Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Darren Wilson may be a decent man, out of uniform. I do not know him, so I cannot say.ferguson lead pic

He is, however, a cop. A law enforcer.

That is known.

And that is why he is reviled. Not as a man per se, but as an archetype.

For what he represents.

For similar reasons, Michael Brown is mourned by many. Not because of who he was (a thug) but because of what he represents.

The legions of victims of law enforcers. The nameless millions who’ve had their rights stomped on by America’s run-amok praetorians, who run amok because they know they’ll almost never be held accountable in any meaningful way (the way any of us would be held accountable for doing far less).

It begins to chafe.

People – white and black, from all economic and social backgrounds – are awakening to the fact that officers are not friendly. That any one of us could be tomorrow’s victim of “officer safety” and “stop resisting.” Too many lurid videos of soccer moms being Tazered, of kids being body slammed to the ground, of old people being treated brutally, gratuitously – by law enforcers. What was once exceptional and outrageous – beyond the pale of civilized conduct – has become frighteningly routine.

Cops wonder why so many people really dislike them. It is because we fear them.

With good reason.

They have acquired almost limitless authority to do as they please – up to and including summary execution. Our lives are quite literally in their hands. At their whim.

Meanwhile, we are held to a different set of rules.

I have a concealed carry handgun permit. It imposes on me legal consequences of extreme severity in the event I handle my firearm recklessly, let alone criminally. As is right and proper. I have assumed responsibility for carrying a deadly weapon on my person. Merely to “brandish” my gun – that is, to menace someone by letting them know I am armed – invites severe legal repercussions. And if I actually point the thing at someone – let alone fire it at someone – I’d better be able to produce clear and convincing evidence that my life was in actual (as opposed to imagined) peril. There will be a lengthy criminal investigation in such an event, regardless. And the odds are high that unless it was a clearcut case of self defense against a violent and plausibly murderous attack, I will be convicted of a felony and will become an inmate in a prison for many years to come. In addition, my victim (assuming it wasn’t self defense) will be able to pursue personal liability through the civil courts. Even if I am not criminally charged, I face possibly ruinous financial repercussions.

This knowledge – along with my own lack of interest in harming anyone – very effectively encourages me to be extremely cautious and responsible with guns.

Unlike these guys:

Perversely, law enforcers (of all people!) are incentivized in the opposite direction. To not exercise caution. To (literally) shoot first – and ask questions later. To be contemptuous of our safety.

Sociopaths seem to be actively recruited.

As here:

Not infrequently, it all begins over a penny ante infraction (seatbelt violation, “speeding,” failure to be acceptably deferential to their authority/ego) which rapidly escalates to the ultra-violent.

“Resistance” has become cop-talk for any show of recalcitrance whatsoever – such as arguing a point or having a less than obsequious attitude toward cops. Merely walking away – as non-aggressive an action as one can imagine – often triggers an extremely aggressive response. The bully’s response to a perceived slight.

And there’s the small stuff, too.

The cop tailgating us or weaving through traffic at 15 over… often, not buckled up for “safety.” The patrol car (with windows tinted opaque, illegal for us) parked in front of a fire hydrant while the cop moseys into Starbucks for some taxpayer-funded coffee… the smug arrogance of their mirrored sunglassed faces, hut! hut! hut! buzz cuts and East German Stasi-style uniforms.

Then there are the Stasi-style checkpoints, where probable cause and the entire Fourth Amendment have been thrown in the woods.

The barked orders.

Their got-damned insolence.

Granted, these low-brows (literally; were you aware that having an above-average IQ disqualifies one to become an enforcer?) are merely “doing their job” and did not write the law.

That bitch whine did not fly for Eichmann. Why should it fly for them?

Back to Michael Brown and Darren Wilson.

They have transcended their individuality. Wilson, the avatar of all that’s wrong with law enforcement.

Brown, unappetizing as he may have been personally, has come to represent something much more profound.

Twenty or so years ago, it was easy enough for white middle class America to dismiss someone like Brown as another nigger who got what he deserved. But guess what?

We’re all niggers now.

Your whiteness will not save you from a thug scrum in the middle of the night, nor excuse you from the degradations of a probable-cause-free stop and search.

If they pull you over for some petty nonsense and discover, in the course of their rooting around, that you are carrying $10,000 in cash (because you were on your way to buy a car or for any of a dozen other innocent reasons) they can – and frequently, will – simply take your money.

If you are an attractive young woman (or just a woman, period) and are out driving by yourself alone at night, do you feel “safe” when all of a sudden and out of nowhere a cop is tailgating you with his high beams on?

And yet, we are not allowed to fear for our “safety.”

So it goes – and will continue to go (and churn and bubble) until finally, it explodes.

Which I think has become inevitable.

More and more people seem to sense it – even if the cops don’t understand it.

If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079clover2

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address for us to mail the thing to!) 

Share Button


  1. Mass killings are all in a days work for the lord. Where Hong Xiuquan screwed up, is he didn’t say he had a second vision where he learned to repent from his earlier murders and become a faithful disciple again.

    Had Hong used the Paul of Tarsus exploit, he would have been in a prime position to write an inspired account of his “gospel” as part of a New and Improved Testament for Christians everywhere.

  2. There is nothing wrong in my system with david so long as he keeps his sky stalin in his pants and doesn’t wave it around in mixed company.

    Nor am I troubled by barbarians who celebrate the “feast of crom” so long as they act the savage in those areas where savages are tolerated and permitted and not in my backyard.

    It’s easy for me as an individualist egoist, because I’m NOT faithful to the golden rule.

    I aspire to follow something both more and less ambitious.

    To adhere to the PLATINUM RULE where possible. To fail at times but at least morally suffice by following the SILVER RULE wherever I fall short.

    You’ve said several times, be excellent to each other. And I grok that and I wholeheartedly concur with that.

    But to then dissonantly say follow the golden rule, well to me that means only be fair to one another. There’s nothing particularly excellent about being fair and being decent.

    No, being EXCELLENT means following the PLATINUM RULE.

    The PLATINUM RULE is an algorithm that says do unto each individual other as THEY PREFER BEING DONE UNTO THEM.

    This assumes you know enough about others that you know what they want done to them. This requires confidence, insight, and empathy; because many people don’t even know how they want to be treated.

    If the NAP is to flourish, something like this has to be the rule in the long run.

    The golden rule falls apart because 56% of the world are Abrahamic Religion Adherents and want to be treated according to Sky Skalin protocols. And that’s how they’ll treat you in return like it or not.

    The golden rule fails because clovers want safety and nanny state protections. They want prohibition. They want the individual sacrificed to the common good. Doing unto them the way they like will always mean they will try to reciprocate and bind you to their rules and lowest common denominator limits.

    It is a violation of the PLATINUM RULE to say christians who follow the NAP MUST change their ways. Same goes for clovers and statists who don’t violate the NAP. They’ve done their part, now we do our part and treat them the way they like as far as we can without violating the NAP ourselves.

    The golden rule could work IF we could keep ourselves segregated and provide our own sustenance without others. THEN we could merely be GOOD to each other and practice the golden rule. The rich keep their riches and rise to new heights. The poor struggle and fail. And maybe sometimes they still get a second hand boost from the rich, maybe sometimes they don’t, that’s life.

    But so far, that hasn’t happened anywhere except in Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand novels.

    Preliminarily, I see the PLATINUM RULE as the following algorithm.

    1 exclude people you don’t want any dealings with. For me this means 1.7 billion observant muslims. I don’t believe it is possible for a faithful muslim to follow the NAP.

    Thus my default is I want them out of my neighborhood, and places of work. They are entitled to the DO NO HARM principle only in my book. I’ll leave them be, I want them to leave me be.

    Other than in a virtual, correspondence, telephone, anonymous sense, I never want to be face to face with a practicing sky stalin serving muslim. Ever.

    The silver rule here is I don’t want muslims to see me or know me. I give them what they want in a sense, by never being around them. There’s plenty of property and wealth for them that doesn’t need to be co-mingled with mine.

    2 Following the PLATINUM rule for the 5.4 billion rest of the world.
    A around kids, let the kids have things the way they want, try to teach them, but don’t force them
    B around elderly, let them be retired or work as they wish. Let them do whatever they wish, even if it means doing things children or young adults like to do. Make allowances for their notions of propriety and bigotry and parochialism and all the rest. They’ve no obligation to act their age in my book.
    C mormons, fundamentalists, gays, polyamors, sluts, serial one night stand guys, people that cheat on each other, those who cheat and overpromise to get laid or stay in relationships. All that is tolerated under the platinum rule. If it feels right, I’ll try to persuade them to be better, but never force them, nor hold myself to a lesser standard because of their alternative and sometimes unpleasant aspects.

    2 Acknowledge anytime I won’t be following the platinum rule. Or even the golden rule. This is the silver rule. Be upfront and straightforward about who I am, and how I am being inconsistent or dissonant.

    For instance, I copy and paste and alter others text from the internet at will. I sneak outside food into the movies. I consider myself someone who occcasionally cheats and bends the rules where I feel it does no harm. I’m not a violent nor fraudulent thief.

    But I understand that golden rulers might lump me in together with those who use guns to rob liquor stores or hijack cars during grand theft auto crimes. Golden rulism is the gold standard of collectivism and statism. It never works, but it just sounds so good, its hard to escape its clutches.

    3 Just follow the golden rule in many situations. If I don’t know who I’m dealing with. Or for other reasons, this might be the best bet. No need to overreach and go for the platinum rule in situations where I’m almost sure to fail.

    4 At a minimum, follow the Do No Harm Principle. If you CAN DO NO GOOD in a given situation, at least strive to DO NO HARM. Try to leave things better than you found them. Heal the small things you can, leave the big things be, if it’s beyond your ken. Try to be the first to give. Better to give more than you receive.

    Always say yes if you can. Always suggest a trade. Always accept a trade. Give the most quid you can for the least quo you really need. Take what you need leave the rest. Take what you want leave the rest. Don’t back anyone else into a corner. Don’t put others on the spot. Give people a little grief if they can take it, but don’t drive them to despair or ruin.

    • Dear Tor,

      “The golden rule falls apart because 56% of the world are Abrahamic Religion Adherents and want to be treated according to Sky Skalin protocols. And that’s how they’ll treat you in return like it or not.”

      I see what you’re driving at, and I agree your concerns are well warranted. But here is how I think it actually plays out.

      When adherents to Abrahamic religions impose theocracy on other adherents of Abrahamic religions, they are most decidedly NOT adhering to the Golden Rule.

      I doubt that any inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition was eager to be captured by Muslims and tried according to Sharia Law.

      I doubt that any Muslim cleric was eager to be captured by Catholics and tried by the Spanish Inquisition.

      Therefore what inquisitors of the Spanish Inquisition and enforcers of Sharia Law were doing was to “Do unto others as they would NOT have had others do unto them.”

      In other words, they were knowingly VIOLATING the Golden Rule, but hoping to get away with it.

      Also, a little further elaboration may be in order. The Golden Rule is sometimes worded in two subtly different ways.

      The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality that essentially states either of the following:

      1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form).

      2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).

      The latter form is better. It also happened to be the way Confucius worded it.

      • Thanks for that Bevin, I’m just working thru this in a very early position on the learning curve.

        On July 4th 2014 you said this:

        I am not a fan of Confucius, who could be considered a Chinese counterpart of an American conservative. But some of his insights were astute.

        I have long felt that absolute conceptual clarity is essential.

        As the Chinese philosopher Confucius put it:

        Above all it is essential to refer to things by their correct names. If things are not referred to by their correct names, then our language will not reflect reality. If our language does not reflect reality, then our actions will not reflect reality, and will be exercises in futility.
        — Confucius, The Analects, Chapter 13, Verse 3

        On June 29th you wrote:

        Laozi, as usual, was right.

        Lao-Tzu’s Taoism stood in direct contradiction to Confucius’ philosophy emphasizing… strict adherence to the law. Lao-Tzu’s claim that “the more laws one makes, the more criminals one creates” is the antithesis of Confucius’s assertion that more laws make better citizens.

        On 0ctober 24 2013 you said

        “Wherever you go, there you are.”
        — Confucius, as quoted by Buckaroo Banzai

        It’s got nothing to do with EPA per se. You are taking your internal programming with you wherever you go Jim.

        I’m willing to bet this is not the first time you have offended a group by adopting a “more enlightened than thou” posture.

        You will simply replicate the same experience elsewhere. In fact, you came back here for seconds. Confirmation bias.

        Take it from someone who has made similar mistakes. You bring it upon yourself, just as I brought it upon myself.

        Then March 6 2013

        Looking back, the Framers, despite their shortcomings, were anomalies. They were the only ones who gave substance to boasts about “American Exceptionalism.” They were what Confucius referred to as “junzi” or “gentlemen of virtue,” who lead by moral example.

