we can hope for is to change the hearts and minds of others using non-aggressive methods and count on reaping what we’ve sown to protect us. ”

            With the exception of the kewl chick that comments here every now and then, I kinda get the feeling we’re preachin’ to the choir. Maybe he went to make big waves in a pool of piranhas?

            …Or, maybe I’m wrong?

            I, for one, find his insights enlightening, same as I do alot of fellas here (and Mama Liberty)… if he’s hanging somewhere else, the least he coulda’ done is left a link so’s we could visit every now and then, or add-on when the piranhas are many, maybe?

            …Or, maybe he was just freakin’ kidding? Idk.

            • Yeah. I am saddened he’s decided (apparently) to leave us. I will send him a private e-mail. I hope I can convince him to come back. The dude is full of entertaining – and often very insightful – commentary!

            • Just wrote a PM to Tor.

              I guess I was asleep at the wheel when this contretemps erupted. Can someone fill me in? What happened, exactly? Did someone attack Tor personally?

          • Dear Eric,

            I for one, am baffled.

            Chronologically, Tor’s apparent departure took place shortly after I raised the issue of pseudonyms with “Prime” and “Final Authority.”

            Prime insinuated that not confronting LEOs at traffic stops was cowardly. I issued a rebuttal.

            I noted in passing to “Final Authority” that his pseudonym had disturbing authoritarian connotations.

            Neither comment was addressed to Tor. But apparently he took offense for some reason. Odd, considering the fact that Tor (if I’m not mistaken) actually is named Tor and does not use a pseudonym.

            Tor then wrote:


            Needless to say, I absolutely, positively did not insult Tor. If you follow the thread you will see my responses. I have long made it a point to insult only clovers, never fellow libertarians.

            Frankly, I am baffled.

      • Sorry, I have bee busy dealing with some of life’s issues.

        I believe you misunderstand my alias as some kind of claim over any other man or women or their affairs. I am the “Final Authority” over my life and my property on this Earth – that is all. My Creator will judge how well I managed my life ultimately but that is not your affair.

        My point in bringing up the Organic Laws is that they offer an option. Those laws, written by men and still in their law books, may in fact be ignored by most. Since I believe that the most powerful “law” ever written by man is the first Organic Law – the Declaration of Independence, I choose to try and make use of it and the others. It has worked for me on several occasions, but not without resistance.

        I don’t believe in “social contracts”. Contracts, like laws, must be clear and unambiguous to be valid as far as I am concerned. Social contracts are neither. That is one reason why I exercise the Organic Laws. They only require that I understand about 8 pages of text and couple of concepts captured in them.

        I do think we would all be better off if everyone was held to the same “law”. As near as I can tell, that only works with natural law, the law of nature and nature’s God. Gravity cares not if you are a psychopathic banker, cop or politician or a really good guy. Jump out of the plane without a chute and you are dead. In dealing with men, I think equity law can work. Unfortunately, that only works if all parties are fully informed, which is rare in the current system that is clearly based on fraud and deceit. The current money system sees to that.

        From my perspective, the first two Organic Laws lay the framework for logical self-government. That was America when our kin kicked out the King. In that society, which did exist for a time for the majority of “Americans”, you either consented to be governed or you did not. I made the choice some time ago to no longer consent and I do my best to carry that forward. Others may do as they please.

        • Dear FA,

          You wrote

          “I believe you misunderstand my alias as some kind of claim over any other man or women or their affairs. I am the “Final Authority” over my life and my property on this Earth – that is all. My Creator will judge how well I managed my life ultimately but that is not your affair.”

          Yes. That is how it came across to me. Thanks for the clarification.

          That said, I still disagree that any of the “laws” you mention warrant respect, let alone compliance.

          A libertarian society that is 100% consistent with voluntaryism and the NAP, will have rules of some kind. These rules however will not be “laws” as conventionally defined.

          The term “law” has a specific meaning. Laws are creations of the state, i.e., goonvermin.

          Max Weber defines the state as a community successfully claiming authority on legitimate use of physical force over a given territory; territory was also deemed by Weber to be a prerequisite feature of a state. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.

          Free market anarchists know that such a monopoly cannot ever be legitimized through any process. Any attempt to impose such a monopoly will automatically replicate the actions of conventional coercive goonvermin, and those who attempt to do so will automatically become goonvermin, by definition.

          Genuine “consent of the governed” can only exist if individuals remain free to choose to entrust their defense to private defense agencies.

          As long as one continues to talk about imposing laws, “organic” or otherwise, on sovereign individuals, then one is not in fact championing natural rights and individual liberty.

          • @Bevin – I suppose my perspective is a bit different. The first two Organic Laws impose certain duties on those people who say they are “government” and choices for those who care to make them.

            From the Declaration:

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

            From the Articles of Confederation:

            “The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States”.

            Those two documents were written in a time of great danger and the revolutionaries of the time had to make certain statements to try and convince people to follow along. I will make use of them as long as they meet my needs – one contract at a time. They are works of man so they are imperfect but the best currently available. In the end, only the laws of nature and nature’s God will stand the test of time.

          • Dear FA,

            Is it just me, or do you keep missing my point?

            Let me make myself as clear as I can.

            No person or group of persons has any right to unilaterally make up rules then expect others to obey them.*

            They can call their rules anything they want. A “constitution.” Or “articles.” Or “the basic law.” They can use English or Latin. None of it matters. It’s all bullshit no matter how you slice it. In other words, the constitution was bullshit. So were all the amendments. So are all laws, national, state, and local. All bullshit.

            Bear in mind that this is totally different from private contracts mutually agreed to. Those are morally binding, and would form the basis for a future market anarchist society.

            But nobody gets to make up rules unilaterally, then demand that others treat those rules as “legally binding” let alone “sacrosanct.”

            (*Unless others happen to be standing on his private property. Then house rules apply.)

          • Dear Bevin:

            I think we are closer to agreement then you think. You wrote:

            “Is it just me, or do you keep missing my point?

            Let me make myself as clear as I can.

            No person or group of persons has any right to unilaterally make up rules then expect others to obey them.*

            They can call their rules anything they want. A “constitution.” Or “articles.” Or “the basic law.” They can use English or Latin. None of it matters. It’s all bullshit no matter how you slice it. In other words, the constitution was bullshit. So were all the amendments. So are all laws, national, state, and local. All bullshit.

            Bear in mind that this is totally different from private contracts mutually agreed to. Those are morally binding, and would form the basis for a future market anarchist society.

            But nobody gets to make up rules unilaterally, then demand that others treat those rules as “legally binding” let alone “sacrosanct.”

            (*Unless others happen to be standing on his private property. Then house rules apply.)”.

            I agree entirely that no person or group of persons has any right to unilaterally make up rules then expect others to obey them. However, a group did get together and make some rules for themselves and others to follow if they so choose. The pertinent dates are 4 July 1776 and 15 Nov 1777. That is simply a historical fact. They were under pressure and needed to make things sound good for the average man at the time. People had a choice and they still do.

            You think all written laws are bullshit, I think they can be tools if you want to use them.

            Once the war was won, certain people conspired to re-establish “authority” over the rabble that helped win the war. The conspirators could not change the facts on the ground, so they tricked people. They had to leave in place the documents that got rid of the King so they went about using the property granted to the Confederacy as war spoils as a foundation for their “more Perfect Union”. They established their “house rules” because the Confederacy “owned” that land now using the Northwest Ordinance and the so-called “Constitution”. Just another historical fact. Understanding what happened in the year 1787 is very important.

            The fact that almost no one understands the nature of the land that the government claims “jurisdiction” over is the cause of almost all of the confusion today. The Constitution is limited by the nature of the land it can apply to. It can only apply to land owned by or otherwise under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the United States of America, in Congress assembled as established by the Northwest Ordinance. That is very little land now but they pretend to own everything within the exterior boundaries of the USA. Most people let them get away with the ruse.

            I also agree that nobody gets to make up rules unilaterally, then demand that others treat those rules as “legally binding” let alone “sacrosanct. But the people claiming to be “government” should not be allowed to ignore the “rules” they set for themselves.

            We have the power to utilize private contracts as I have done once you step out of the whole “citizenship” game and make it clear that you are not a citizen, not on their land and not using their property. They will resist. You need to persist. Basically, you throw the bullshit that is 99.99% of written laws on top of them – not the other way around. It is all entirely your choice.

            Hopefully, you get my point.

  32. Eric, I wouldn’t dispute anything in your post. But consider this. Even if the Constitution had been worded perfectly for preserving freedom, it wouldn’t have changed a thing.

    As baby bush was reputed to have said (and I’m sure he did….) the Constitution is “nothing but a G__ D_____ piece of paper!” That has always been the fed view. And no words would have stopped them. (As you eloquently pointed out re: the Bill of Rights.)

    I know it’s extremely unfashionable (among both socialists and anarcho-libertarians,) to believe in God. But without divine intervention, this is not going to end well. 😉

    • I’m proud to be the anarcho-libertarian who “believes in God” enough to have an article that mentions me by name devoted to the topic, and also to apparently have offended enough people that Eric asked me not to discuss religion anymore.

      I’m not the only one either.

      • I would Not use the word ‘proud’ when saying I’m an, “anarcho-libertarian who “believes in God””

        I am that too, how-freaking-ever; there’s something about ‘pride’ going before the fall and some stuff like that to consider. ?

        And really (imho) you Have to get over the, “and also to apparently have offended enough people that Eric asked me not to discuss religion anymore.”

        It wasn’t just you.

        Dang it. Even just responding to that risks opening up that whole can O’ worms.

        I’m reminded of a scene in the film, ‘Braveheart’.
        The rebels are gathered in a swamp.
        They’re a mix of believer’s, and un-believers, but they All want freedom and liberty.
        Just about always, you’re there.
        It’s a cliches (chlichea?) I know, but: ‘what would Jesus do’?
        Divide, or unite?
        Sow the seeds of discord, or…?
        That was rhetorical. And for your consideration.

        In the background a fanciful COEXIST sign on the back of a bumper goes by.

        Or, as eric might say, ‘ Live and Let Live’.

        …At least until the others come to chop off our heads for saying, “No!” anyway, eh?

        • It may be inappropriate, considering, but, the message is the same.


          You’re wound Up too tight.

          The chips are gonna fall where they will.

          Er, what I mean is, you’ll catch more with sugar than with salt.

          And on this side of the divide, and on That Side, things are set.
          That is, pre-determined.

          The Power Elite of the Western World have their plans, and so too does The Ultimate Reality.
          In the middle, there’s Free Will. That’s where I reside, and a whole lot of us non-brain-dead walking anti-zombies. It’s like we’re on a high-way with walls on both sides, you free to bounce from side to side, but in The End you’re going Down the high-way, one way, or another.

          {Maybe I should take my own advise elsewhere on The Net, salty-dogs respond the same way,…or, they always bite?]

          ….Just thinking out loud.

        • I’m over it. I was mostly joking. I know its hard to tell on the internet. I just wanted to let whoever made that original post (maybe it was you, dunno) that he wasn’t alone when he said he was an anarcho-libertarian who believes in God. The rest of it was mostly a joke.

          Regarding “working together” I support doing so to the extent that we can. I appreciate that nobody here (well, except the clovers, lol) wants to use aggressive violence against me. And I don’t want to use any against you guys. That common ground gives us a certain degree of brotherhood that isn’t really found anywhere else (its sad, really, because “don’t use aggression” should be something everyone believes, but the reality is that it isn’t). At the same point, I also understand that I have a somewhat different epistomological basis, which does limit our common ground at a certain point. For instance, my ultimate reason for saying aggression is wrong is because I believe the Bible says so. Sure, you can use a more secular sounding reason like “treat others the way you want to be treated” or “be a peacemaker” or whatever, but all of these things ultimately have a Biblical basis. You can’t just pull them out of the void, they have a Biblical origin. And I think the reason people here believe in them, and the reason most people will quibble over what these things mean rather than outright disagreeing with them, is because God exists and everyone implicitly knows it. I’m not sure its Darwinistically (If evolution were true) a good way to live. Darwinism says to take any advantage you can, whenever. That leads to statists lording it over other people.

          I’ll stop there because I know Eric doesn’t want to have this discussion here, but that’s where I stand. And I don’t mean “proud” in a “prideful” type of way if that makes sense (maybe it doesn’t.)

      • I don’t believe anyone is offended by you, David. You’re not even in the top ten most offending posters here. Eric is merely denying your introducing any axioms about God, religion, or scripture at this point in time.

        Please hear me out, I’m merely passing this wisdom along, none of this comes from me; it’s just the commonly acknowledged truths held by most of the people who inhabit discussion forums like this.

        1 “Freedom” means the ability to manage one’s own life. Therefore it contrasts with having one’s own life controlled by someone else; for example, religious leaders, government leaders, tribal leaders, or a wealthy ruling class.

        2 Freedom is the right, natural and proper way that humans ought to live; that all of us are “born free, yet everywhere you look you see men living in chains.”

        3 By “right and natural” it is meant that personal freedom is the only condition that fits human nature and no other possibility exists, consistent with intellectual integrity.

        4 What is being a human beings all about, essentially?

        5 One common belief is humans are just animals with big brains. Mere protoplasm, seeking to amuse itself.

        6 Another popular belief is humans are very special creations, made in the image of God – who created everything in the whole Universe. We gain fulfillment only when we find out what He desires for our lives, and then follow that divine plan.

        7 Neither of these are the best answer. The human species has developed an unique ability to reason, as well as developing attributes like love, purpose, conscience. Human being’s defining characteristic is that we are rational, to a degree that no other animal even comes close to.

        8 So, humans are first and foremost a species that lives in large part by reason. But in that case, what part is to be played by religious, governmental, tribal, and economic authority, custom, and tradition?

        9 I say these authorities are each important things that are part of what humans have discovered and thought, and so take their place rightful place alongside all other factors to be evaluated by reason. But they have no special status; one’s own reasoning must be paramount.

        10 I reject the common belief that customs and traditions and myths, even though they are part of the fabric of human understanding of any subject being considered. Should be held in the utmost respect and given precedence over one’s own reasoning power.

        11 I reject the popular belief that authority represents the accumulation of human wisdom and all one’s reasoning should be thus be performed only within the boundaries set by the experts in the subject being considered.

        12 Before proceeding further, you should make sure you understand clearly what “reason” means. You may have used, without much care, a phrase like “That seems reasonable” when what’s really meant is “That fits my present beliefs”!

        13 That is not reason. Reason – rationality – is something very different.

        14 Reason involves a premise, and a process of logic.

        15 A premise is a starting-point, from which subsequent steps of logic are taken. Often we hear “where you stand depends on where you sit” and that’s the meaning.

        16 If one starts with the premise that only baseball players with white skins can be considered, one is quite likely to reason through to a very different answer for “who is the best baseball player?” than if the premise held skin color irrelevant.

        17 Very often the infantile “debates” on TV involve talking heads with premises quite different from each other – it’s little wonder that they always end up in different places when they’re not even on the same page.

        18 A rational discussion, or line of reasoning, should start from a stated premise. It may be right or wrong (and the resulting conclusion will depend on that) but a sound process of logic should then lead everyone from it to the same single conclusion.

        19 One key premise that’s implicit in all of freedom philosophy is that things are what they are or, more simply, A is A.

        20 If an action hurts somebody else who has posed no threat to the actor, we call it “aggression” for that is what it is; no matter what name the actor may give it so as to excuse or justify his action, A is A – he is an aggressor.

        21 If several centuries of observation, measurement and reasoning prove that the earth orbits the sun, then despite contrary and authoritative but unsupported opinions, myths and traditions that’s the way it really is; A is A.

        22 A special kind of premise is an axiom – the sort that cannot be denied. It’s not that an axiom can be verified or falsified, for that would call for some axiom more primitive, upon which to build such a proof; rather, an axiom is self-evidently true – or more accurately, undeniable.

        23 The philosopher Ayn Rand states: a premise is an axiom if, in order to try to deny it explicitly, it is necessary to assume it implicitly.

        24 An example of an axiom is “I exist.” It cannot be denied because the moment the speaker says “I do not exist” he is contradicting the obvious, namely that he has a mouth with which to form those words; entities that do not exist do not have mouths!

        25 In other words, he must implicitly confirm that he does exist, in the very act of trying explicitly to deny it – hence the premise is true, hence it is an axiom.

        26 The process of logic then consists of a series of steps of the form “if A, therefore B” and lead eventually to a conclusion or proof.

        27 If Bush knew in 2003 that Saddam had no WMDs, then he was lying. If Windows always works well, then Microsoft employs some good software writers and therefore we can expect the next MS product to have good quality. Given that acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet per second per second (that’s the premise) if I fall from a tall building, then I shall travel down at over 100 mph, and therefore the impact with the sidewalk will break many bones and therefore I’ll probably die.

        28 A line of reasoning can and should be tested, for example: Is its premise sound? – if the conclusion seems strange, check the premise! Does B truly follow from A? – check each step of logic.

        29 Is there a contradiction? – a key principle of good reasoning is that contradictions do not exist in reality, but only in the minds of those who do not think clearly.

        30 There are many axioms besides religious ones about which not much conclussive discussion has yet taken place here. Does life exist on other planets? Can astrologists predict the future? Is man good or evil? Is abortion murder?

        31 Surely these topics are being intensely debated somewhere, but this doesn’t seem to be the forum where any of these issues are likely to be resolved.

    • “Even if the Constitution had been worded perfectly for preserving freedom, it wouldn’t have changed a thing.”

      For a small government Constitution to remain intact a People so jealous of their natural rights and citizen perks that a public official getting out of line would automatically dangle from a lampost as would any attempted rent seeker would be required.

      I do believe such a society would be rather peaceful as those wishing to act up would tend to refrain in abject fear of the consequences.

      • MFW – Perhaps fear of the populace is why they’re arming themselves to the teeth while continually pushing to disarm the rest of us? You’re not advocating that civil disobedience and taking the law into your own hands will be the only way to change things now, are you? A little tar and feathers perhaps? Miiiike, shame, shame.

  33. And so the Hamiltonians wrote the Constitution – without the authorization or consent of “the people,” in secret conclave – for the express purpose of “correcting” the problem, as they saw it, of too much liberty . . . and not enough government.