        But the sorry reality is that most people the world over, including ‘Murica, are all too easily recruited into the FSA.

        Finally here’s eric in June 19 2012

        Saying it in the negative protects you from maniacs who like crazy things done to them; we should not do things to others if we would not like it done to us. Confucius gets the credit for that one.

        egads there’s just something amiss with that golden rule, it haunts me.

        I mean I get that I’ve lived below my station all my life

        Being someone who cheats on the occassion, I can stomach bigger deviations like petty thefts even or something like that.

        Another maxim.

        You know a man by the company he keeps.

        In my case I try to keep a wide variety from the very good and best. To the simplest, and the lets just eat drink and be merry kind of guys.

        To me, there is no call for everyone to be on the same page with everyone else.

        Maybe there’s a Japanese or korean confucius I can uncover and grok. I’m skeptical that the hodgepodge of people in the world can ever be governed by any universal, regardless of its excellence.

        I would expect local versions of the NAP. Not a top down federally enforced NAP which seems to be what we’re discussing?

        Of course there’s already all kinds of good stuff out there, but if it was really so good, why didn’t it work.

        It seems like we’ve returned to the fantasy of somehow becoming a better class of people and then holding ourselves to a higher standard.

        • Dear Tor,

          You wrote:

          I’m willing to bet this is not the first time you have offended a group by adopting a “more enlightened than thou” posture.


          True or not, it’s funny!

          To the best of my knowledge, I do what I do out of self-defense. I believe that society’s rules are the result of peoples’ beliefs. I fear that if they believe in brute force coercion, I will be a victim.

          Of course being a long time student of New Age psychology, I also know that as Jung says, “The problem with the unconscious is that it is unconscious.”

          In other words, few people on earth are actually aware of what is really driving them. It usually isn’t what their mouth says. it’s more often what their gut feels.

  3. Speaking of demons David,

    What do you consider to be god’s plan to rectify the writings of Paul of Tarsus with Islamic adherence to Jesuism(Jesus-only New Testatment) and the Old Testament?

    Under the Islamic doctrine of all 1.7 billion muslims:
    Paul is mentioned in multiple Islamic hadiths as the deceiver of the Christians, and along with people like Cain, Nimrod, Fir’aun and Samiri, is eternally punished in a stage of Hell called Saqar.

    One Shiah hadith even mentions demons that mislead people after the time of each prophet, and names Paul as the demon that misled people after Jesus.

    Other hadiths and islamic books, mention that in the afterlife arrogant people are imprisoned in a jail named “Paulus”, which is the most painful location of hell.

    Isa (Jesus in the New Testament), is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Messiah in Islam who was sent to guide the Children of Israel with a new scripture, the Gospel).

    The belief that Jesus is a prophet is required in Islam. The Quran states that Jesus was born to Mary as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God.

    To aid in his ministry to the Jewish people, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles such as healing the blind, bringing dead people back to life, etc. which no other prophet in Islam has ever been credited with, all by the permission of God rather than of his own power.

    Jesus, although appearing to have been crucified, was not killed by crucifixion or by any other means according to the Quran. Instead, god raised him unto himself. Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered a Muslim who preached that his followers should adopt the “straight path” as commanded by god.

    Islam teaches the rejection of the Trinitarian Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God. The Quran says that Jesus himself never claimed to be the Son of God, and it furthermore indicates that Jesus will deny having ever claimed divinity at the Last Judgment, and God will vindicate him. Islamic texts forbid the association of partners with God.

    Please elaborate how this discrepancy between 2.3 billion christians and 1.7 billion muslims will be resolved.

    Also please provide evidence of any kind that Paul of Tarsus has anything to do with the Old Testament. It seems to me he was added by mere human beings at some later date long after the death of Jesus and ALL his apostles.



    How exactly can Paul of Tarsus be called an apostle when Jesus never knew of him or spoke to him as he did all the other apostles. Also why is it Jesus is mentioned in the Old Testament, but no mention of Paul is ever made?

    Is it not a fact that Paul of Tarsus merely executed an early christian coup of sorts and had himself added to the New Testament through illegitimate means his own and his Roman benefactor’s power and glory?

    I agree with the Jesuists and the Muslims, that the Jewish Serial Killer Paul of Tarsus was as an evil of a man as any who have ever lived, and certainly not someone anyone who claims to be moral should have anything to do with.

  4. Empiricism

    I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
    —Isaac Asimov

    Empiricism is a philosophical school holding that knowledge is primarily gained from sensory experience. Accordingly, it rejects excessive use of a priori reasoning in the gathering and analysis of knowledge. Along with rationalism, it is the fundamental philosophy behind science and the scientific method.
    – –

    The Buddha and Critical Thinking

    The word Buddha means one who has awakened or been enlightened. In the context of Indian religions it functions as a title for one who has been enlightened. The name of the founder of the Buddhist religion was therefore not Buddha though one could make this mistake easily since his given name is rarely mentioned.

    The Buddha’s given name was Siddhartha Gutama. He did not refer to himself by the title Buddha and he may not have been called this by others during his lifetime.

    Siddhartha Gutama’s date of birth is disputed, but all will agree it was between the 5th and the 7th centuries B.C.E. The purpose of mentioning this is simply to remind the reader that 2500 years ago when people were dying of diseases which could readily be blamed on one deity or the other and human dependence on the vagaries of nature was nearly total, there were skeptics. Siddhartha Gutama was certainly one of them when he taught

    “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

    The lesson here is that whether today or 2,500 years ago, within any collection of people, one finds those susceptible to suggestion at one end of the spectrum and those who question everything at the other.

    For those of us schooled in the Age of Enlightenment and attribute the impetus for all of our scientific advancement to discoveries and social changes in the 18th century, it is instructive and humbling to remember that there were teachers of critical thinking like Siddhartha Gutama who preceded European intellectuals by more than 2,000 years.
    – –

    Empirical Understanding

    A simple illustration of the use of empiricism is the discovery of microorganisms. They cannot be seen with the naked eye, and so we cannot immediately just say they exist. Even if someone wrote a religious book saying that they exist, we cannot accept an a priori pronouncement of fact without knowing for ourselves.

    But we do know that some forms of glass can aid our vision. A simple magnifying glass makes small things look bigger, and we can check and be sure what we see through the glass is consistent. We can deduce rules on how it works, and make bigger or more sharply curved lenses.

    We don’t personally have to do that, because clever Arabs, Dutch, Greeks, and Italians have steadily deduced such rules and created such lenses for us.

    It might seem as though this is accepting their a priori assertions, but instead we only accept things they have proven and that others have replicated. Based on our past experiences, we can reasonably conclude that their fundamental conclusions are correct.

    We don’t have to replicate all of past science and discovery, but we do have to know that we could replicate it if we chose to do so. This is an important part of the scientific method: repeatability.

    Once we have worked out how to extend our physical sense of sight, we can use our microscope to look at tiny things and see little critters alive, such as amoebas and bacteria.

    And if we have reason to doubt what we see, we can conduct tests designed to confirm our observations. If we think the image in the scope is secretly broadcast from somewhere, we can use alcohol to affect the viewed surface, and see if it causes any change. It will.

    In this same way, through incremental steps of observation, recording, and analysis, we can build up an understanding of the universe based on what we can perceive through our senses.

  5. CloverThing is folks the Officer Wilson case in Ferguson is NOT one of officer criminality regardless how often such has occurred at other times & places. The Mob is defending a Thug who quite deservedly got shot dead as he attempted murder. The Thug is defended by the Mob quite simply on the basis of Race- they don’t like it when one of their own goes down during an attack on a White person. Doesn’t matter if the White person is a cop or a civilian CC’er. What matters is that a White killed one of them.

  6. BEtEO dudes and babes!

    Abraham Lincoln: seven minutes ago… we, your forefathers, were brought forth upon a most excellent adventure conceived by our new friends, Bill… and Ted. These two great gentlemen are dedicated to a proposition which was true in my time, just as it’s true today. Be excellent to each other. And… PARTY ON, DUDES!

    Ted: Oh, you beautiful babes from England, for whom we have traveled through time, will you go to the prom with us in San Dimas? We will have a most triumphant time!

    Police Psychiatrist: I wanna know why you claim to be Sigmund Freud.
    Sigmund Freud: Why do you claim I’m not Sigmund Freud?
    Police Psychiatrist: Why do you keep asking me these questions?
    Sigmund Freud: Tell me about your mother.

    Ted: So-Crates is sometimes known as the father of modern thought. He was the teacher of Play-to, who was in turn the teacher of Aristotle, and like Ozzy Osbourne, was repeatedly accused of corruption of the young.

    Rufus: Hi, welcome to the future. San Dimas, California, 2688. And I’m telling you it’s great here. The air is clean, the water’s clean, even the dirt, it’s clean. Bowling averages are way up, mini-golf scores are way down. And we have more excellent water slides than any other planet we communicate with. I’m telling you this place is great! But it almost wasn’t. You see, 700 years ago, the two great ones, ran into a few problems. So now I have to travel back in time to help them out. If I should fail to keep these two on the correct path, the basis of our society will be in danger. Don’t worry, it’ll all make sense. I’m a professional.

    Bill: I’m Bill S. Preston, Esquire!
    Ted: And I’m Ted “Theodore” Logan!
    Bill + Ted: And we’re – WYLD STALLYNS!

    BEtEO babes and dudes!
    – – –

    So you want to speak like Bill & Ted? Here’s an overview of Bill & Ted’s vernacular and life philosophy including definitions, attitude and examples which will enable you to walk, talk, and live like the Two Great Ones.

    Bill & Ted Speak is not like any other language out there, slang or otherwise. Bill & Ted live in San Dimas, California, which is located well away from any beach and about 25 miles from the San Fernando Valley. Their dialect is not “surfer” nor “valley” speak. While their language bears some resemblance to other teen talk of the 80’s and early 90’s, Bill & Ted Speak has some unique qualities and expressions which set it apart.

    While some of the definitions in the Orion Pictures Bill & Ted Phrasebook are essentially correct, many more are completely off base; it was written by the publicity department of the film studio and as such cannot be taken at face value as a true B&T dictionary.

    For our purposes, we will only refer to Speak used in the context of Excellent Adventure, Bogus Journey and the first season of the Hanna Barbera animated series.

    To our mind if Alex and Keanu spoke it while in character as Bill and Ted it counts as true Bill & Ted Speak. Some of the evil robot Bill & Ted Speak may also be covered but we’ll clarify when it is their dialect we are referring to.


    It’s important to have the right attitude when you talk like Bill & Ted . . . their personalities are a big part of making their Speak work. Start by relaxing your muscles . . . let your arms hang loose by your side and shake the tension from your body.

    It helps if you can bounce up and down a few times, working up some excited energy. Don’t think about what you’re saying too much, that is key! It should just flow naturally from your mouth. Doing a few air guitar riffs will help put you in the right frame of mind as well.

    On the whole you are going to speak positively to everyone you meet. Get rid of the tendency to pre-judge people and learn to treat everyone equally and in an excellent manner.

    Once you’ve mastered the words and phrases of Bill & Ted speak you will want to always use them with a lot of loose energy and enthusiasm.


    It’s important to realize that all of the words Bill & Ted use are straight from the dictionary. They have not created words unique to their universe.

    It’s the way they use these words that matters. Let’s take a look at some of the most common words used in Bill & Ted speak and explain their definitions as well as Bill & Ted’s definitions for them:


    Excellent (ěk3sc-lcnt)
    English definition: Being of the highest or finest quality; exceptionally good; superb.
    B&T Speak: Good.

    Triumphant (tr§-ßm!fcnt)
    English definition: Exulting in success or victory.
    B&T Speak: Good; You’ve triumphed.

    Bodacious (bÇ-d~!shcs)
    English definition: Intrepidly bold or daring; audacious.
    B&T Speak: Good, but with a heavy quality . . . danger almost.

    Outstanding (out!stăn!ding)
    English definition: Standing out among others of its kind; distinguished; excellent.
    B&T Speak: Really good.

    Stellar (stěl!cr)
    English definition: Outstanding; principal; leading.
    B&T Speak: Really excellent.

    Unrivaled (ßn!r§!vcld)
    English definition: Unequaled; peerless; supreme.
    B&T Speak: Unbeatably good.

    Resplendent (r0-spl.n!dcnt)
    English definition: Filled with splendor; brilliant.
    B&T Speak: Good on a high level.

    Atypical (~-t0p!0-kcl)
    English definition: Not typical; varying from the type.
    B&T Speak: Weird but usually in a good way.


    Bogus (bÇ!gcs)
    English definition: Counterfeit; fake.
    B&T Speak: Bad.