    I never let opportunities go to waste to rub sheeple noses in this fact whenever a discussion of either early American history or the Constitution arises. Reaction ranges from a brainstemmy “so?” to the clapping of hands over ears, accompanied by violent screams of “no, no, no, NO!!! That is NOT true!” The official court version of history is deeply engrained in the collective consciousness and is largely resistant to those pesky buggers called “facts.”

  34. Most excellent essay, Eric. 🙂 It will be linked to as many fora and blogs as I can manage.

    All of this continues because most people have accepted the outrageous lie that “government” has legitimate authority to control their lives, and that they actually have a mechanism to control the “government” in return. It is impossible to be both slave and master at the same time, of course.

    This is the disconnect that must be mended.

  35. good job, eric.

    would spike “trial by jury” with the voir dire vitamix, which was frappeing peerage into porridge along with the possibility of justice long before “extraordinary rendition” entered the lexicon….

  36. Yep. I just experience a direct violation of my natural privacy rights (supposedly secured by the 4th Amendment) when I recently traveled by air. I was given the Hobson’s choice of standing in a prone position to be naked scanned or molested by a government goon. I opted against the naked scan in an effort to push back against tyranny. I initially attempted to explain that I did not consent to search and that doing so would violate my “rights secured under the 4th Amendment.”

    I was initially told that I was free to travel by train or bus (the 1,000 miles) to which I replied: “Don’t forget I could also walk.” I was then told not to be wise guy and otherwise I would be forcibly removed from the airport by a cop. When I told him he could grope me (so I could fly home), but under protest, the TSA goon then got a cop and asked him to watch. When I inquired why the cop needed to be there he said it was so he could stand by to protect my 4th Amendment right while I was being groped (his words: “patted down”). He also vehemently denied that I was being subjected to any type search or seizure. It was all very Orwellian.

    I will keep up my peaceful resistance! It may be futile, but it’s necessary.

      • Being wise has always been a reason to be detained, removed, silenced, and killed.
        Socrates comes to mind (though he obviously became obsessive, in a sense, choosing his logic over self-preservation. He bowed to the collective… Maybe he couldn’t stand to live in such a worthless world? )

        The ones we know of the most these days are the collectivists of China. Lao-Tse, Confucius. these two (though in opposition) served the hive-mind….
        So did Socrates’ death.

        That is the norm, actually. Kill the best of your tribe (through war, through “herb”icide, beta-ization, over-socialization) – and wonder why you fall apart and go extinct – all while bemoaning, “the state of youth today!”

        Note video games…. 😉
        “.. Video games diminish the intelligence of youth. C’mon, Dick! It’s the only education we GOT!”

        The herd mentality cannot be out-bred, cannot be taught out, cannot be beaten out – but it CAN be stamped out. Going to have to happen….

    • It can be interesting to meet these thugs when they are out of their element. Recently I was in a store and the guy ahead of me in the checkout line was was sporting his “TSA” thug jacket and ID necklace. I said loudly enough for all to hear, “Damned TSA thug!” The guy turned red as a beet, dropped his stuff, and quickly left the store.

      It is my policy to humiliate and demoralize anyone connected with the State to the best of my ability when the opportunity arises. Particularly when they are off duty they are fair game. Screw the bastards.

      • Amen, Jason.

        The TSA thugs have no real police powers (yet) and do not carry guns (so far). When you see one away from the airport, out in public, you can jeer them with relative impunity. I called one a creep once, loudly – in a Lowes parking lot.

        Felt got-damned great!

        • Awesome, guys!

          I was at a little diner in Tulsa and noticed a couple of U.S. Fish and Wildlife asshats came in to eat. They were in the next line over, so I turned to them and said, “Hey guys, let me buy your lunch for you.” They had agreeable looks on their faces, but before they could answer, I said, “Oh, I guess technically, I’m already paying for your lunch, huh?” They turned beet red and were visibly angry, but said nothing. It was a fantastic experience.

          Just a few weeks ago I was eating at Rib Crib with my family and a group of about 10 Tulsa Sheriff’s deputies sat down at the table next to us. When it was time for me to order, I ordered a pulled pork sandwich, and of course I emphasized the “PORK” loudly. A couple of them glanced over and laughed a bit.

  37. “I wish there was a war” – written in a letter by Alexander Hamilton to a friend in 1769.

    When armed hostilities broke out at Lexington and Concord in April of 1775, Hamilton and some of his college friends formed a drilling company.

    In the summer of 1776, as the British fleet sailed toward New York harbor, Hamilton responded to a call for recruits, and was appointed Captain of the Provincial Company of Artillery.

    Hamilton was a strict disciplinarian but just as fiercely fought with the New York assembly for decent pay and supplies for his men, and even exhausted his own savings to pay for their uniforms.

    He later accepted a position with the commander-in-chief George Washington, and took his place at Washington’s New York headquarters in early March, 1777.

    In July 1779 he received a letter from a friend who reported that a most dangerous rumor was being spread about him among congressmen: that he was fomenting an army uprising to overthrow congress and install General Washington as a military dictator.

    • Hamilton was always the sneaky snake in the grass manipulator politician.

      But undoing of what rights people did insist on had to wait until the population was dumbed-down and made to feel guilty enough to believe the candy coated poison pill we have been fed. Take 1% of the welfare state and feed it to the now trillionaire elite as tax free money and you arrive at the 2014 group dictator / Fascist state, where an IPhone and being an American Idol is more important then property and freedom rights.

      • Here’s an article I found from a seminar given many years ago regarding how Hamilton worked his “magic,” specifically having to do with the “General Welfare” clause which is now used as an excuse for unlimited centralized power. I do believe that Madison was sincerely attempting to limit government power, but Hamilton was a sneaky S.O.B. who hoodwinked Madison and the antifederalists, insuring that language would be included that permitted Hamilton’s agenda of an all-powerful central government (and central bank) to ultiimately prevail. Unfortunately this is the situation we find ourselves in today.



        At the inception of our country as we know it, under the United States Constitution, we had two principal players. One was Alexander Hamilton, the other James Madison. They had very different views regarding the new government they were forming.

        Madison wanted a central government of very limited and specific powers. In contrast, Hamilton desired a very powerful central government with virtually unlimited powers. During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton made many proposals towards this end. They were all rejected. After that, Hamilton silently acquiesed to the idea of having a very limited government of few and defined powers. That is, he basically kicked back and did not say much of anything about it. The limited powers thus granted were defined in Article 1, Section 8.

        Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution begins with a statement that greatly concerned the anti-Federalists at the time it was written. (Anti-Federalists were those opposed to strong central government.) It reads thusly:

        “Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” (emphasis added)

        This was supposed to be a LIMITATION on the powers of the central government. However, the anti-Federalists and many of the states were very concerned during the ratification process about that term “GENERAL WELFARE.” Therefore Madison calmed their fears by stating that this was in fact a limitation on Federal power, and that the only things the Federal government would be able to tax and spend on would be those items enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Taxing and spending for any other purposes would be prohibited.

        There were very heated debates over this issue but Madison won out; the correct interpretation of the Constitution was that of granting limited powers and the “general welfare” clause was a limitation on what government could do. This is known as the “Madisonian Constitution.”

        Then, things started going wrong in the 1930s (actually, as many are aware, a lot the problems started even before then). During the 1930s we had the FDR administration come into power. This administration had a specific agenda; that agenda was to overthrow the constitutional republic of this country. This is well documented. Unfortunately they succeeded, and their conduct was sanctioned by the United States Supreme Court; and it has been continually sanctioned by the Supreme Court since 1936.

        This is THE Constitutional issue. This is where they usurped the power, unfortunately anchored in the Constitution itself by a gross misinterpretation by the United States Supreme Court. Also unfortunately, the only way this can be rectified is to get the issue back in front of the Supreme Court and have them reverse themselves.

        Let’s take a closer look at what happened.

        The seminal Supreme Court case that derailed the Madisonian Constitution was U.S. v. Butler (297 US 1). In this 1936 case, the Supreme Court found that the “Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933” provided for an unconstitutional intervention by the Federal government into a local activity. But in a departure from its customary practice of passing narrowly on constitutional issues, the court chose to resolve the constitutional issue that had provoked debate ever since the Constitution was offered to the states for ratification in 1787; that is, the “general welfare” clause.

        James Madison took one view of the issue. Alexander Hamilton took the contrary view. Bear in mind, however, that this different viewpoint was not articulated by Hamilton until AFTER ratification. During the ratification process Madison laid out the intent, assuring the states that everything was fine, that the government being instituted was one of limited powers. (The anti-Fedaralists in particular were up in arms over the term “general welfare.”) Hamilton kept silent during this time.

        Hamilton’s view (espoused AFTER ratification!) was that the “general welfare” provision empowered the Congress to tax and spend for ANY project that in its judgement promoted the “general welfare,” provided only that the expenditure be for a national as distinct from a local purpose.

        Madison’s view was always that the powers delegated by the Constitution to the Federal government are few and defined. In fact, the defined powers are specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, immediately following the reference to the “general welfare.” In Madison’s view, Congress could not tax and spend for purposes not specifically enumerated.

        However, in U.S. v. Butler, the Supreme Court resolved the Hamilton/Madison dispute by finding that Hamilton’s reading of the “general welfare” clause was the correct one. Since that time, the Court has continued to apply this interpretation. Thus the foundation was laid in the Butler case for the welfare state to take hold in the U.S.