    Egregious (0-gr‘!jcs)
    English definition: Outstandingly bad; blatant; outrageous.
    B&T Speak: Really bad.

    Heinous (h~-ncs)
    English definition: Grossly wicked or reprehensible; abominable; odious; vile.
    B&T Speak: Really really bad.

    Odious (Ç!d‘-cs)
    English definition: Exciting hatred or repugnance; abhorrent; offensive.
    B&T Speak: Disgustingly bad.


    Dude – A male you think is all right or cool . . . usually used when greeting someone. “Hey, dude. What’s up, dude?”

    Babe – A female you think is cool or attractive.

    Yes Way! – Emphatically yes!

    No Way! – Emphatically no! Also used as an expression of disbelief, as in: “I’m from the future.” “No way!”

    How’s it hangin’? – An expression of greeting, most acceptably from one male to another.

    Catch you later! – A friendly way of saying goodbye and that you’ll see the other person again in the future.

    Be Excellent to Each Other! – This expression explains itself, doesn’t it?

    Party On, Dude! – So does this one.

    Dickweed – A word to describe someone you really don’t like because they’re stupid, rude, nasty, whatever.

    Melvin – Also known as a wedgie . . . this is when you pull up the underwear of a male from behind, causing him quite a bit of discomfort.

    Check it out – You say this when you want someone to take a look at something or to see what you’re seeing.


    There are some popular words and expressions known from the 80’s which Bill & Ted have never said. Try to avoid these like the plague:

    For sure
    Gag me with a spoon
    Rad or radical
    To the max
    Way – without the no

    ** – Bill and Ted did say gnarly when they described a man in Medieval England. Bill says “How about that gnarly old goat dude?” Thing is Bill is using the word “gnarly” correctly, to mean “deformed or twisted; crab-like.” “Gnarly” in surf speak means something is wickedly good, or that a surf is rough or incredible. Bill and Ted never use the slang “gnarly” to mean good – it’s too surfer – but using the word for its original meaning is okay.


    We’re including some of these because they were used in first season of the the animated series or because it’s something the evil robots have said.

    Chubby -only for evil robot use
    Scope it out


    Most is used as an enhancement to emphasize other words. If something isn’t just bogus, it’s most bogus. If it’s more than excellent, it’s most excellent. Use most in front of any adjective when you want to really get your point across just how much of something that something is. You can put most in front of just about any adjective and it would be proper. Here are some examples:

    “He has the most outrageous haircut.”

    “That was the most delectable meal I’ve ever eaten.”

    “You are most welcome!”

    “I am most appreciative of your kind comments.”

    Bill and Ted take the word most most seriously. To them it’s used to take something up to another level. For example, here is how some of their most commonly used adjectives change meaning with the use of most:

    Excellent = good

    Most excellent = very good

    Outstanding = excellent

    Most outstanding = outstanding

    Bodacious = most outstanding

    Totally can also be used in the same way as most to emphasize adjectives. It has a slightly different connotation, meaning “all-encompassing.” So for instance you could say:

    “I totally believe you, dude!”

    “That was totally outrageous!”

    “I totally love that heavy metal album!”


    Here we get into the world of the double negative. You may remember in school your English teacher telling you that you should not have two negatives in the same sentence because they will cancel each other out. For instance, you should say “The boy does not have any beans.” If you say “The boy does not have no beans” the “not” and “no” cancel each other out and you’re essentially saying the boy has beans, which is the opposite of what you mean to say.

    Bill and Ted take this to the extreme and use it to their advantage to really emphasize words. If something is heinous it is bad. If it’s non-heinous that’s *one* negative and it becomes good. It’s it’s non-non-heinous then the negatives cancel each other out but the emphasis of the word heinous becomes double, so it becomes really bad.

    Here’s the rule of thumb when it comes to using and understanding nons: If it’s an odd number of nons, then they mean the opposite of the word they’re emphasizing. If it’s an even number of nons then the meaning of the word stays the same. The more nons, the more emphasis on the word, be it positive or negative.

    Here are a few examples:

    That cheeseburger is non-non-heinous.
    Two nons is an even number, hence they mean heinous, which means the cheeseburger is really bad.

    That heavy metal song is non-non-non-non-bodacious.
    Four nons is an even number, hence they mean bodacious, so the song is really really good!

    We are having a non-non-non-odious time at the dance.
    Three nons is an odd number, so they mean the opposite of odious, so they are having a really really good time at the dance.

    Hades is a non-non-non-non-non-excellent place.
    Five nons is an odd number, so they mean the opposite of excellent, so Hades is a really really really bad place.

    You can add any number of nons to a word you want but going over five can get really confusing if spoken.


    Using “not” is simple in both execution and explanation. You simply add the word “not” to the end of any sentence after a suitable comedic pause to take back everything you’ve just said. For instance:

    “That was one of the best plays I’ve ever seen . . . NOT!!!”

    The “not” should always be spoken with a great deal of energy and sarcasm.


    Station is a Martian word which makes the word “smurf” useless by comparison. Basically you can replace any word or phrase with station and have it mean whatever you want. Some people may think Martians have an extremely limited language because of this, but quite the contrary. It isn’t what you say but how you say it and station has millions of meanings.

    English: “Do you know where I put my socket wrench?”
    Martian: “Station?”

    English: “I would like to order fries with that.”
    Martian: “Station.”

    English: “Have you noticed my excellent Martian butt?”
    Martian: “Station?”

    Bill and Ted adapt the word station into their own language, mostly using it to mean something that is excellent or as an affirmative. If something is outstanding, you can say “Station!” and it will mean the same thing. You can also use station as a greeting, to say hello to people – as Jim Martin does in Bogus Journey when he enters the classroom at Bill & Ted University. Bill & Ted rarely, if ever, use the word station as a negative.


    Contrary to popular belief, Bill & Ted do not speak stupidly. In fact their dialogue is quite clever and uses many words not ordinarily used in modern speech but which are perfectly proper in the right context. They may not always use all their words correctly but they try. A lot of Bill & Ted’s charm is their attempt to sound sophisticated, especially around adults or when trying to impress people. But this flows naturally . . . they love words and they love using words and they use them to the best of their limited abilities.

    So learn new words . . . soak up as many as you can. Check out the dictionary and find new ways of saying things. This will go a long way in helping you talk like Bill & Ted.

    Here are some examples of how to turn every day phrases into true Bill & Ted Speak:

    English: “We’ve just seen a good movie.”
    B&T Speak: “We have just witnessed a most bodacious cinematic masterpiece!”

    English: “I feel thirsty . . . let’s go to the Circle K and get something to drink.”
    B&T Speak: “I am most parched . . . let us journey to the Circle K and purchase some Frosty Slushes to quench our most odious thirst.”

    English: “That man is trying to kill us.”
    B&T Speak: “Whoa, I think that dude is totally attempting to kill us . . . bogus!”

    English: “Which way is it to the Burning of Rome?”
    B&T Speak: “Excuse us, dude . . . where might we witness the most historic conflagration of Rome?”


    To really master Bill & Ted speak it helps if you have a mind for mispronunciations and malapropisms. But it has to sound as if you don’t know you have a talent for such wordplay. Bill and Ted often mispronounce names and things because they don’t know any better. To make these funny, though, you’ll need to know what you’re doing. Plus if you can make comments on things out of context you’re really on the right track. Let’s look at a few examples . . . .

    Bill and Ted pronounce Socrates (Saw-cruh-teez) as So-Crates (So-crates) and Hades (Hay-deez) as Hades (Haydes). Billy the Kid becomes Mr. the Kid. Joan of Arc becomes Noah’s wife. Socratic Method becomes a person. They don’t really know, but they’re trying to be smarter by confidently forging ahead, right or wrong. They are improving, you’ll notice by the end of Excellent Adventure they pronounce Socrates’ name correctly.

    To come up with these things in everyday conversation, try to acquaint things with what you know they’re not but with things they sound like. For instance, if someone threatens to put you in an iron maiden, mistake that for the excellent rock band instead. If someone calls you a cretin, consider it a compliment. If someone in Medieval England says they’re going to put you in stocks, say that’s excellent because it’s probably a good time to invest.


    Watch the Bill & Ted movies over and over and over again. To some extent you will naturally pick up their language skills the more you watch them.

    And that’s it! Now you have learned what you need to know to speak, act, and live like Bill & Ted!! Party on, dudes!!

  7. I am anti-subjugation by power groups. ALL power groups.
    Even groups of property owners. Most likely including eric and bevin and their intellectual property and their websites they run using their real-world identities.

    This means even if god did create heaven and earth. And every human being alive. I deny his a priori property right in his own creations. What property right does a creator hold in sentient beings, if any? Little to none, I say. Men are created to rebel, and to assert their own sovereignty, I say. Let the women and children suckle and herd as it suits them, I say.

    Because of my belief in absolute self-sovereignty, I consider the golden rule a cultural tool one may or may not adhere to. I choose not adhere. It’s a moot point in my case. Under class theory, one has to have standing as an other before even worrying about “doing unto others.”

    I have no power nor ability to do anything to anyone here unless they allow it. If were asking for your credit card number and billing info, then my character might be more relevant.

    But for now, what does it matter. Are we really to relate to each other as propertyless cavemen and say everyone effects everyone else, even in the case of our own personal beliefs. How grim that sounds.

    Is anyone here such an other that they can recreate this entire internet forum on their own. Including outside this domain and all the way to our various locations on the world’s communications systems.

    Maintain it and keep it operational. I doubt it. So to my mind, all this talk of “golden rules” and doing unto others is of limited use and real world application.

    If I had to state my highest natural law, it would be quid pro quo. I start to give even without being asked and without permission.

    My life philosophy is inherently unstable, so anywhere I go, I start offering up the quid, in the hopes I’ll have sufficient cache to remain, even when I fail to pony up the quo the majority expects me to provide.

    Take the 30% of people who believe in astrology as an illustration. I feel little need to make much of a case against their belief system, because I don’t feel astrologers represent an existential threat to me.

    Yet, do not astrologers help their adherents see “beyond this dimension” and do they not also free people from being “trapped within the four walls they create.” Bully for them I say. Why should they care what my opinion is of them.

    Astrology doesn’t seem particularly adept at improving the circumstances of its followers. It helps people deal with things the way they are. It acts an elixir to encourage new relationships.

    Come to think of it, I place astrology in higher esteem than christianity. It seems to mostly have a benign upside. Christianity is also a relationship elixir. But it has a harsh downside, that to my tastes, has too much downside and not enough upside.

    Neither astrology nor christianity have been much of a friend to technical progress. Both are always centuries behind the curve. In the case of christianity, they often persecute and murder those who would otherwise free us from the drudgery of this world. How is this helpful to anyone. It only serves to conserve their power, I would say.

    My wife and nearly every woman I’ve ever met is a christian. And I am hesitant to disabuse them of that status. For women, I think christianity has a lot of upside. It’s a powerful tool to keep men in a range of possible actions which is quite advantageous to them. It also encourages a virtue in women that suits many men. Obviously it is able to sell itself. It doesn’t need me as a shill.

    I am definitely against most of American Christianity. It has become a force of darkness in these last 100 years.

    The United Kingdom, OTOH, is an explicitly christian realm, but I find their flavor of christianity less loathesome. It does seem to integrate rather well into their system of world dominion.

    In many ways, I think they are the greatest force of dominion in the world today, when push comes to shove, it seems they marshal the power of America to their needs of the moment, and that they are the true superpower, if there is such a thing.

    I absolutely consider Christians and Muslims the greatest threat to freedom. What is especially troubling is their terrible record of dealings with the Jews. How dare they co-opt Jewish intellectual property and then attack the very source of their beliefs to add insult to injury.

    I will leave the defense of Judeo-Christianity to the 4 billion out of 7 billion citizens of the world that benefit and suffer from membership in this power group. They don’t need my help.

    It is scary the way these 4 billion people are under attack by fiat currency. Or are they a part of this attack. I am unsure.

    Every pedophile priest case is another wound that causes them to hemorrhage more wealth and power. Maybe the NSA is surveilling every Judeo-Christian in power in a brazen coup of their world dominating power. Where will this lead us to. Something far worse than Judeo-Christianity? Entirely possible.

    – Gary North

    This is God’s world, not Satan’s. Christians are the lawful heirs, not non-Christians.

    What the ten commandments set forth is a strategy. This strategy is a strategy for dominion.

    Jesus was not denying the legitimacy of biblical law. On the contrary, He was affirming biblical law. We love God first; God commands us to keep His word; therefore, we must enforce the law on ourselves.

    Jesus is our supreme commander.

    The negative penalties of the Old Testament case laws were not harsh but just, not a threat to society but rather the necessary judicial foundation of civic freedom The Old Testament was harsh on criminals because it was soft on victims.