        This means that whatever Congress holds to be in our best interest via the “general welfare” clause will not be struck down by the courts. For example, if we have a drug problem, legislation can be passed and a “war on drugs” declared. Where does the DEA get its power to come into the states to assert such authority? Through the “general welfare.” And it is all NON-REVIEWABLE BY THE COURTS.

        Would the Constitution have been ratified if the states had believed that Hamilton’s view of the welfare clause was the correct one? In the ratification debates the fiercest objections were raised to the “general welfare” clause on the grounds that it would permit Congress to tax and spend in support of any project which it might dream up. Madison quieted those fears by his repeated assurances that congressional powers were limited to the enumerated ones. On this issue, Hamilton remained silent until ratification was complete.

        Hamilton began writing on his interpretation of the “general welfare” clause around 1791. He succeeded nearly 150 years later. When the Supreme Court adopted the Hamiltonian view of the “general welfare” clause it in effect rendered the rest of the Constitution null and void. It effectively destroyed all other provisions of the Constitution except those that are expressly prohibitive. Instead of a very limited government, we now have an unlimited government. Instead of a government that has only the powers that were expressly delegated to it, now we have a government that has unlimited powers unless there is an express provision that prohibits it.

        • “One was Alexander Hamilton, the other James Madison. They had very different views regarding the new government they were forming.”

          The key thing to remember is that neither of them, nor anyone, had any legitimate authority to do this… or anything else in the name of “the people.”

          There is no such thing as “general welfare,” since every human being must not only define that for themselves, but has full responsibility for their choices and actions in pursuit of it.

          • I understand that, however, I do not believe that Madison had evil intent. He was basically duped by Hamilton into believing he was creating a strictly limited government when in fact he was setting the stage for the Federalists/power-seekers.

            Although far from perfect, had Madison’s view prevailed we would not be in nearly as deep doo-doo as we find ourselves in today.

          • “I do not believe that Madison had evil intent.”

            Quite possibly… but an accidental death still leaves someone dead. A “good intention” does not negate an evil act. I would imagine that most tyrants believe their intentions are good. They simply believe that THEIR intentions are more important than anyone else’s.

            I think it far more likely that he was one who “aimed to rule well”… but he aimed to rule nonetheless. Otherwise, I doubt he’d been involved at all. Same goes for Jefferson and all the rest of them, more or less.

            The problem is that he, nor any of the rest of them, had any legitimate authority to set up any kind of government to be imposed on everyone, consenting or not. If they had realized that, Hamilton would have been powerless to “dupe” them.

          • federalist/power-seekers built the stage. in philly. then set it.

            even if madison was exactly as you believe – one who had to destroy the already strictly limited gov village in order to save/build a strictly limited gov village – he would still be little more than a useful idiot. and since it is highly improbable that he was that….

            how’d the v-dude put it? “i have not come for what you hoped (intended) to do…i’ve come for what you did.”

          • Ozymandius,

            You are correct, from what I can see Madison wound up being essentially a “useful idiot” for Hamilton and the Federalists. The States would not likely have accepted and ratified what Hamilton had planned, but Madison made all the right noises to make it palatable.

            Throughout history there have been men who thought they could contain the State and make it a force for “good.” Thus far they have all been wrong.

          • i don’t think he was an idiot, at all. i think the federalist papers can be seen to be a good cop/ bad cop advertorial. & that the bill of rights that hamilton “took away” & madman madison “gave back” was the close. these guys were a tag-team…..

          • ML wrote:

            “The key thing to remember is that neither of them, nor anyone, had any legitimate authority to do this… or anything else in the name of “the people.”

            Exactly right.

            The problem is that We the Sheeple are easily hypnotized. I’m sure everyone knows about “chicken hypnotism?” Draw a chalk line on the ground. Put the chicken’s head on it. Presto.

            We the Sheeple can also be hypnotized. Not by chalk lines on the ground, but by words on parchment. We the Sheeple can be hypnotized into the unquestioning assumption that stranger we don’t know from Adam can form a gang, make up a bunch of rules, print up some “official” stationery, then come to us to demand obedience (“laws”) and money (“taxes”) merely because we happened to be inside a line they drew on a map.

            We the Sheeple allow ourselves to be hypnotized by words such as “authority” “jurisdiction” “subject” and “rule of law.”

          • It is certainly possible — in fact, I think it likely — that Madison sincerely wished to limit the new government. Sadly, I am pessimistic that any written words will ever constrain for very long those who wish more power. Lawyers and politicians (effectively the same group) are the worlds experts at exploiting any small hint of linguistic ambiguity — and language will never be without ambiguity.

            These are the people who base their claim to authority over all puddles and ponds on the premise that a migrating bird might land there; hence, puddles and ponds are part of interstate commerce.

            The only safeguard against tyrannical government is a population of clear thinking and ethical citizens — the sort of people whom our school systems ridicule.

        • many hands make light work. h is infamous. but he was one guy. & his fall didn’t hitch the giddy-up one bit.

          articles were only 1781-89.
          1789 to 1861-65 was only one fairly decent lifespan.

          lots of banditti bread-buttering, blood-letting, in a short span of time.

        • Right on. And that is why the blood sucking vermin [not limited to] O-man, Pelosi and Reid need the guilt ridden, uneducated and poor for their power and personal wealth.

          Their daily knees on the floor with arms raised “praise da Lord for the Butler case” must be something to see.

          • pigeons, alligator, chickens, in a state of tonic immobility

            Animal hypnosis

            In old movies, they always show the woman fainting and going into a state of fright paralysis

            Drunk people, people who are nearly asleep. We have probably experienced or seen various kinds of hypnosis in our lives.

            I think this is deeply connected with the myth of authority. We takes so many things for granted. If a light switch doesn’t work, or a TV remote, or our car doesn’t respond the way we expect, it’s like we snap out of a trance and are startled.

            Our whole reality is hypnotized into us.

            Maybe we don’t really need to eat, breathe, and sleep. Maybe most of the things we take as reality our really only conditioning.

            Birth and death may only be one of many optional ways of entering and leaving our shared consciousness.

            Perhaps we’d all be better off if we never utter another world. We could communicate through laughter, or screams, or coughs. So little is really fixed, we’re just programmed to treat things as fixed. Because that’s what’s most convenient.

            Maybe there aren’t really good and bad smells. You could raise children to not believe in them. Maybe they would grow up more confident if they acted instinctively like other animals.

            Probably all this conditioning, toilet training, and everything else is a horrible perversion that’s stunts humanities true potential.

            Children could be raised without fear. Without shame. Just some of them. Perhaps some might die young, but living some arbitrarily long life span is not mandatory, it is only something we are hypnotized to value.

            There are millions of other ways we could start living, we can kick evolution and spontaneous order up to a lot higher speed. Why must everyone be so afraid and cautious.

            Why should a child born to day, have a single thing in common with any of us?

            We could raise them to live in the arctic, the ocean, deep in caverns, down where oil and diamonds are extracted. Up in the clouds in permanently floating hot air balloon cities.

            Libertarians just need a subsistence amount of capital and a way to keep the clovers and planners away from us.

            There is a whole generation of entrepreneurial scientific experimental children waiting to be born. The first generation that we keep free will raise a second generation that will even need to keep us away.

            In only a few generations, anything and everything will be possible.

            Whatever happened last week is hardly worth talking about if we can set something like this in motion.

            The problem with Dr Spock and whatever is that they weren’t radical enough. Raising children of the NAP will mean something as yet unknown, yet wholly incompatible with most of the 7.1 billion children now on the Earth.

            It’s not just the clovers and statists who are stupid. We need to examine how easy it is to refute and falsify everything we profess and advocate for as well. If you make an honest effort, you soon find it’s not hard at all.

            We ourselves don’t have the answers. We can’t build the technology to give us the answers either. What we can do is to start raising children who will find the answers. Who will be able to assemble technology and biology to find us the answers.

            We can remain here to heal and nurse this flawed Earth as it is. Some of us can move forward. Some of us must remain behind to serve as guardians of the old orders of force, violence, and rote hypnosis.

            But not our children. Or our children’s children. Increasingly, if we do it right, we can enable them to be free enough to make something amazing somewhere.

            Let’s say we’re living on Earth 3.0 right now. We can work to make the 3.0 it can be. We can also look into the past and restore portions of the world to the old good configurations of Earth 1.0 and Earth 2.0, which will be amazing accomplishments.

            But most excitedly, there is Earth 4.0, Mars 1.0 Moon 1.0 and Earth 5.0 and beyond which are beyond our comprehensions.

            We don’t need to wistfully hope for any of this. We can start digesting science, philosophy, engineering, math, and so forth just as voraciously as we now digest politics and large scale human tragedies and emotional trigger consumerisms.

            Sure America is fucked, but so what, no one’s going to miss it when they start seeing what we’re in the process of creating.

            We can imagine and build the oligarchs their Mars society where they can live in low gravity and highly oxygenated lives twice as long as they now enjoy.

            We have enough ideas and clarity of vision that nothing can stop us at this point. Collapses may set people back, and impoverish them based on current yardsticks, but we need not only measure using those yardsticks.

            A truly free trade no restriction mini-agora would be of incalculable value. Quadrillions, Quintillions, even, when all impediments and leeching is kept at bay for some creator enclave we may build.

            The galaxy itself is our only limit.

    • would that it were for every hamilton a burr….
      but then, every burr would need a comb. remember the old lady who swallowed a fly..?

          • “one riot, one ranger” is fun to say, or watch choreographed in flickfiction, from time to time.

            but the number of lone gunmen would have to go waaaaaaay up just to toe-to-toe with the queue of installations – like lincoln – that the hydra headed blackhats deploy.

            put another way, the lone gunmen scenarios that probably weren’t, works in the other direction, too, even more definitely. the infamous names that have been taken out were all quickly, easily, seamlessly replaced.

          • ozymandias,

            Have you read “Ranger’s Apprentice“? (A good series if you did not. IIRC, the phrase “one riot, one ranger” was used in that series.)

            All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

          • mith, i have not. thx for the recomendation. lots of good reviews.

            a variation: i don’t, can’t, know what it’s going to do, i only know what i’m going to do (as imperfectly executed as may be, is, at times…).

  38. Too many laws that are too complicated with too many government agencies enforcing them. The average person commits at least three felonies per day as noted in the last audit and that’s without even knowing they did anything wrong. Life needs to be simple but its not, it’s like you need an attorney standing at your side constantly throughout your life now.

    • “The average person commits at least three felonies per day as noted in the last audit and that’s without even knowing they did anything wrong”
      Joe- baseless assert much?

      • Mike,

        Joe’s not exaggerating.

        Just consider tax law. It’s literally incomprehensible, even to “trained” tax preparers. It is arguably intended to be that way – in order to make it easy to go after almost anyone with serious charges for “offenses” they never realized they were committing and so could not have taken action to avoid. Ask anyone who’s been audited – especially independent small business people.

      • Baseless? Perhaps exaggerated — but certainly not completely baseless. The legal system and the laws themselves are so complicated and self-contradictory that no one can be confident that he is obeying them. Do we actually commit three felonies on an average day? Maybe just one? Maybe just one a week? Does it matter which number we choose? No one can know because no one can have an understanding of what the law is.

        Have a look at “Three Felonies a Day.”

      • I believe the phrase, “Three felonies a day” is from a book in the 90s, but haven’t been able to prove that in a quick google search.
        It is confirmed to date back to 2008, so far.

        And similar concepts emerged when I was in college, which would mean… pre-1999. “Tyranny of good intentions”, c. 2000, give or take.

          • “Silverglate’s Three Felonies A Day focuses on how federal prosecutors invent creative interpretations of statutes, sometimes creating new felonies out of vague language or thin air, felonies never legislated by Congress. Federal criminal law is today so vast and so poorly worded that Silverglate reports, truthfully, that each of us, every American, commits three felonies every day without knowing it. ”

            “In Silverglate’s concluding chapter, “For Whom the Bell Tolls,” the answer is obvious even to a naf: “It tolls for all.”…”

            See also, How the Feds Imprison the Innocent The Tyranny of Good Intentions

      • MFW – Here are a few examples: Laws here in the USSA have become so plethoric that if for some reason an “official” is out to get you or merely wants to set an example they can find something to charge you with. And even if it ultimately won’t stand up in court, it can easily cost you thousands of dollars in legal bills to fight bogus charges. Often folks will simply take a plea deal and end up a convicted felon because they can’t afford to fight it. When you take into consideration all the various federal, state and local laws, depending on what you do for a living and where you live, you may very well be committing three or more felonies a day.

        I have a young acquaintance who was rooming with his uncle to share expenses. The uncle was “cooking meth” and got caught. The nephew, because he was paying part of the rent, was charged with “keeping and maintaining a public nuisance” (i.e. running a drug house). This young man tested completely drug free. The judge and the prosecutor both knew this. But the prosecutor refused to dismiss this technical foul (actually a false accusation) and finally this young man was forced to take a plea deal. Admitting to something he had not done cost him $3500 for bond and a (worthless) lawyer, five years of probation and drug rehab. Ironically the drug rehab folks knew he wasn’t doing drugs either and excused him from the program! Now he has a felony conviction that will follow him the rest of his life all for being a roommate with a family member.

        Let’s say you list something on line for sale and don’t do a thorough enough job of describing it. Someone from out of state purchases your item and isn’t happy with what they bought. You could be charged with wire fraud and mail fraud even though you never intended to misrepresent the item. Have you ever done any open burning in Kansas? Did you comply with K.A.R. 28-19-645 through 648? You don’t know do you? Environmental laws and their implementing regulations are very easy to violate. If you did any open burning, were asked about it, got paranoid and lied to an “official” you obstructed justice. Of course if an “official” lies to you in the course of an investigation, that’s okay. What about equal protection under the law? Just because you haven’t run afoul of the system and ended up in serious trouble…yet…doesn’t change the corrupt nature and inherent dangers of this system. No matter how safe and secure you may feel right now, you are living under a legal sword of Damocles and it doesn’t take much to snap that horse hair.

        • Helot – Here’s the really spooky thing now. The nine eunuchs in tunics have now ruled that the police may simply shoot you if you run, rather than allow you to in their opinion to endanger the public: So you take a guy like Eric or myself who might decide it would be better to play the role of the gazelle to the state’s predator, than to pay a pound (or more) of flesh, and having done no violence to anyone can now be summarily executed. That’s right; run from the police now and they can murder you with the approval of the nation’s highest court. So “due process of law” is now a hail of bullets from behind from a cop and gun your are forced to pay for? Is this a great country or what? Judge Dredd would be proud.

          But that’s okay, because we all know that just because the high court (and they must have been “high” when they issued this opinion) gave those sworn to “serve and protect” an implied license to kill, the cops wouldn’t just go around using it willy-nilly, now would they? Oh, that’s right, they’ve already killed more Amerikan civilians since nahn-uh-levun than Amerikan soldiers died in the Iraq “conflict”:

          No state guns pointed at us? Indeed! It is amazing to me that clover can still continue to deny the violent nature of the state and its functionaries with all the evidence around him. If ignorance is bliss then clover must be constantly and willfully euphoric.

          • due process of law…

            neologisms are spose’d to be bad, but neo’s spose’d to be the one-too.

            & gazelles got the freeze response benefit. endogenous opioid flood split-second before the authority of tooth & claw steaks (tartare) claim.

            you can have the big ol’ prefrontal cortex & the cops or you can have the drugs & the lions (& tigers & bears, oh my), it seems….

  39. Perhaps the American People would have been better off had the Articles of Confederation remained in effect to this day……….or maybe not. Personally, I do not believe the Founders experiment soured until the Reign of Tyrant Lincoln combined with the later subversion of the Constitution by the 13/14/15/16 Amendments.

    An NAP utopia was not in the cards and never will be.

    • Utopia?

      Who is advocating – or expecting – that?

      Not I.

      But the Articles were certainly preferable in that they would have assured a weaker central government, with power devolved among various lesser units less able to impose a top-down system of unassailable authority.

      The Constitution made Lincoln as inevitable as WWI and Versailles set the preconditions for Hitler.

      And, its worth pointing out that Hitler admired Lincoln.

      • Dear Eric,

        “NAP Utopia”

        Notice how MFW didn’t bother to prove that a society in which a critical mass of the population rejects the initiation of force is a physical impossibility?

        He simply put the terms “NAP” and “Utopia” next to each other and asserted the proposition. In academia this is known as “begging the question.”

        Not only is his question begging logically flawed. it is not even historically accurate. I’ve already cited the Mises article on Iceland. So I won’t repeat myself. Iceland worked for 300 years, longer than the USSA has been in existence. Market anarchism can work. It already has!

        It should be obvious to anyone that a society predicated upon the NAP is entirely feasible. Nothing Utopian about it whatsoever. That’s because it doesn’t require defying the laws of physics. It merely requires a shift in peoples’ thinking. Such shifts have happened before in human history, and they will continue to happen in the future. Nothing Utopian about that at all.

        Most people already abide by the NAP in individual, one on one interactions. It is only the Myth of Authority that enables them and persuades them to blank the NAP out in COLLECTIVE interactions.

        Is getting people NOT to blank out the NAP, which they already respect in one on one interactions, and apply it to all interactions so utterly unrealistic? I hardly think so.

        Many millennials who supported Ron Paul are YouTube stars who proudly proclaim that they are anarcho-capitalists.

        As I said, we are not talking about repealing physical laws. Merely changing peoples’ beliefs. History is replete with one change in beliefs after another.

        In fact, I sense panic among the clover control freaks. I think they are afraid that it is entirely possible to wean people off the Myth of Authority.

        Why else would they repeatedly attempt to undermine LRC, EPA, and other libertarian websites? The are afraid that we are gaining ground in the war of ideas.

        • @bevin – I am on board.
          But as Rev. Al “I can’t read my teleprompter” Sharpton channeling Ayn Rand would say “There be too much altruism goin’ on out there.”
          And as Final Authority so eloquently points out, it can’t happen until “the lights of New York City go out” and the one eyed flickering babysitter goes black. Then the reboot generation will have a chance.

        • Dear Gary,

          I agree.