    There is no doubt that Christianity teaches pluralism, but only of plural institutions under God’s single comprehensive law system. It does not teach a pluralism of law structures, or a pluralism of moralities, for this sort of hypothetical legal pluralism is always either polytheistic or humanistic.

    To challenge humanism in any field, you must possess a uniquely biblical view of God, man, law, and time.

    The trouble is, nobody knows exactly how the world really works. We are all fallible people with limited knowledge. It is only through Biblical revelation from the One who knows how the world really works because He made it and actively sustains it that anyone can come to a competent understanding of the world.

    Men are to make their own mistakes and successes. Each man is to work out his salvation or damnation in fear and trembling. Other men are to sit in judgment over him only when he commits public evil. They are not to command him as imitation gods. They are not to issue comprehensive commands and monitor him constantly. That is God’s job, not man’s. Thus, God’s hierarchy produces social freedom. It relieves mankind from any pretended autonomy from God’s total sovereignty. Men are not to seek to create predestinating hierarchies. They can leave their fellow men alone, so long as God’s institutional laws are obeyed in public.

    The basis for building a Christian society is evangelism and missions that lead to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth’s inhabitants will place themselves under Christ’s protection, and then voluntarily use his covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God’s law; then it spreads to others through revival; and only later does it bring comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under biblical blueprints.

    – Gary North

    These words seem a credible threat and anyone who values their freedom should take notice. Even for those who ultimately choose to live as a subject of another man’s words, at least take the time to weigh them personally with your own individual faculties.
    – – –

    The first shackle is the gun-vermin. The backup shackle is the god-vermin. I want to be free and live without either shackle.

    I am not seeking any relationship with either one of these all-too-numerous people. Only deliverance from them and their banjo-plucking ceremonies that seek to put me in the role of Ned Beatty. I do not want to squeal for their lord.

    When I hear any of the fine folk here pointing out my flaws or misconduct and seeking my compliance, my gut reaction is to paddle faster, cause I hear banjos.

    I’ll always listen to the other guy’s side. And whoever owns the property always has the power to make me look like an abject monkey if they wish.

    But so far I have been able to only visit even cyber-property after I feel safe and my true position is unknown and without credible threat.

    Who knows what the internet of the future will be. Perhaps there will be no anonymity anywhere soon. I hope this isn’t the case, at least not until the real world becomes a whole lot freer and full of opportunities for everyone of every peaceful belief system.

    • Hi Tor,

      You appear to approve of the ethics of Be Excellent to Each Other – which, as I see it, ought to include (among other things) supporting this web site, which you seem to derive some enjoyment from.

      It exists only as a result of the work I put into it. And it can only continue to exist if the return is sufficient to justify the work I put into it. I have already had to (effectively) “let Dom go.” Because I can’t afford to pay the guy. So we have no tech support. It’s all on me now.


      Of course, you’re free to enjoy it for free; I cannot force you to support it – nor would I, even if I had the power to do so. However, I can choose to not produce the site’s content; to pay for the servers; to spend pretty much every day of the week (including weekends) being here, working here, etc.

      And that’s a choice I have to make based on economic considerations, ultimately. Because I am not independently wealthy and cannot do this primarily as a hobby or even because I consider the message (and the venue) to be important vis-a-vis spreading the message of non-aggression and individual sovereignty.

      I honestly don’t grok why you’re (apparently) so belligerently opposed to tossing in a couple bucks every now and then. Anyone can afford say $5 a month.

      I mean, I’d certainly buy you a cup of coffee (or a beer) if we were neighbors (or even if you were just visiting my area). And that’s just because I think it’d be entertaining to have a chat. This site certainly provides something comparable that you find entertaining, else why spend so much time here?


      • I don’t see myself as belligerently opposed, quite the opposite.

        Perhaps it’s a synaptic misfire that brought any of that up as a response to helot’s being “disappointed.”

        I would say it’s more like I’ve abjectly failed in providing any actual quid to you it would seem. It’s certainly been more of my time and effort put in here than it takes to brew a cup of coffee, that’s for sure.

        Being excellent to each other is a complex proposition, I would assert, including many things you might not even consider as being excellent.

        To me, the virtue of selfishness, is of course put myself first, before everything and anyone else. That includes me dealing with the internet as ONLY a blunt mechanical device. I sleep soundly at night answering facebook’s queries with all manner of huckleberry finnisms. And any other website to. Any lie that helps me, and harms none so far as I can tell is a good lie prima facie. I hear your story, and an sympathetic to it, and somewhat swayed. But so far, I am unable to resolve what works for me with what you delineate as working for you. Existentially, it’s only you that matter at this site, it’s really of no consequence whether I’m allowed here or not.

        Sure some neanderthal can say I’m bad for your business. And set a bad example. But only in the same way my inexpert play at the casino black jack table, “steals” the next players winning card. Which is to say, has no real effect at all. I reject and protest against each and every unfounded superstition, no matter how commonplace and accepted they are.

        Is it true or is it false that NAP is all you need. Is it rather NAP + “the golden rule” or NAP + “help support the status quo” in my individual case for financial reasons or whatever other addendums that are necessarily pinned onto it?

        The NAP is not some unhinged abstraction. It only exists as far as you are benevolently and entrepreneurially willing to make it exist.

        I’d be willing to bet, the amount of support you do get here, though certainly inadequate, is actually some kind of minor miracle given the scheme of things these days.

        Larken Rose’s car broke down. Josie the Outlaw had to move out, and sounds penniless and homeless. Wendy McElroy lost her nest egg in Galt’s Gulch. Chris Cantwell is several circles of hell below grovelling for money and a wandering vagabond.

        And you four are got dammed heroes, we all know this. How is this coming to pass, I often wonder.

        I can’t abide what you need, I really can’t, regardless of my wishes. Does this sound belligerent. What words can I soften, and still communicate things effectively, I wish I knew them.

        I was raised under conditions you are unlikely to grok, and that is okay. There are all manner of other people you are also unfamiliar with I am sure.

        From my perspective, in my own way, I have also been slapped down in the cause of freedom. In my case by some unknown admin from reddit. (he gave me his supposed admin handle, but it had no activity associated with it.)

        So much so slapped down that hundreds of pages of content I embedded in that website that drove traffic to this site are gone. I could go to archive .org and prove some of this, but I’ll just assert it for now.

        In much the same way google has slapped you down for no reason, so has reddit done to me, and so can you at any time.

        You are free to say, SO WHAT, either pay the freight as asked or don’t claim to be any part of the freedom train.

        I am financially, logistically, and intellectually incapable of doing unto others the way you are doing. I have no way to provide this kind of site. To be the kind of stand-up mensch that you are being. If you take my incapacity as some kind of spitting in your face, that is unfortunate, but what am I to do about it?

        Perhaps my well-deserved being singled out will be of benefit? If so, than I am glad to be called to task for my hideous classlessness or whatever I am seen as being.

        The truth is I don’t consider you to be an other that deserves anything from google. Nor am I anyone who deserves anything from you unless you freely choose to provide. The truth is higher property class owners really don’t care to hear the “truths” of the lower classes owners and non-owners. And I can’t say that I blame them. Calling different human beings with different capabilities others is just so much newspeak. But it is a start, perhaps, overtime I will not be so obtuse.

        There are multiple reasons it is not so simple for me as it you say it is to make payment over the internet. In simplest terms I am a complete outlaw, and only by virtue of my wife tidying up behind me and her running of my household am I some kind of compliant non-criminal. Because on my own, I am absolutely done with every morsel of the crumbled American Cookie and ALL its protocols.

        One hurdle is I use a VPN proxy called ZenMate for certain reasons which quite possibly also means everything I do on the internet is exposed to who knows what kind of attacks and shenanigans.

        Out of comradeship and in attempt to be a mensch as best I am able, this is the only site where I have not layered unreality upon unreality nor sock-puppeted or used the many other “tricks of the internet” such as they are, because in my eyes, this is only the got dammed internet, and not yet another venue for the holders of power to push everyone around for even further control.


        clover says:
        May 6, 2012 at 5:15 pm
        That is very good advertising? Don’t you wonder who Tor Munkov is? What his reason for posting this more than 2 year old video? Can anyone say scam? Can anyone say someone making up news to make money? People like this should be in jail along with Brent.

        clover says:
        May 15, 2012 at 2:29 am
        mithrandir/Brent, I do not know what you are talking about but I do not care much for scammers. They are below dirt in my opinion. They try to steal your money and anything else you got. If you like those kind of people then you are an idiot. Tor said I had a short time horizon. The video was over two years ago and nothing in the video either happened or will happen. It is exactly what a scammer would create. They push either greed or fear to people that are not smart enough to know better and then take their money.

        Mithrandir says:
        May 15, 2012 at 2:29 pm
        Healthy skepticism is good. One needs to be wary of a potential scam.

        clover says:
        May 15, 2012 at 3:11 pm
        And mithrandir, why is this video here? Why post a possible scam here even though it is?

        Mithrandir says:
        May 15, 2012 at 3:25 pm
        You could send an email to the webmaster complaining about this post and state that you consider it inappropriate for the website.
        I will agree that this site is probably not the place to post this video since it has little to do with driving.


        The above excerpt is from clovercam: “Something To Think About” article

      • @Eric- In all honesty I pretty much have no “free” money at the moment. Everything is, directly or indirectly, tied into college, especially now that I’m away at college. I definitely do think your content is “worth it” despite disagreement on many points. But, I just don’t have the resources.

        I wouldn’t blame you if you ever decided to change the format of the site to “subscribers only” or just stopped or whatever. I wish you the best. I would support if I actually had the money. I really don’t.

  8. Existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that – existence exists.

    In order for something to be, it has to be something, because – existence is identity. That is, to be is to be – an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes.

    That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. The axiom of existence is grasped in differentiating something from nothing, while the law of identity is grasped in differentiating one thing from another, i.e., one’s first awareness of the law of non-contradiction, another crucial base for the rest of knowledge.

    A leaf … cannot be all red and green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time… A is A. To be coherent, one rejects belief in anything alleged to transcend existence.

    Consciousness is – the faculty of perceiving that which exists. To be conscious is to be conscious of something, that is consciousness itself cannot be distinguished or grasped except in relation to an independent reality.

    Consciousness cannot be aware only of itself—there is no ‘itself’ until it is aware of something. Thus, the coherent mind holds that the mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality.

    Expressed differently, existence has “primacy” over consciousness, which must conform to it. Any other approach is an incorrect one.

    Any approach that doesn’t embrace reality and instead attempts to assert – the primacy of consciousness – including any variant of metaphysical subjectivism or theism must be rejected.

    In philosophy, the understanding that A is A derives its explanations of action and causation from the axiom of identity, calling causation – the law of identity applied to action.

    It is entities that act, and every action is the action of an entity. The way entities act is caused by the specific nature – or identity – of those entities; if they were different they would act differently.

    As with other philosophical axioms, an implicit understanding of causation is derived from one’s primary observations of causal connections among entities even before it is verbally identified, and serves as the basis of further knowledge.
    – – –

    – Jon Hamm: Million Dollar Arm – Top Notch Film, Highest Recommendation.
    – – –

    To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes of distinct perceptual units, on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes; then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind.

    The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol – a word – to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristics, with their particular measurements omitted.

    The purpose of a moral code, is to provide the principles by reference to which man can achieve the values his survival requires:

    If man chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. Reality confronts a man with a great many “must’s”, but all of them are conditional: the formula of realistic necessity is: “you must, if –” and the if stands for man’s choice: “if you want to achieve a certain goal”
    – – –

    Dear Christians,
    Look at this pie chart of world religions.

    You’re in the demographic with the most power. Clover makes it clear he wants people pulled over, interrogated at random, he wants state agents using any means necessary to serve the ends of safety, law, and order, which he values.

    How far are Christians willing to go, so long as their ends are achieved?

    How much wealth can be confiscated? How many goods and services can be prohibited? How many people can be killed or caged for disobedience to paper statutes?

    Christians don’t want liquor and other goods sold on Sunday. Don’t want strong males to be able to take advantage of weak females in sexual situations. Don’t want mothers to abort the babies they produce in their own bodies. And millions of other “sins” they find abhorrent, they authorize costumed goons to fight on their behalf.

    Most Christians say they are okay with the state using force against woman and doctors to prevent abortions.

    Is it not this very Christian morality that is our biggest enemy. An honest fight would be to fight to get govt out of your lives so your church members can live the way they want in peace.

    But that is not the honest fight Christians are engaged in. Christians are engaged in a fight to maintain POSITIVE political power that serves their ends.

    Granted those here assembled are MINORITY view Christian that only wants the state to kill and cage in the cases of rape and abortion. Which is far less STATIST than most Christians we can agree.