          It’s the classic case of stock price movements. As technical analysts will tell you, a stock that has been seen better days will NOT recover its former glory until and unless it has first hit bottom.

          Otherwise the holdouts will maintain a price floor. It is only when everyone has given up on the stock that it can bottom out then gradually climb back up.

          And so it is with so many things in this life.

        • Morning, Bevin!

          Exactly so.

          Applying Clover’s own logic: If the collective can do “x” then so can individuals. A society based on the NAP is just as feasible as one based on aggressive violence. It merely requires a shifting of attitudes, one that is remarkably well under-way.

          Certainly, most people are not Libertarians or anarachists. But more people than ever before are. The cohort is growing – and that fact must keep Clover up all night!

          • Dear Eric,

            “A society based on the NAP is just as feasible as one based on aggressive violence.”

            Absolutely! In fact, more feasible.

            Game theorists have proven, both logically and empirically, that non-aggression and goodwill as a point of departure is actually a more successful survival strategy than initiation of aggression.

            Anyone who doubts this need merely research “tit for tat” and “game theory.”

          • Bevin I have personally NEVER been subjected to “aggressive violence”. None of the hundreds of people that I have ever met have been subjected to ” aggressive violence”. Our society is not based on “aggressive violence” unless you choose it. Many of your kind choose to incite violence. Clover

            I liked your comparison with our country of hundreds of millions and Iceland of hundreds of years ago when they had a population of less than one of our small towns and long enough ago to really not know what the facts are of living in such a time. That shows your brilliance. Not! I do bet everything I have that I live a better life than they did at that time but your brilliance can not understand that.

            • And black slaves were not subject to aggressive violence, either . . . so long as they picked their cotton and yessa massa’d sufficiently.

              Your argument is: Do as ordered and no one gets hurt.

          • Add me to the “list of young people who supports Ron Paul and is now an anarcho-capitalist” (though I usually choose the voluntarist label because its harder to manipulate.)

          • Dear Clover,

            You wrote,

            Bevin I have personally NEVER been subjected to “aggressive violence”.

            Depending upon your occupation, I suppose that’s possible. You could well be one of those who subject others to aggressive violence.

            Why don’t you tell us which goonvermin agency you work for?

          • Clover, if you’ve never been a victim of aggressive violence why do you need government to protect you from something that won’t happen?

            The divide here is between you, who fears his neighbors and us who are concerned about the violence of the state.

            In all of human history it’s the state that should be feared. Usually unless the state has caused economic and social distress people do not turn and attack their neighbors. Very rarely there are personal disputes that turn violent. Governments however kill in large numbers frequently. Through wars, exterminations, and other violence.

          • Dear Brent,

            Clover wrote, ” Our society is not based on “aggressive violence” unless you choose it. ”

            Ironically, clover’s observation is true. Though not in the way he meant it.

            Our civil society, aka “private sector,” is based on voluntary exchange in the free marketplace. That society, a libertarian society, is not based on aggressive violence.

            Our goonvermin, aka “public sector,” is based on aggressive violence committed by thugs who demand protection money at gunpoint, or else, and call it “taxation.” That society is based on aggressive violence. That society is what clover chooses.

          • Bevin again I and hundreds of people that I know have not had a gun lifted in our direction by the government. Have you? Have one of your friends?Clover
            Bevin I am a million times more likely to be injured by a drunk driver but libertarians want to kiss their ass. A speeder who passes in a no passing zone is thousands of more times more likely to injure me than our government. Tell me Bevin who I should be worried about with those facts? Bevin in life you have to set priorities because of likelihood and possibility. The government coming after me is pretty much at the bottom of the list because of a very very very low possibility.
            Eric brings up something that happened a hundred and 50 years ago in our country. Eric our country has learned by the past. We are past that Eric. Slaves were in our country before our country was formed and it no longer happens today. If you see something in our government today that will hurt me then tell me what it is because I have not yet seen it in my lifetime. Eric if I lived in Russia I would be worried about the country coming after me but if there is no visibility of it happening here then why worry? Give me a fact if I am wrong. Tell me how they are coming after me?Clover

          • Dear clover,

            You wrote, “Bevin again I and hundreds of people that I know have not had a gun lifted in our direction by the government. Have you?”

            There is an expression in Chinese,


            It means, “Uttering blind nonsense with eyes wide open.”

            It means that one is indulging in “glaringly obvious shuckin’ and jivin’.”

            Are you telling me the goonvermin aren’t going to point guns at my head if I refuse to pay the IRS protection money every April 15th???

            Have you even read any of our carefully reasoned rebuttals regarding the predatory nature of taxation?

            Do you really imagine such obvious shuckin’ and jivin’ is going to fool any thoughtful champion of liberty?

          • Clover – As Bevin pointed out, you would be funny if we didn’t have every reason to believe you are serious. Unlike you, I did have a cop’s gun pointed at my head at seventeen years old. I had committed the unimaginable crime of sitting at a dead end overlooking the Pagan river with my girlfriend and (gasp) we were talking! Officer Ass-hat pulled up behind us with his high beams on waiting for us to “throw the dope out the window” he later admitted. When we didn’t throw out “the evidence” (because we didn’t have anything) he came up to shake us down. When I reached over to get my registration and insurance papers out of the glove compartment (at his request) he drew his gun and pointed it at me. In his words it was the “first time I’ve had to clear the holster.” Well the shithead didn’t “have to” clear the holster on a scared seventeen year old at all, but I guess it made him fell empowered.

            He couldn’t find anything unlawful, but he made us follow him to the cop shop for further questioning anyway. Unfortunately for him, I knew the chief of police and insisted that Officer Ass-hat call him (it was around midnight by then and I was already late taking my girlfriend home). The chief wasn’t impressed in the least with his antics and instructed the blundering buffoon to let us go.

            This was in 1977 and I was already on delayed enlistment for the USAF; I was anything but a criminal. But by God this cop was on a major fishing expedition and determined to find something on somebody and we just happened to be on his beat. So just because you haven’t felt the unwarranted wrath of the regime doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. I seldom wish anything bad on another person Clover, but in your case I’ll make an exception and I sincerely hope you get all of the government you so richly deserve.

          • Many people foolishly have this take on things: “I and hundreds of people that I know have not had a gun lifted in our direction by the government.”

            Somehow those people do not see how ‘the gun’ is Always pointed at them.

            Just because they can’t see the barrel, does Not mean one is not pointed right at them by their gunverment masters 24/7/365, it’s there, they just refuse to see the situation and how things really are.

            Maybe that’s why they always obey? Then they can ignore the blinders on the sides of their heads and think the spurs in their sides (taxes & regulations & demands for submission) are acts of love? …And boot leather is lollipops?

          • What a bunch of idiots. Bevin if I do not pay my taxes they do not come after me with a gun. If you do not pay your property tax, something that everyone should know they are supposed to do if they buy a property, they will ask you to leave. It is then your choice if you want to have a shootout. If you have a job or some other income yes you are supposed to pay taxes. Again they will not point a gun at you if you do not pay unless you choose that option. If you do not agree with the government on something then you work to get that specific thing changed. If it is something that has been around for hundreds of years then I would guess you would lose and if you do not like it then leave. We do not want you rage induced idiots in our country. Clover
            I pay taxes. I have a net worth of over a million dollars. That does not make me a slave to the government. It is obvious that you must not be broke because you must own a computer and an internet connection unless it is in your jail cell.Clover

            • Clover, you can’t possibly be serious?

              “… if I do not pay my taxes they do not come after me with a gun.”

              Because that is exactly what they will do. They will remove you from your home, then seize it, then sell it. If you resist in any way – that is, attempt to defend yourself against their aggression – they will fill you full of holes and if you live, hurl you in a prison for the remainder of your life.

              Your position is: Obey (pay “your” taxes) and they will not come after you with guns. Which is sort of true. For the most part, they’ll leave you alone so long as you pay up. But then, they also sometimes do go after people who have paid. Because they – the goonvernment – made an error (according to its own rules) or simply as a vendetta. This has happened, Clover. Do you deny it?

              “If you do not pay your property tax, something that everyone should know they are supposed to do if they buy a property, they will ask you to leave.”

              Why am I “supposed to” hand over my earnings, the sweat of my brow, in perpetuity, for the benefit of random strangers? (For example, the education – so called – of other people’s kids in government schools.) And they do not “ask,” Clover. Or rather, they “ask” in the same way that a mugger “asks” for your wallet.

              Yes, you’re free to not hand it over.

              But to deny the violence behind the “request” – and the fact that it will then ensue upon refusal to deliver – is inane even for you.

            • PS: Whatever your net worth, I have no doubt it came out of the hides of honest people via the extortion you dry hump here. I would even bet you “a million dollars” that you’re a government “worker” (or rent seeker) of some kind.

              And if I lose the bet? Then you can just subtract the “million dollars” from the several million you already owe me.

            • Clover’s standard: If it’s “been around for hundreds of years” then it must be ok! Or, just accept it as the way things are, because that’s the way things are!

              Or, “leave.”

              Well, Clover, by your standard, we ought to object to income taxes as these did not exist for “hundreds of years” before 1913. Or, put another way, income taxes have only existed for about one hundred years. When – at what point in time – does a given thing become “ok”? Is it one hundred years? Or “hundreds” of years?

              We do not want you rage induced idiots in our country.”

              Who’s “we,” Clover? Do you presume to speak for everyone? In fact, you only speak for yourself – and perhaps others of your ilk. But not everyone is of your ilk.

              “Our” country, Clover?

              That’s right. It’s my country, too. As much as it’s your country, at any rate. Or do you presume to assert ownership over the entirety?

              PS: Before you go around calling people idiots, you might take some remedial English courses. “Rage induced”? Congrats to you for using a big word. Too bad you don’t how to use it correctly.

          • Dear helot,

            “Somehow those people do not see how ‘the gun’ is Always pointed at them.”

            Ain’t that the truth?

            It’s willful blindness. It’s the same dynamic as Battered Wife Syndrome or Stockholm Syndrome.

            Anyone not brain dead need only connect the dots to get to the loaded guns pointed at one’s head, PDQ.

            — When the tax collectors demand money in the mail, you ignore their letters.

            — At first, all that happens is more letters, each one worded more harshly than the last.

            — Eventually though, one will be ordered to appear before some goonvermin “official.”

            — Fail to obey, and out come the guns. LEOs of some sort of another will emerge from under some rock to kidnap you, or failing that, fill you with bullet holes.

            — Refuse to be kidnapped, attempt to defend yourself against their aggression, and the LEOs will escalate until a Ruby Ridge or Waco type incident occurs.

            Clover sticks his head up his ass and steadfastly refuses to see the goonvermin’s guns, on the premise, “out of sight, out of mind.”


          • RE: “Clover sticks his head up his ass and steadfastly refuses to see the goonvermin’s guns, on the premise, “out of sight, out of mind.” ”

            Isn’t that wHAt makes the greatest water-cooler/coffee pot talk for the gossipers?

            If the Clover’s of the world miss a dotted line, or dig in the wrong section of their own yard, or miss some regulation or rule, or their teenaged children bring home something “illegal”, then they are the water-cooler talk of the office.
            It’s always a ‘shocker’ or an outrage, but it amounts to nothing for the crowd.

            Maybe it’s only a small-ish town kind of thing?

            It’s like they were all chickens getting picked off by a hawk? They must be thinking, “At least it wasn’t me.”?

            The two wings of the bird of prey circles. All the while the obedient chickens stare at a chalk line and say to themselves, “It Never happened to me, yet! Just keep looking down!”

          • Well that is the clover way, violence is the result of a lack of submission. Too bad history shows something entirely different.

          • Violence is The Way of the chicken.

            A.k.a. the clover way.

            Bully-full-throttle. …And, the bully’s hanger-on’s.

            See also: ‘A Christmas Story’.
            Bang on from there.

            Anyway, word to the wise, “don’t have a red speck on ya”.

            I guess that means I’m not wise, cause I have this Giant Red Speck on me from voicing my american’t onion to the world.

            They’ll peck you to death, the chickens, the clovers, the hanger-on’s and their brain-dead walking friends.

            Too many people love ‘The Dot’ more than their own children, and even their own selves.


          • Ha! “american’t onion to the world”

            I meant, ‘opinion”, but Hey, it might as well be an onion. …Or garlic? ‘Cause The World ain’t wanting it! It’s as if they were all Vampires and Werewolves or something?

            I’m kinda embarrassed to be related to them, in the human sense.

            …Are they human? …Are you sure? …It doesn’t freaking seem like it. [Present company excepted, of course.]

          • I think I’ve finally realized what language Clover speaks…. it speaks ‘duckspeak’. ( )

            Clover speaks er quacks the party line without engaging the higher brain functions at all.

            Clover it’s great that you have a million net worth. You can now pay me at least for one of the million dollar bets you made and lost.

            As to pointing guns, the mafia doesn’t point guns at you either if you just pay like they ‘ask’.

          • Dear Clover,

            “If you drink much from a bottle marked ‘poison,’ it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.”

          • Eric if I am looking at a house or property one of the first things I do is find out how much property taxes are in a given area. If you go into a purchase and know you have to pay taxes if you buy it then it is your fault not the governments fault for your stupidity.
            If you go into a grocery store and a loaf of bread says it costs 3 bucks and you get up to the checkout and say you are not paying and walk out with it then what kind of person does that make you? That is no different than buying property that you know up front has property taxes. If you are looking for a place that has no taxes then leave our country because your wish will not happen here. You are definitely living in the wrong place if not the wrong country. I am not going to reduce my standard of living just because you want to live in a third world nation with no roads or schools and has heavy smog and on and on.

            Yes Eric if you refuse to follow an agreement when you purchased a property and you do not follow through with that agreement then you will be removed. Again it is up to you if you want a gun fight. The same is true when the police come after you for not paying for that loaf of bread.

            • The amount of property (or income or other) taxes is not the issue, Clover. The issue is the existence of the taxes themselves.

              There’s no opting out. It’s not possible to buy real estate without being forced to pay taxes. Your answer is: Then don’t buy real estate! It’s not possible to avoid income taxes (unless of course you’re a corporation). Your answer is: Don’t earn a living.

              You take the position that taxes are legitimate. That I and others “owe” you (and people such as yourself) tributum, as the Romans called it, in return for the privilege of being allowed to temporarily and conditionally use something or maintain possession (but not true ownership) of it.

              I “owe” you and yours nothing, Clover.

              If I buy a piece of land and pay the seller in full, it ought to be mine – period. Not subject to payments in perpetuity to the government. Just as whatever income I earn – the result of my work – does not belong to you or anyone else.

              Not one got-damned penny of it.

              You’re a thief, Clover. A creature who takes other people’s things using violence or the threat of violence. Only you’re too much of a coward to do the threatening yourself. You leave that to proxies, to do it on your behalf.

              Ethically speaking, you’re lower than whale shit.

          • Clover – There is no comparison between one resisting taxation (especially when forced to pay for things one vehemently disagrees with) and that same person engaging in outright theft (which, one more time, is what taxation through distraint actually is). As Eric and others here have pointed out, it doesn’t matter how long the scam has been running, it’s still a scam! If you want your children educated, you pay for it. I didn’t father them and I’m not responsible for them; you are. If you want your roads paved and can get enough people together in your community to pay for it voluntarily, great. If you want security then hire a private firm to protect you.

            Would you consider it “alright” if enough of us got together, passed a law requiring everyone to be armed at all times and you were forced to pay for those privately held weapons and ammunition? How about if a majority of us got together and passed laws so that we could have you incarcerated or even executed if you failed to go out armed? And laws that allowed us to stop you and make you “present arms” at any time? Would the fact that a majority of your neighbors decided that’s what’s “right” for everyone else make it more palatable to you? Would you support this if it were “the law”? Of course not, because as we’ve pointed out before, right or wrong, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are “the law.” And you an d your ilk already toss out any of that you don’t personally agree with; lawlessness is your middle name.

            We (at least try to) follow the NAP, respect each others rights and property, and basically will leave you alone if you will leave us alone. But you want us to pay for the things that you desire without regard to our desires. You apparently believe yourself to be in some state of superior intellect, knowledge and wisdom which somehow grants you authority to decide what should be done with an ever increasing portion of the fruits of our labor. As has been pointed out to you before, if you had to come to my dwelling and attempt to extract my hard earned property from me one on one, society can be relatively well assured you wouldn’t try it again.

            But you choose to hide behind the skirts of “big sister” when she rattles her saber and threatens us with walking the gang plank if we don’t hand over the booty. If you would open your eyes, you’d see that no government has ever done a good job at the things they are supposed to do “for” the common man. But they sure have done a remarkable job of doing things “to” the common man.

          • Property taxes are not an ‘agreement’. They are not static either. Where I live the formula for property taxes has become so convoluted that it could be replaced by a random number generator and few would notice.

            The only way to avoid property taxes is to live under a bridge in a cardboard box or by the charity of someone who does pay or an exempt organization. Renters pay property tax as rents typically cover the property taxes. If they don’t then the building is losing money and its not a place one wants to live.

            Like everything else government there is no agreement, just force.

            • Exactly right, Brent.

              Your point about the rates shifting – arbitrarily – is something Clover might ponder. If, as he asserts, one agrees to a “contract” to pay these taxes (one doesn’t, but just for the sake of discussion) then the rate/amount should remain the same in perpetuity. Of course, the rates uniformly increase – often to the point of forcing the “owners’ out of their home, for they can no longer afford to pay the rent.

              Even if you can “afford” the taxes, they are extortionate. Ours, for instance, are considered “low” – compared to what most people have to pay. But over 30 years, the appx. $2k a year we’re dunned for amounts to $60,000. Just out the ff’ing window, for “services” I neither use nor want.

          • CloverAgain Eric says there should be no taxes. He can not even name a country or large community that has survived without government or taxes. Why is that Eric? It is because Eric can not even explain how his local road would be repaired without a government or taxes. I have given him multiple occasions but all he comes up with it will just happen. It is only to be paid for by volunteers he says. Eric’s kind never volunteer for anything though so the road would eventually go back to dust. I have asked for a name of a country that has lived without a government or taxes. No one has seemed to be able to come up with one. Why is that? Why do all countries have taxes and governments? Because they increase the standard of living for the people. I am living far better than people did a few hundred years ago. Can anyone else say otherwise?
            I do not want to live in Eric’s world of roads that are impossible to travel on and a standard of living that would be laughed at by a third world nation.