    Yet at no time did JESUS ever advocate using the state to do anything. I submit you so called Christians have no claim to be followers of JESUS at all.

    Whatever religion you PAULISTS are advocating, it has little to nothing to do with Jesus. It has everything to do with Jew murderer Roman bureaucrat PAUL of TARSUS. And with perpetuating the ancient ROMAN STATE POWER of syncretized religious sentiment of conquered nations which still exists to this very day.

  9. I’m starting to wonder if Clover IS a spouse abuser? That’s why he/she keeps turning the subject back to driving when Eric posits a logical counterpoint.

  10. If you see one guy running 3 card monte, you might walk past him and ignore him.

    But what if another guy is running the con in tandem. You intend to walk past, but then you see this guy winning money. And the 3 card monte guy looks really upset.

    Gee, you think maybe you can win some money too. So the the 3 card guy lets you win a couple of bucks, you learn some things about the card flipping guy, he finds out you get paid on Friday in the course of talking to you.

    Friday rolls along and you had a few drinks and still have most of your paycheck in your pocket. Next thing you know, you’ve lost your whole paycheck trying to win yourself back to even.

    It’s the same with govt. If there was just one, you’d say f off, I have no interest in you. But there’s hundreds of them. And all of them are making up scary lies and doing unspeakable things to innocent people as part of their 3 card monty game. Before you know it, they control your whole life and everyone you know.

    And religions are just another form of 3 card monte game. They scare you about hell, and your soul, and they excite the superstitions of old ladies. And then these ladies tell things from the 3 card monte priest to their daughters. And one of those daughters is your mom, and she fills your head with all kinds of superstitious garbage. All so the religious 3 card monte guys can make their livings.

    America was once a guy and a card table. And then a second guy. And now its 20 million federal employee guys and all kinds of tables and games. The biggest 3 card monte game ever to have existed.

    The thing is, you don’t have to play any of these games. You don’t have to justify yourself to the govt 3 card monte addicts. Or the religious 3 card monte addicts. And that includes confuscious and the golden rule and all that stuff. It’s just 3 card monte games, and you need to man up and throw every bit of that game in the woods right now.

    It’s just that simple. You do your thing, and let the other guy do his thing. Don’t intrude on the other guy unless you’re sure you can get away with it. And even then, you can’t ever be really sure. So why risk it. Just stick to your own stuff.

    Don’t worry about getting even. Just get away from the 3 card monte game. Don’t worry about shutting the guy down, another will just take his place. That’s why Sons of Anarchy is just entertainment, but is of course fatally flawed, because anything you see on a screen has to serve all the 3 card monte games. So watch and be entertained.

    But then don’t really play the games. The cards go up and down. The money changes hands. The games get broken up. The people who run the games come and go. But its unlikely anything is really going to change.

    It’s you that has to change. You can’t go to a website. Or read a book. Or find a guy who knows stuff. Or sit around listening to tales of the good old days. Or reminisce to back in the 1970s when you could actually win at 3 card monte.

    Because that’s all crap. And it doesn’t matter. Everyone around you is a babbling incoherent nincompoop. And just because they quote this or post links to that. Or they knew this or that freedom guy back in the day. Or they have a million site visitors.

    None of that matters. Just see the 3 card monte game for what it is. Even if its being run by a priest. Or ron paul. Or the ghost of murray rothbard. Or whatever. Just get it through your head that the guy in shawshank who finally got out of prison but couldn’t make it outside the bars, is everyone that’s still at this site.

    Anyone over 40 is a goner. I’m see the con, but its too late, I’ve caused to many other problems unrelated to the loss of freedom. Anyone who says there from somewhere. Or they are a part of something. They’re probably goners.

    What you should do is just get your wallet and your keys and just drive off and away. Abandon all your stuff and your situation. Just chuck everything and change your name and never tell anyone who you really are. Start all over. With a street name start totally clean and unknown.

    Because if you have a history. If they know you, they’ll find an angle to 3 card monty you. Because that’s all they do. That’s all the f-ing do. That’s all they’ll ever do. If you want to be free, that’s the only way that’s guaranteed to work. It’s your life. Maybe you don’t mind the game. And that’s okay.

    Not me. I spent too many years in the game already. At least I’m free, what little there is that’s still left of who I could have been. Maybe its something you should wait to do until later. Enjoy everything with abandon. Focus on the short term, and let it all go to shit. And then disappear.

    Don’t drive into a semi like some male model crybaby full of garbage philosophy and 3 card monte winning strategies that never fail. Because they always do fail. Only you can win. By wising up and no longer playing their game.

  11. @ancap- Under secular ethics, there IS NO REASON. That’s my point.

    It saddens me actually because most people here, frankly, have more Christian ethics than your average evangelical. But they don’t know where it comes from. And it only makes sense if you take their religion presumptions as false.

    Someone like Eric or Bevin would make a wonderful apologist for Biblical liberty.

    • Dear David,

      First of all, I want to acknowledge your comment that:
      “Someone like Eric or Bevin would make a wonderful apologist for Biblical liberty.”

      Second of all, I want to acknowledge your comment that:
      “It saddens me actually because most people here, frankly, have more Christian ethics than your average evangelical. But they don’t know where it comes from.”

      It was kind of you to make those flattering or “semi-flattering” remarks. But the fact is secular ethics, not “edicts from on high,” are the only truly objective, reality based, solidly grounded ethics that mankind can count on.

      The reason non-believers such as myself abide by the NAP most assuredly has nothing to do with being intimidated into obedience by “God Almighty.” I can’t be intimidated by “god” obviously, because I know that “god” as defined by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam cannot exist.

      The reason non-believers such as myself abide by the NAP has to do with an anthropocentric, philosophically-rooted respect for equal rights, as expressed in the Golden Rule, which predated Christianity by many centuries.

      The NAP has nothing to do with “God ordered me to obey.” It has everything to do with a sense of fair play.

      As the secular oriented Chinese philosopher Confucius put it, several centuries before Christianity came into existence.

      “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.”

      Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: “Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?”

      The Master replied: “How about ‘shu’ [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?”

      I truly cannot fathom why you think other people cannot be motivated by considerations other than your own, i.e., morbid fear of punishment by some invisible, tyrannical father figure in the sky.

      • Sorry Bev, but secular ethics is NOT objective, it is subjective. See Eric’s comment on “My reason tells me.”
        I know I may be in the minority, even (or especially) among Christians, but I do not follow God out of fear. I do my best to follow His teachings because He made me, and therefore knows best how I should live to maximize myself.
        The 1st 5 books of the Bible are known the original Hebrew as the Torah. It is commonly translated as “Law” but that is a poor translation. It is actually “Instruction.”
        David (I think) said once on another thread something to the effect that those who reject God revert to following the collective. That is obviously not true. But if you reject God as being greater than man, then “Man” becomes your god. It could be collective man, or it could be the individual man. But without SOME higher being, you are a humanist. “Man is the measure of all things.” And God preserve me from those. Even the best intentioned, like you and Eric seem to be, fail somewhere along the line.
        God created man in His own image, and put His standard within him. There are still varying amounts of that standard in each of us. Those that seem common have come to be called “Natural Law.” But what is so natural about “You shall not murder.” Ask a cannibal head hunter and he will say, “Nothing.”
        There is no “natural” law, only remnants of God’s instruction.

        • Hi Phillip,

          How is reason subjective?

          A is A… is it not?

          I realize we see through the proverbial glass, darkly. But this does not mean facts are a construct of the human brain. And if facts are objectively real things, irrespective of man’s belief (or lack thereof) then reason – if based on those facts – is an operable/viable mechanism for postulating rational statements about external reality… right?

          Thus, it is rational that I do not wish to be forcibly controlled and to have the things I have created and earned taken from me by force (or its threat). And it is rational – if I am not a hypocrite (and a sociopath) to object to others being controlled and having their things taken.

          And my rational mind tells me – truthfully – that other men feel fear and pain, as I do. If I do not wish to experience fear and pain, I empathize with the desire of other men to not experience fear and pain.

          None of the foregoing requires a god.

          It merely requires acknowledging our common humanity.

          • Eric – yes, A is A. And 1+1=2. But determining right and wrong based on your feelings and your belief that other share those feelings is subjective, highly so.
            I don’t want to fight about this, I just wanted to get my side out for consideration.
            For now, at least, can we agree to disagree?

            • Dear Phil,

              “But determining right and wrong based on your feelings and your belief that other share those feelings is subjective, highly so.”

              How is the Golden Rule based on “feelings???”

              The Golden Rule is based on reciprocity, equality, fairness, mutual respect.

              I treat you a certain way. Fact.

              You treat me the same way. Fact.

              The same treatment both ways. Fact.

              Fact = objective. Not “subjective.”

              These are objective, not subjective. That is precisely why the early Christians invoked it in their appeal to potential converts. Because they realized people would see the objective truth of the Golden Rule, and find the rest of their belief system more attractive as a result.

              Objective. Not subjective.

              If something this obvious still requires laborious argumentation, then I truly fear for the future of human rights and individual liberty.

          • And i guess my point is “god” never said anything. The Bible, written by literally thousands of people and have that many versions or more has nothing to do with a “higher” being or whatever you’d want to call it.

            Did god tell me today to abandon my truck, stuck on a RR track? Maybe, or maybe it was the perception, my own, that led me to believe what I know about physics that the train was very close and hauling ass. When I let my seat belt loose(goddamn sons a bitches MF’s killing POS, etc.), jumped from the seat landing on my won’t be ever healed thrice broken leg and sprinted like I was back in high school down the length of that truck and on past it, was that god or my mind figuring physics(real fast, faster than any computer) and coming to an instant conclusion of what my sorry ass would look like after having a big rig knocked on top of me by a train doing 60+mph. Just like that rabbit going 90 degrees to your car to get away, I was able to use a bit more sophisticated physics (and the fact I’d seen this happen before, even ran from the train and object it struck and clumb a big rig trailer to get above the fray)and ran as fast to the back of my trailer and beyond, beyond, to the point only fatigue slowed me to watch the train do it’s thing.

            God? Maybe so. The knowledge of physics, definitely. It was all so objective but at the same time, subjective to me.

            I continued to haul loads all day after this occurrence early this morn. I’m not sure what to account or hold accountable for this(except the RR and their sorry light and arms system)or many other factors.

            I look into my crystal ball and see a new truck. But right now, even though I’ve been in for 3 hours, I’ve only drunk 3 beers. I’ve had a lot of time to think about all these questions. No real concise conclusions yet. Many thanks to those who sent something to make me feel better.

            I’ve seen this several times in my life, had a couple friends lose their rigs and always wondered how it happened in a couple ways. The no signs, lights or bells is an easy thing to understand. The marked crossing that hasn’t worked in weeks and treelines that obscure your vision until you’re committed, I understand.

            Believe it or not, my truck that was left in reverse trying to move backward over that big crossbar, was the only reason it didn’t get sucked into the 2 mile train and be tiny pieces. Every time it got hit it went backward, a bit forward from impact and bounce, and backward again. Pavement shows where my wheels spun backward for minutes. It was a new one on me though, one I’d never seen and won’t get any closer and live to tell about it.

            God? Or Wile E seeing that missile coming at his side and went straight ahead on instinct(see, where does that come from?)

            I don’t know but I don’t want to play it again. God or fate or just plain sped up thinking recalling what I’d seen in the past and having learned which way to go, doesn’t matter. Not then and not now. Was it a warning or a test or something else? hell if I know. And why everything from just in front of the coolers was rent and no further is unexplainable. Having not bent that RR arm back and left the truck in reverse(only because i had time for nothing else). keeping it from being a total annihilation of a truck, me and various other things are, to me, for the most part, objective things that depended on highly subjective occurrences happening as they did. I’m going to lie down and try to be unconscious. Well, that makes no sense(maybe substitute objective and subjective in the previous sentence would be more accurate) but the rest of the day has been fairly much the same. Good night all. Tomorrow may not be better but it will be another day and in ways, it’s automatically better. Ain’t no guarantee any of us will see tomorrow. Farewell till the morn…..I sincerely hope…..for all of us.

                • Me2, they won’t do it, not in a rational way. They may read the words but be thinking it’s not true the entire time. It can’t be true….not for them…..then they’d have to rethink what and why they believe as they do and that’s anathema to the “you just have to have faith” crew.

                  Of course we all have “faith” of some sort. Mine is there are no givens and I can’t do something to someone else simply because I can use a line or paragraph from a book to justify whatever it is I want to do but know I’m transgressing against another. There are “religious” morals and then there are simply morals, empathy if you must, much as eric has said. I may not care for something someone else does but that doesn’t give me the right to stop them unless it directly harms me or someone else who is obviously suffering from it.