            • Clover, I argue that there should be no aggressive violence. That no person or group of people has the right to assault or threaten to assault any other person for any reason.

              You and your ilk are ethical relativists and utilitarians. You believe that if “x” is good – as you define it – then it’s perfectly ok to assault or even kill others in order to further “x.”

              That’s the bottom line, Clover. And the difference between you and I.

          • Clover writes,

            “I have asked for a name of a country that has lived without a government or taxes. No one has seemed to be able to come up with one. ”

            As anyone who has been following this exchange between clover and libertarians at EPA know, clover’s question has been asked and answered a dozen times over the past several years.

            My most recent answer, directed not at clover, but at undecided third parties was posted a few days ago.


            Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to ask for “just one example of where it has worked.”

            Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today.

            Clover is apparently a solipsist. He thinks that if he pretends his arguments have not been demolished, then they haven’t, and he can merrily proceed as if they haven’t.

            Metaphysical solipsism is the “strongest” variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.

          • Clover, everything useful the government does is something that people once upon a time did other ways.

            There’s no reason other than people being unable to conceptualize another way of doing things that we couldn’t do them another way.

            Too bad your kind has kicked the can so far down the road that it’s practically impossible now to have a comfortably orderly transition to fix things. Collapse will simply force the issues to be dealt with in a disorderly fashion with a lot of pain.

          • Boothe it is too bad when you said the cop pointed a gun at your head that he did not help you out and put an end to your miserable life. How can you live with all the torture and beatings you have to go through on a daily basis by your government? How can you stand to have guns pointed at your head every week by the government. How can you stand to live in your cardboard box under the overpass? If I lived a miserable life like you do I would end my own life. How can you make it through a day with what you have to go through?Clover

            I on the other hand live a very nice life. It is like we live in two different worlds.

            • Clover, you’re happy with your “nice life” because you aren’t bothered by the idea of having proxies do violence to other people on your behalf. And because you happily submit & obey.

              In other words, you’re a good slave, who is happy to work for the benefit of others (or else) . .. assuming you do work. Or – if you do not work – is happy to receive material benefits you didn’t earn via violence.

              Yours is the “happiness” of the smug NKVD officer, the DC lobbyist. So long as your nest is feathered.

              Right, Clover?

          • CloverBevin can you read? Did you read the document that your link pointed to? Bevin if you are an example of your ideal society then we are in deep shit. Explain to me why in the document it is not an example of a society with a government? It explained the use of a court system and it explained the leadership each area would be covered under. Did you read any of that? Bevin it was a clear example of a government. Tell me what is your problem? Here is your own link:

            • Clover, let me try to explain a thing to you – the difference between restraint as exercised by ethical individuals and coercion as exercised by government.

              The straw man behind your pro-government position is that absent organized, legalized aggressive violence people in general would simply run amok, stealing, assaulting murdering one another. Society would collapse.

              Your view of your fellow beings is pretty contemptuous, to begin with.

              But, the fact is most people exercise restraint – based on ethics and not because of the existence of bully-boy government. Put in plain language, they avoid doing wrong things (like attacking other people) because they know it’s not right. I assume even you can be included in this category? Or are you champing at the proverbial bit to beat/rape people but refrain from doing so only because you fear “the law”?

              If the organized gang called government disappeared tomorrow, I would not become a thief, or rape my neighbor’s wife. Would you?

              Most people would behave decently – not commit aggressive violence – because most people already instinctively follow the non-aggression principle in their personal dealings. And not “because government.”

              In fact, government as such corrodes the natural human decency of which most people are capable. Look at yourself, for instance.

              I doubt you personally waltz over to your neighbor’s home and threaten him with violence in order to compel him to give you money – or “help” you in some way. No. You might ask for his help. In a friendly, non-threatening way. Understanding – and accepting – that he has every right to say no. And that you have no right to take things further.

              Yet – because government – you feel at ease doing violence to your neighbor when someone else does it for you. When you don’t have to confront the ugliness of it. Of yourself.

              Think about this, Clover.

          • Okay.

            It’s official. Clover is non compos mentis.

            The title of the article is “Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government.”

            The whole point of the article was that Medieval Iceland was not a state as conventionally defined, and did not have a government as conventionally defined.

            Medieval Iceland, unlike nations with governments, had none of the defining characteristics of the state. To wit:

            As sociologist Max Weber explained in “Gewaltmonopol des Staates” (Violence-Monopoly of the State):

            “The modern state (or government) is a compulsory association which organizes domination. It is any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain.

            Yet, mirabile dictu, clover couldn’t for the life of him figure out that Medieval Iceland, which lacked this defining characteristic, was by definition not a state, and therefore had no government.

            Clover is an idiot.

          • Bevin you are a joke. Your title to the article said they had no government so that is what you went off of? I would guess your IQ to be about 50. The title said there was no government then it went on to explain a court system and the laws that they had and the leadership that they had in each area. Please explain how that is not a government? As it was explained it is no different than where I live. I can not help it that one of your kind wrote the article and pretended there was no government. Yes there were possible facts in the article but saying they had no government was a stupid lie.Clover

            Eric says that we do not need government because without one I will not rape and steal and he will not either. I tell you what Eric if you abide and live based on ethics you will never have a gun pointed your way by our government. I and the hundreds of people I know or have met live based on ethics and we have not had a gun pointed at us by our government or been beaten or whatever by our government. Yes Eric if I buy a property and you know up front there are taxes if you buy that property then it is an ethical thing to do to pay it. No Eric you would rather steal a loaf of bread at the grocery store and never pay the taxes you owe. Tell me how ethical your kind really is? The ethical thing to do for your kind that want to point a gun at our government because you refuse to pay an ethical bill is for you to leave. I did have to laugh at the guy our west with his herd of cattle. Your friends backed him up when he refused to pay for grazing property that he was using. Eric I do not get free grazing property but your freeloading friends backed up the guy. Explain that Eric. Why do your kind expect to be freeloaders. You want to have roads paid by donations but you are not going to donate. Eric your ethics suck.

        • “Iceland worked for 300 years, ”
          Yeah sure thing Bevin- ICELAND!!!!!!! is your NAP example? LMAO Those folk resorted to lethal force at the drop of a hat, kept slaves and sailed the world looking for opportunities to rape/rob/murder.

          • My thanks to MFW for giving me another excuse to post the information about the Icelandic Republic — for third parties who might be on the fence.

            Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
            Mises Daily: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 by Thomas Whiston


            Those who claim that government is the source of social order say that in its absence there would be violence, chaos, and a low standard of living. They cite civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South America, or even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. They claim that these things, which are actually examples of competing governments, are what life without government will produce.

            Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to ask for “just one example of where it has worked.”

            Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today.

          • Clover,

            Even if your derogatory comments regarding Iceland were true, the fact remains that government has an unequaled record of mass murder. And impossible to equal. You government-snugglers always overlook or side-step or soft-peddle this horrific – this unassailable – fact.

            Individuals – even malignant ones – can only do so much harm. But organized violence (i.e., government)? The sky’s the limit. Assembly-line killing.

            Let’s take a current example: The bloodbath and mayhem in Iraq. Caused by “our” government. Now exacerbated by the competing “governments” in Iraq. How high are the bodies piled, Clover? How much higher will they be piled?

            How many millions of people currently languish in prison for non-crimes in this country, Clover?

            What private gang immolated dozens of helpless women and children recently?

            Government = guaranteed violence, on a mass scale. Against which the individual is effectively helpless (as resistance to such violence is considered a “crime” and overwhelming force will then be brought to bear).

            So, yes. I’ll take my chances with “Libertopia,” as you smarmily call it.

          • CloverEric if you think all the people in prison are nice guys then you can have them come and live in your house when they get let out. Maybe you can bail them out and take them into your house.

            • No, Clover – I don’t think they’re all “nice guys.” But I know a large number of them are caged over “crimes” that had no victim, such as selling a substance desired by the other person. Or merely consuming it oneself. Or for having failed to hand over their property to armed thugs who claim it is “owed” to them.

              Larken Rose, for example. He was kidnapped and placed in a cage (prison) for the “crime” of not paying what he “owed.” This guy – and guys like him – aren’t going to take your stuff. Or do anything to you. But they get tossed in cages by guys like you.

          • Dear mith,

            Thanks for sharing those additional examples of fully functioning market anarchist societies.

            Clovers will of course attempt to dismiss these real world examples of workable market anarchist systems. They will argue that “That was then, this is now,” that “Times have changed,” that “Those were agrarian societies. we are living in a post-industrial society.”


            Ethics and morality do not change merely because one raises crops using John Deere combines instead of wooden plows.

          • Dear mith,

            One of the articles you listed put it nicely.

            “While cumbersome superstates seem like today’s default arrangement, they are ultimately a blip on the timeline of human existence. Libertarianism offers a legal arrangement that, far from being counterintuitive, is grounded in long established common sense.”

            Amen to that.

            Modern statist intellechewals pride themselves on being original thinkers free from parochial cultural conditioning. They flatter themselves. They are the most thoroughly brainwashed ciphers one can imagine.

            They lack both the capacity and the will to think anew and de