                  When true justice comes, as if it ever will, I’ll be the guy hauling 50,000 lbs of rope at a time to DC. Hang ’em high, about a quarter inch. Let them all “speak” with their deity(ies).

    • Hi David,

      There is, indeed a reason.

      Reason itself!

      I have tried to articulate this, but apparently have not succeeded. I will try again.

      My reason tells me that since I do not like being ordered about, having my property taken (and so on) other men probably do not like being ordered about and having their property taken. It seems reasonable that we each agree – for our own security – to refrain from ordering one another about and from taking the other’s things. If one of us violates this agreement, the violator no longer has any basis for objecting when the same sort of violation is visited upon him. Lord of the Flies. Coercive collectivism.

      But it is more than that – as I have explained.

      Empathy is reasonable, too.

      Is it necessary to elaborate the point?

      PS: There is no liberty in Christianity. You are free to do as your deity orders. If not, he will inflict eternal punishment. Your Old Testament in particular (which you may try to disavow, but I’d not go there since doing so opens you to a catastrophic critique of your theology) is full of flesh-rending barbarity imposed as punishment/retribution for “sins” against this deity and his various edicts; it’s shoved under the proverbial rug for obvious reasons.

      • I don’t disavow the Old Testament in any way. I think there are certain sections, like the whole “wipe out the Canaanites” bit, that were single time commands for a specific purpose at a specific point in time. Yes, there are things you can learn from those texts, but “go ahead and commit genocide” isn’t one of them.

        ANd there are certain sections that were only intended for one nation. Like “If a man lies with another man, let him be stoned to death.” That was the law in OT Israel. But it wasn’t intended for any country other than that one.

        It requires a certain degree of Bible Study and discernment to determine what parts are applicable when, and Christians disagree on those things (theonomists like Gary North would say the OT penal law is still in effect, for instance.)

        But I don’t “disavow” it. Same God.

        As for Christianity and liberty, it depends on what type of liberty you want. There’s no moral liberty to sin, that’s true enough. But that’s not true liberty.

        “reason” does not tell you that you shouldn’t bully other people. In fact, if Darwinism is true, reason says you SHOULD if you can, after all, its the most beneficial thing for you to do, survival of the fittest, etc. The only consistent ethical reason not to bully others needs to come from a transcendent moral law…

        • You’re quibbling, David. The Old Testament is dripping with horrific violence, with Sky Stalin’s priests acting as the NKVD goon squads of the ancient world. The ultra-violence only befell the “Israelites,” you say? … and that makes it ok?

          “Sin” is a religious notion that encompasses actions (and even mere thought) that entail no harm to any other person. Punishment for such is gratuitous, indefensible on other than arbitrary grounds (i.e., you have transgressed against a hypothesized entity).

          The NAP, in contrast, is defensible logically – on the basis of facts independent of mere belief (or lack of belief) in them. No person has been harmed? Then there has been no crime – and no punishment is justified.

          “The only consistent ethical reason not to bully others needs to come from a transcendent moral law…”

          Yes, the golden rule. Which requires no Sky Stalin.

        • Maybe you did not see this above David,


          While I don’t agree with every point on this site, it does raise some questions that you should investigate, honestly and without god-goggles.

          I see no point in dialogue with you as I think it would be a waste of time but I do challenge you actually read the site to at least possibly understand how bizarre, contradictory and plain ridiculous many of your assertions seem to many of us and why.

          • Basically trying engage in a dialogue with the “true believers” really is a waste of time. In response to a simple request to substantiate their extraordinary claims, what invariably pours forth is a torrent of circular reasoning and flawed/twisted logic. As far as they’re concerned it’s turtles all the way down.

            • Hi Jason,


              Yet, I am fascinated that people who are clearly not stupid and seem able to use reason (based on facts) in other areas have this blind spot when it comes to this “god stuff.”

              In particular, have this capacity to suspend disbelief – and not at least entertain some degree of uncertainty about (for example) this business of a supposedly monotheistic religion that clearly has at least two gods in it. They’ll contort themselves endlessly to avoid dealing with the obvious – that the Bible clearly has a “father” and a “son” and they are clearly two separate individuals, not “aspects” or “manifestations” of a single individual. It’s an obvious flaw with the theology – if the theology is insistent upon monotheism. You can’t have your God and Jesus and monotheism, too. But Christians just drive on… it baffles me.

              To be very clear: I do not pretend to have all the answers; there may very well be “something” numinous. I certainly can’t say that it’s impossible. But to go from having a mind open to such possibilities – receptive to new data – to “Jesus is Lord”…. well, it baffles me.

  12. Yo mama’s so statist, she made you register your squirt guns.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she broke her own windows to stimulate her economy.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she performs TSA patdowns on your friends when they come over to play.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she made you apply for a food preparation license so you could make your own peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she charged you a carbon tax for farting.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she drone bombed her neighbors because they envied her freedom.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she made you fill out a W2 for your allowance.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she waterboarded you to find out who started it.
    Yo mamma is so statist she required a 5 round dart limit be put on your Nerf gun.
    Yo mama is so statist, she gave her tax refund to the government.
    Your momma’s so statist she shot your puppy because there were no police around to do it.
    Yo mama is so statist she made me finish typing this in a free speech zone.
    Yo mama is so statist she taxes your allowance 40% and then redistributes some of it to the other kids.
    Yo mama is so statist, she calls 911 when you illegally download a song.
    Yo mama is so statist, she lets the public education system raise you.
    Yo mama is so statist she slapped a VAT on your homemade mother’s day card.
    Yo mamma is so statist that failure to obey her results in a SWAT raid and confiscation of all your belongings.
    Your mama is so statist, she makes you get a building permit to play with your lincoln logs.
    Yo mamma is so statist, she bought you a big wheel, then took you down to the DMV to get a driver’s license before you could ride it.
    Yo mama is so statist that she put a Cap on fathers day gifts.
    Yo mama is, so statist…aw, crap am I being detained?
    Yo mama’s so statist, she divorced your daddy so she could collect an even bigger welfare check.
    Yo momma’s so statist, she took your bottle of bubble stuff because she was worried it might be a bomb.
    Yo momma so statist; she made you clear your backpack with DHS before letting you back in the house.
    Yo mama’s so statist you went to summer camp at FEMA.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she grounded you whenever the neighbor’s kid got in trouble.
    Yo mama’s so statist she organized the Home School Teachers Union.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she wire taps the baby monitor.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she requires an environmental impact survey before you can build a sandcastle.
    Yo mama’s so statist your allowance is used to pay property tax on your Fisher Price My 1st Farm.
    Yo mama’s so statist she cancelled her own health plan to enroll in Obamacare.
    Yo mama’s so statist that she taxes your allowance so she can pay down the debt on the loan she took out to pay you an allowance.
    Yo mama’s so statist she went and got her breast milk approved by the government before feeding you
    Yo mama’s so statist she gave birth to you on a road
    Yo mama’s so statist she actually believes that the government can make her and her same-sex partner equal with a government issued form.
    Yo momma is so statist she reported HERSELF to CPS
    Yo momma is so statist she only started wearing her seatbelt after they made it the law.
    Yo mama so statist, every time she dates a new boyfriend, she files for a “going-steady” license so her relationships can be official.
    Yo mama so statist she wouldn’t burn a flag cuz it said MADE IN CHINA on it.
    Yo mama’s so statist she told you to go to Somalia if you don’t like being in timeout.
    Yo mama’s so statist she set up a customs checkpoint between the kitchen and the bathroom.
    Yo mama’s so statist she gave half your lemonade stand profits to your autistic little brother.
    Yo mama’s so ancap she bought your asthma medication on the darknet.
    Yo mama’s so ancap she tore up your birth certificate and re-issued it on the blockchain.
    Yo mama’s so statist she bans ‘Yo mama’s jokes’ because they are sexist.
    Yo mama’s so statist she transcribes and forwards all your conversations to the NSA.
    Yo momma’s so statist she made you register all the weapons from your G.I. Joe set.
    Yo mamma’s so statist she made you label Mr. Potato head with nutritional data.
    Yo mama so statist she requires a drivers license to play Hot Wheels.
    Yo mama so statist she collects sales tax at a garage sale.
    Yo mama’s so statist she sent you to public school.
    Yo mama’s so statist she had you for a tax deduction.
    Yo mama’s so ancap she asked if you wanted a spanking or an allowance deduction.
    Yo mama so ancap she farted in the forest and homesteaded 40 acres.
    Yo mama so ancap she told you if you put a tooth under your pillow, the Invisible Hand would place some shiny new Satoshis in your wallet the next morning!
    Yo mama so ancap she told the neighbors if they didn’t abate their noise pollution, she was going to call her enforcement agency.
    Yo mama so ancap she whispers “statist bastard” every time Ron Paul comes on the TV.
    Yo mama’s so ancap she builds her own roads.
    Yo mama’s so ancap she named you Rothbard Jr.
    Yo mama’s so ancap she owns a personal wage slave.
    Yo mama’s so statist that your allowance is in monopoly money.
    Yo mama’s so statist she attacks the neighbours, beats you up, and steals your stuff.
    Yo mama so statist she called the cops on you for chewing your poptart into an L shape.
    Yo mama’s so statist that your consent to her authority is implicit.
    Yo mama’s so statist, she put you timeout for using your easy bake oven without a food preparation license.
    Yo mama’s so statist she killed her family to prevent them exhaling CO2 to save the earth

    • “I didn’t put no bullets in the fire, and quit talkin’ about my mama.” – Bill Cosby
      ” You can say whatever you want about my sister, but don’t you EVER talk about my mother.” – Vinnie Barbarino

    • Tor, I think I know “yo mama”. She goes to the same church as a bunch of other “yo mamas”. Onward Christian soldiers marching as to war…..

      • I prefer to remember mama in her younger days. That’s still how she is in my mind, in spite of all the infirmities that are catching up to her in her older days.

        Mama says we got a new $1T box of mandatory spending chocolates:

        – Blocks new Transportation Department regulations that require truckers to get two nights of sleep before restarting the clock on their workweek. One effect of the rule was to shorten the maximum length of a trucker’s workweek from 82 hours to 70 hours.

        Hear ye hear ye 1.1 trillion spending plan hammerin on thru

        – Transportation. Provides $71 billion for transportation programs, including $40 billion in highway funding for states. Aid to Amtrak would be maintained at $1.4 billion.

        – Prohibits the use of funds for a “National Roadside Survey” by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

        baby baby Amy Grant

        We’ve let our mamas down. Once a month they have to walk around with a pad between their legs, and pretend like nothings wrong. Insane. Invent something better. And placing mamas precious babies in medieval torture castles instead of just housing inmates in office buildings like sane people would. Do we really need barbed wire and bars at this point. I mean come on, really.

        • yep Tor, mama didn’t used to be as demanding or shrill. I’m reminded of the local preacher, a true clover of clovers. He was coming back to town and failed to negotiate a curve properly. A guy, much like myself was coming the other way and damned near spilled his beer when he saw the preacher’s car swerve and roll up in the barditch. Without a thought for his own safety, gasoline pouring out and hot exhaust ticking, he wrenched open the door, drug the preacher out and stood him up. Being a nice guy he fetched the preacher a cold one right quick knowing even a Baptist needs a brew under dire circumstances. The preacher rejects his offer in his self-righteous way and then says “No, I don’t need alcoholic spirits, the good Lord was riding with me thank you”….in that cloverish, pinched asshole way. The good samaritan finishes his beer, opens the one he tried to give to the preacher and says with all the sincerity of a nice guy, “Well, preacher, you’d best let him ride with me, you’re gonna kill him”.

          • Yeah that’s my biggest beef with the priest class. They’re often incompetent at everything and then petulant about everything at the same time.

            I guess most of the priests I grew up with were harmless idiosyncratic boozehounds as near as I could tell. One of them was afraid to touch doorknobs and would get stuck in his room sometimes.

            I think Ron Paul would have made a good producer-priest the way they used to make ’em after the time of Moses.

            If the written record is correct, there was a long peaceful span where the founders of Israel were also the most successful farmers, ranchers, judges, and priests of the people.

            That Paul guy and his wacky misanthropic ideas poisoned the whole thing and the whole shebang might have to abandoned now.

            There’s no need for any kind of middleman between you and your maker these days anyway. I fail to see what their appeal is.

            Having a priest at your disposal is sort of like having a milkman or a stablehand around. Nothing much for him to do, but get in your way and cause you problems.

  13. There are powerful forces that want to make Ferguson about race. Races that are carefully maintained by vast power groups. By constraining minds within that narrative, the PTB make police state oppression into a sports competition in which one or the other of their races/teams/power groups will prevail.

    We know Ferguson is about whether people dressed up in costumes suddenly gain extra powers and abilities based on their titles and additional authorities. It is clear to us that they don’t. That the whole thing is a charade to maintain the status quo that serves the PTB.

    Likewise there is a similar false narrative that says people who wear special costumes created by religious institutions have extra powers and abilities based on their titles and authorities. Again we argue that they do not.

    We understand that the same PTB that create nation states also create religious movements. We seek only to opt out of these sporting competitions between religions and atheist social movements. This is another charade we fully reject and want nothing whatsoever to do with.
    – – –

    It seems like a good time to brush up on the non-aggression principle in detail.
    – – –

    Non-aggression principle

    The non-aggression principle (NAP)—also called the non-aggression axiom—is a moral principle that was first developed by Ayn Rand in 1961. In an essay called “Man’s Rights” she formulated:
    “The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use.” Her essays and presentations were later assembled and presented in detail in the book – The Virtue of Selfishness.

    The principle of non-aggression has since became a cornerstone of Objectivism and many popular strains of modern libertarianism. The NAP asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents of the NAP as any encroachment on property rights, is always illegitimate, no matter the consequences of abstaining from encroachment on property rights in a given context.

    According to some libertarians the NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person’s rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.

    The non-aggression principle has been derived by various philosophical approaches, including:

    1 Argumentation ethics: Some modern libertarian thinkers ground the non-aggression principle by an appeal to the necessary praxeological presuppositions of any ethical discourse. They claim that the very act of arguing for the initiation of aggression, as defined by the non-aggression principle is contradictory.

    2 Consequentialism: Some advocates base the non-aggression principle on rule utilitarianism or rule egoism. These approaches hold that though violations of the non-aggression principle cannot be claimed to be objectively immoral, adherence to it almost always leads to the best possible results, and so it should be accepted as a moral rule.

    3 Christian worldview: There is an emerging Biblical argument that the Natural Rights of Locke, Rothbard and others are most truly derived from the Biblical principles of Self-Stewardship and the Image of God in man.

    The rights to life, liberty and property derive from the fact that God has granted each person to be the steward of himself and none other, granting him the human authority to manage his own life and property, which morally requires him to do so according to God’s Law, but civilly requires him to respect the dignity and property rights of his neighbor.

    The Biblical purpose of Civil Government is to serve on behalf of individuals who have had their life, liberty, or property violated by another.

    4 Natural rights: Some derive the non-aggression principle deontologically by appealing to rights that are independent of civil or social convention. Such approaches often reference self-ownership, ethical intuitionism, or the right to life.

    This natural law tradition includes John Locke, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick.

    5 Objectivism: Ayn Rand rejected natural or inborn rights theories as well supernatural claims and instead proposed a philosophy based on observable reality along with a corresponding ethics based on the factual requirements of human life in a social context.

    Rand stressed that the political principle of non-aggression is not a primary and that it only has validity as a consequence of a more fundamental philosophy. For this reason, many of her conclusions differ from others who hold the NAP as an axiom or arrived at it differently.

    Rand proposed that man survives by identifying and using concepts in his rational mind since “no sensations, percepts, urges or instincts can do it; only a mind can.”

    She wrote, “since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it [such as initiatory force or fraud] is the evil.”

  14. The bible quotes in Bevin’s video match up nearly identically to the context section of this website:


    I mean I know this material pretty well, if it’s been subtly altered, I can usually tell.

    I don’t know how Barney Frank applies here. But I for one have no desire to carry any water or bear any burdens for the likes of him. It does seem there are billions of people who want gays kept out of their society. I absolutely support them in that, and would work to support them doing so in a non-violent non-property violating manner.

    Being human and free means living your own way with no compromise except adhering to the NAP. For many this means great differences in policy in regards to slavery, rape, parenting, and marriage than what I would advocate. The NAP means peacefully disagreeing on important matters, and allowing all to live as they choose voluntarily, regardless of one’s opinions and feelings.

    One of the effects of destroying free trade, is it appears feasible to enforce all manner of prohibitions and social norms across the entire population of the world. This is a fatal conceit and not the case in reality.

    Getting everyone on the same page on even one item is prohibitively expensive. The only way this can be accomplished is by way of a state so omnipotent that it has completely destroyed the free market and threatens the independence of everyone forced to live amid such an unwieldy behemoth.

    Here is a full listing of things warranting death according to the OT

    To me, the bible is a special kind of art, wherein people ascribed to it’s art school agree to be subjects of this art to one degree or another. It is art they worship. Art they sacrifice themselves for. It’s just one more way of living is all. Nothing more nor less.

    I tolerate free people’s decisions to be subject to whatever they wish. Even words written on a page.

    They might also decide to live according to the iambic pentameter of Shakespeare if it pleases them.

    Just don’t force me to live under your human fabricated books is all,

    Also, don’t go trillions of dollars into debt, and then force me to live under a human fabricated story called the State of Nevada. Or the country called the United States of America either.

    I want to live in peace on the earth and make my own story. Not be forced to live in somebody else’s Horror Story Hand-Me Downs. All these Koontzocracies. They are truly a horror to behold or endure.

  15. German tech that’ll prevent drunken speech-addled drivers from starting the car.

    What are you doing Dave? This is Hal. I am unable to allow you to start the car. Your speech and behavior are highly irregular. I detect that you are highly intoxicated. I have called Uber for you, your driver arrives in 5 minutes. Please remove your keys from the ignition and exit the vehicle before some hero comes along and beats the crap out of
    you and hauls you to jail.


  16. N. Branden
    Sentence Completion Programs

    Sentence completion is a technique that can be used to facilitate self-understanding and personal growth. The essence of the sentence completion procedure is to start with an incomplete sentence, a “sentence stem,” and to keep adding different endings, between six and ten, with the sole requirement being that each ending be a grammatical completion of the sentence.

    In each week of a program, you are given a block of four to six stems. Every morning, you write completions for all the stems in this week’s block. At the end of the week, you reflect on your answers for the week and perform another completion exercise to help you solidify what you have learned. The next week, you move on to the next block of stems in the program.

    Suppose the first stem in this week’s block is:

    To me, self-responsibility means…

    In the morning, before proceeding to the day’s business, write this down in a notebook or on the computer, then, as rapidly as possible, without pausing for reflection, write as many endings for that sentence as you can in two or three minutes – never less than six, and ten is enough.

    After doing six to ten endings for the first stem, go on to the morning’s next stem, and continue until all the morning’s stems are finished.

    When you are finished with the morning’s stems, proceed with your day’s business. Do this exercise every morning, Monday through Friday, before the start of the day’s business.

    Sometime each weekend, reread what you have written for the week, reflect on it, and then write a minimum of six endings for this stem:

    If any of what I wrote this week is true, it might be helpful if I…

    As with the weekday stems, the trick is to work as rapidly as possible, not pausing to “think,” inventing if you get stuck, without worrying if any particular ending is true, reasonable, or significant. Any ending is fine: Just keep going.

    When doing sentence completions, the idea is to empty your mind of any expectations concerning what will happen or what is “supposed” to happen. Do not impose any demands on the situation. Try to empty your mind of anticipations. Do the exercise, go about your day’s activities, and merely notice any differences in how you feel or how you operate.

    The art of doing sentence completion well is to maintain a high level of mental focus combined with a complete lack of internal censorship. Doing sentence completion on a daily basis as described here is a kind of psychological discipline, a spiritual practice, even, that over time achieves insight, integration, and spontaneous behavior change.

    Week 1
    If I bring more awareness to my life today…
    If I take more responsibility for my choices and actions today…
    If pay more attention to how I deal with people today…
    If I boost my energy level by 5 percent today…

    Week 2
    If I bring 5 percent more awareness to my important relationships…
    If I bring 5 percent more awareness to my insecurities…
    If I bring 5 percent more awareness to my deepest needs and wants…
    If I bring 5 percent more awareness to my emotions…

    Week 3
    If I treat listening as a creative act…
    If I notice how people are affected by the quality of my listening…
    If I bring more awareness to my dealings with people today…
    If I commit to dealing with people fairly and benevolently…

    Week 4
    If I bring a higher level of self-esteem to my activities today…
    If I bring a higher level of self-esteem to my dealings with people today…
    If I am 5 percent more self-accepting today…
    If I am self-accepting even when I make mistakes…
    If I am self-accepting even when I feel confused and overwhelmed…

    • Dear Tor,

      I participated in many of Branden’s three day long psychology workshops after he split with Rand. He called them “intensives,” short for “intensive workshops.”

      I was even in his group therapy sessions in LA for a couple of years. He and then wife Devers had a really nice house in Beverly Hills. I got to know him quite well on a personal basis.

      I meant what I said about him saving recovering Randroids from living in denial vis a vis human emotions. I don’t know where I would be without his guidance. He helped set me on a path of spiritual self-discovery.

      Really sad to hear of his passing, even though I had not contacted him in over 20 years.

      • Good morning, Bevin!

        I never met Branden, but did read about his break with Rand and subsequent efforts to parse the not-so-great aspects of Rand’s legacy. He sounded like a mensch; I would have enjoyed meeting him, I think. You’re fortunate that you had that opportunity!

  17. Say an infant is born with a disorder that will leave them mentally retarded to the point when they will never be able to enter agreements. Then what?

    • Hi David,

      I haven’t (forgive the malaprop) fleshed this out yet… however, I am inclining toward the view that inflicting pain on anything capable of feeling pain (excepting in self-defense against aggression)is quite possibly the moral wrong.

      I think most of us at least tacitly concede this, by dint of (as an example) our general revulsion at the idea of eating a pet cat or dog. If it’s “just an animal” and it has no rights…. well, why not? Is it merely the emotional attachment? If so, isn’t that pretty arbitrary – and superficial? Kind of like not killing our little sisters, because – hey, it’s my sister and I know her. But some random girl? Well, why not?

      • @Eric- I might shock you in a negative way with this, but I don’t see why it would be immoral to eat your dog or cat. Culturally unacceptable? Sure. But immoral? No.

        • Indeed, David. I applaud your consistency.

          For me, the idea (being repellent) nudges me to consider why I am ok with eating other living beings. I do not consider intelligence – or even the capacity to reason – as the qualifier to be said to have rights. Clover cannot (apparently) reason and is (obviously) unintelligent. But I would not eat him – and (other than defensively) recoil from the idea of hurting him, physically.

          It seems to me that the NAP forbids causing harm, per se. Not merely to other people. But to other beings that can be hurt.

          My mind is not made up, but I am considering the subject.

          • eric, I know a lot of farmers and cattlemen, sheep men and hog men. For the most part, no, to a high degree they do everything they can to avoid pain. I go the extra mile in delivering an injection, using the smallest needle I can just like I do with myself.

            I’ve had pigs who were smarter than some people I know and more empathetic too. I’ve “owned” many cattle that were virtually pets and would have lived in the house had i allowed it and in times of extreme weather you’ll find yourself doing things for farm animals simply to make their life better.

            Then comes the time when you must go by their size and slaughter them. What do you do with 1200 lbs of cow that thinks of you as a friend and feed trough? I’m bad about letting the friendly ones die of old age, not a good thing monetarily but then again, sometimes not even a monetary loss. Pigs who love to play games with you must eventually be eaten. Who wants a 1,000 lb pig “playing” with them?

            I don’t eat Butter, the tomcat or Cholley Jack but many cultures certainly would. I hear cat flautas are excellent and dogs are eaten for their delectability worldwide. It’s not an easy thing to figure out. I know Rocky the raccoon could be my pet but he ain’t and I’ll gun him down without a second thought after he killed Bread the cat. There really is no rhyme of reason I suppose, just a cultural thing.

            How about the fish who come when you ring the dinner bell…..and hang around just to watch you? Right now Bambi is hanging upside down in the barn and I bore absolutely no ill will to him but he’s sure gonna grace the table many times. Thanks Bambi.

            When I was a kid, my buddies and I were cold-blooded murderers who’d shoot anything that moved except dogs and cats. As I got older I began to shy away from killing unless I ate what I killed.

            Right now I’m watching a big, black calf walk by I have nick-named T-Bone. You can guess his fate(no nuts). Yesterday we enjoyed some exceptionally good goat sausage, one of those guy’s who’d come running to you.

            It is a conundrum. Obviously I have no answers, not any I’d want to force on anyone else for certain.

            About 20 years ago in the comment section of a local city paper this woman wrote in taking deer hunters and hunters in general to task. Then she committed a huge mistake, she compared her and her husband as crappie fishermen to hunters. You could barely hold a paper for weeks. Hunters took her to task by the droves and rightly pointed out they didn’t catch their prey by the mouth, pull them up from depths that made their flotation bladders explode out their mouth or have hooks in their guts or just swim around in a “live well” till you got ready to simply fillet them and throw their still wiggling bodies back into the water. Shitstorm doesn’t even do justice to the response she got. Nobody else has had the gall to ever do that again.

            I do thank animals I’ve killed for giving me sustenance and don’t take it lightly.

            You’d better have the cleanest hands ever though if you want to take me to task for hunting. “How can you kill Bambi?” Fairly easily with a .243. “Oh, that’s so cruel”. Oh yeah, ever been to the slaughterhouse where your meat comes from? That was brisket you were just chowing down on wasn’t it? And that was turkey beside it. I didn’t see you shed any tears for Porky.
            “Yes, but I didn’t kill it”. Ok, you just hire assassins to do your dirty work. Silence…….no more comment.

            I yam what I yam……and that’s all that I yam I guess. I don’t know what those who eat things they pay to have killed are…….just animals higher on the food chain? A subject with no easy answers for most if they use any introspection at all.

            • I couldn’t agree with you more Eight. I’m in the same boat with you. I have three Katahdin (sheep) wethers that come right up to me and expect to be scratched under the chin. They are arguably “pets” but they can do something I cannot; they turn grass into meat. My wife and I do everything we can to see to their comfort while they are here. They are never mistreated or neglected. Ultimately they will be eaten, but they will have a considerably better life with us than they would in the wild and probably live a lot longer too. Unlike a bear or mountain lion, when the time comes I will do the job quickly and humanely. I would never dream of biting (or cutting) chunks off of a living creature. A Cougar hasn’t even a hint of such moral compunction.

              Just yesterday we had to set our 200+ pound ram on his butt and trim his hooves. Since he doesn’t live on a rocky mountainside his hooves will overgrow and he will go lame. To let that happen, it seems to me, would be cruel (even though it would be easier for us). He even seemed to understand, although he struggled at the time (I think its embarassing for a full grown ram to have humans set him on his butt and give him a manicure in front of his ewes). But once we let him go he came right back up to me to get his ears scratched. Dumb they may be (I don’t count baaaaa as speech), but stupid they are not. And as odd as it may seem to some folks, I thank my hens for the eggs, my lambs for the meat and even a deer I kill or fish I catch. I owe them my gratitude for providing me with sustenance.

              I was just having this discussion with a good friend yesteray. He recently encountered a PETA p.i.t.a., that took him to task for having domestic animals. As he pointed out, there’s a reason why you see a wild turkey hen with a dozen chicks, a bitch wolf with 6 cubs or a pool teeming with 5000 tadpoles; in Nature most of them aren’t going to make it. Many of the one’s that don’t get eaten outright will get sick or injured and still die. The buzzards will get what the opossums don’t; anything left goes to bugs and worms. Nature is inherently cruel, whereas decent people are humane. Wild animals don’t get wormer, shots and feed or hay in the winter. There are no heaters to thaw the water when the creek freezes over like there are in our stock tanks. There’s no Great Pyrenees standing guard over a whitetail fawn to keep the coyotes at bay like my lambs and ewes have. Overall, our domestic animals have a consiberably easier and better quality life than their wild counterparts.

              So even though it pains me to kill anything, it’s quid pro quo. I provide them with a good life while they are here and they provide me with healthy meat. I’m just a lot closer to the process and therefore fully informed about it, rather than those you mention who have disconnected themselves from the harsh reality of it by hiring others to do the “wet work” (as Eric would put it). And to the vegans out there, I would remind them that plants are living things too and undoubtedly experience some type of discomfort when they are harvested. Isn’t that “cruel” as well? So the logical extension of that line of thinking would be to simply quit eating and die. After I see the vegans start doing that en masse maybe I’ll consider it too…for about a hot minute.

              • Yes, and besides the wonderful taste of lamb, having a few sheep beats the snot out of chasing/riding a mower.
                One of my old favorite posters at LRC (haven’t seen him in a while) was Humberto Fontova, Cuban refugee. He once agreed to a ‘setup’ appearance on the “Politically Incorrect” TV show to ‘debate’ 4 proponents (not counting host Bill Maher, who was decidedly NOT impartial) of ‘animal rights.’ He starts off by quoting one of PETA’s slogans, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy!” Then takes them to task for not allowing the boy to kill his own food like the other 3 do. One tries to claim “Pigs don’t kill their food.” He counters with, “Y’all come down to the bayou and watch.” Then Florence Henderson (aka Mrs. Brady from the Bunch) says, “My dog does not kill his own food.” To which the reply is, “No, because you hire someone to shoot a horse and put it in a can for him. More at:

              • I agree with you 100%, we think alike on this subject.It is the circle of life.Our day will come due someday and we will be worm food.Till then don’t be cruel and be thankful.I have come to the conclusion that death is not bad at all,and I don’t fear it.What I do fear,and despise ,is suffering.There is nothing in the world worse then suffering.

                • Just looking at the phrase, “the circle of life” and nothing else… not this thread.

                  I’m blown away by those who harp on about how they think there is no God, and how they come from nothing, and go into nothing,…which kind of seems to mean: Life is meaningless?

                  eric gets on David for proselytizing, but as I read here, I see People saying there is No God,… and the reasons why, they say,… I can’t see a difference between him and them. It seems like …

                  Why is one Ok on this blog, and not the other?

                  I really hate to write this, but, from this angle, ericpetersautos.com = anti God.

                  When I first found you guys, I thought everybody was a-ok with whatever beliefs, so long as the N.A.P. wasn’t violated.

                  I’m not getting that from this blog anymore.

                  If there’s no God, …why bother?

                  Pink: “If God is a DJ, life is a dance floor, love is a rhythm, you are the music.”

                  Are you mute? Mute is your motto?
                  I think atheists are bat shit … trying extra hard not to see beyond this dimension and are trapped within the four walls they create.

                  …I’m really disappointed in you guys. (Especially you, Tor)
                  It’s the ultimate, “Seeing beyond the trees”.
                  If you can’t do that, perhaps the world really is doomed.
                  And justly so.

                  …But WTF, I’m just one insignificant guy.
                  …Time will tell.

                  Roger Roger Out.

                  N.A.P. to you all. …And, Merry Christmas.

                  • Hi Helot,

                    I rarely initiate religious discussions. But I will respond when the subject is brought up.

                    To be clear: I have not unilaterally ruled out the idea of god. Such a being may indeed exist. I am open to the possibility, certainly. It’s interesting to discuss, definitely.

                    But that does not (to me) mean it must be the Christian god. I find the tenets of Christianity – and I mean no offense – unpersuasive for a variety of rational, logical reasons I’ve already gone into. And of course, these objections apply to other religions, too.

                    But I have no problem as such with people believing in the Christian god – or anything else – provided those beliefs don’t translate into actions that cause harm to others. The worry I and others who aren’t believers have is that religious people (not just Christians, obviously) often cannot abide our unbelief.

                    The history of religion gives very good reason for this worry.

                    And even today, we have the fearful example of religious people urging (or endorsing) the most extreme sanctions be imposed on those who violate what they believe to be “god’s law.” (Gary North is one depressing example.) They’re not content to worship their god and accept with equanimity that others do not believe he exists.

                    They not infrequently insist – threatening the most awful violence – that we “believe” (and obey) too.

                    • Gary North is

                      A: Even less likely to “win” than we are.

                      B: Not nearly as bad politically as the average evangelical. Not even close. Neocons endorse FAR more bloodshed than North. And at least North is actually intelligent. I could debate scripture with him. Not so much your average flag-waving elephant in the pews…

                      Do I agree with all of North’s views? Not at all. You could probably guess which ones I don’t agree with. But, if you are putting theonomic reconstructionism on anywhere near the same plane as, say, neoconservatism, you most likely don’t actually understand theonomic reconstructionism.

                      That said, I can’t say I’d really expect a secular libertarian to particularly like North. Its worth noting that Rothbard did. And Ron Paul employed him.

                    • Hi David,

                      I agree North is intelligent (I don’t think I suggested otherwise) and no, I do not expect (nor do I want) people to agree on everything, or even most things.

                      Just one thing – the NAP.

                      If North takes the position that it’s acceptable – “righteous” – to execute people who’ve committed no aggression against anyone – but whom he believes have “sinned” – then his commitment to the freedom philosophy is deeply and horribly flawed.

                    • Dear David,

                      Re: Gary North et al.

                      Politics often involves ad hoc alliances that do not require across the board agreement on all matters.

                      I don’t see a problem with that.

                      I think I proved that I meant that when I supported Ron Paul.

                    • Theonomists more or less think of certain sins, such as homosexuality and adultery, as treason against the family unit. This seems FAR more reasonable to me than the nebulous idea of treason against the “State” that is consistently upheld today (I once heard Joel McDurmon, another theonomist, say that the idea of treason against the State is completely foreign to the Bible.)

                      Now, I am not saying I agree with North’s position (I don’t, although I do think you could make a reasonable case that adultery is at least in some cases aggressive.) I’m just putting things into perspective. Theonomists are far closer to what I believe than your standard clovers…

                      Theonomists like North also support FAR smaller governments than the status quo. Structurally you are talking about a government that is essentially minarchist in size, and a very small set of laws (As I’ve said before, there are only 613 in the Old Testament and the vast majority of them have no enforcement provisions.) I’d MUCH prefer that over the bureaucratic nightmare we have today. Its not even close.

                      Here’s a good discussion on theonomy (and why its wrong) from a Christian ancap:


                      At the very minimum, if you can’t get through the whole thing, read the last paragraph. Better yet the last three paragraphs…

                  • Dear helot,

                    I thought the crucial distinction was already crystal clear. But judging from your comment, apparently it isn’t. So let me try to clear the air.

                    As I see it, the disagreement between theists and atheists is not about any external actions anyone might take, but about inner convictions people hold.

                    Since everyone has sworn up and down that they will strictly abide by the NAP, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists, then no one is planning to take any external action that would violate the others’ rights. Correct?

                    Assuming that is the case, then the only remaining issue is peoples’ inner convictions.

                    Theists such as David say they think atheism fails to offer a reliable moral foundation for the NAP.

                    Conversely, atheists such as myself think just the opposite. We think theism fails to offer a reliable moral foundation for the NAP.

                    Are we “okay” with each other?

                    Well, yes and no.

                    The answer is “yes” if one is talking about external action. I for one, would never violate a theist’s rights because I do not share his religious beliefs.

                    I am also going to take theists at their word when they say they will not allow their often intense attachment to religious precepts undermine their commitment to respect the rights of infidels.

                    The answer is “no” if one is talking about intellectual dissent. If David says “I hate to reopen a can of worms, BUT… ” and then goes on to insist that “Without God, the NAP cannot stand!” then I will respond.

                    Is that a problem? I for one don’t think it should be. After all, we all swore up and down that neither side would violate the NAP. Presumably our word is our bond, right?

                    If so, the rest is just talk. Mere intellectual dissent. All anybody intends to do, is just talk, correct?

                    As long as the both sides consider the NAP sacrosanct, what harm is there in debating these issues? I don’t think there is.

                    Nobody is going to pull out a gun, right? We libertarians leave that to the clovers, right?

                    I say there is no problem. I hope you will agree.

                    • Comparing different modern cultures, I have to say East Asians come the closest to ‘live and let live’ in their way of thinking. They do not care to proselytize or impose their beliefs on others, and are happy to follow their ancient superstitions without judging others. I don’t think most worship anything beyond Mammon, which is a-ok in my book.
                      Unfortunately the Christian churches are making significant inroads in these communities, possibly due to their increasing westernization and atomization, which results in people wanting to be part of something bigger than themselves. Some choose ‘God’, and some choose a human deity like Mao or Hitler.

                    • Hi Escher,

                      I find East Asian spiritualism – specifically, Buddhism – much more appealing, precisely because of its humanism and live – and let live – ethos.

                      Evangelical Christianity annoys me because it is evangelical. Its adherents are afflicted with poor table manners. They bring up “good news” others are not interested in hearing. (I’ve never had to interrupt my work to deal with Buddhists at my door.)

                      Worse, they’re often not content to just evangelize. Overtly – and implicitly – theirs is a religion of join us… or else. They may not have the ability to impose their religion by the sword at the moment. But what would they do if they had the power to do exactly that? History gives a gruesome account that ought to be a warning in perpetuity. All the Abrahamic religions are innately “our way – or else.” Utterly convinced of the absolute rightness of their dogmas – and of the moral defectiveness of those who do not agree. Such others are not merely of a different opinion. They are badevil… and must be dealt with accordingly.

                    • @Eric- I think the average evangelical Christian is just politically duped, which probably annoys me even more than it does you because these are the types of people I’m regularly surrounded with. And, I’m not going to lie to you, if you were ever to convert to Christianity, that would be something you’d have to deal with again.

                      But, I don’t think they really want to send SWAT teams to your door and force you to convert. Most Christians believe in free-will, that you have to make a choice to accept Christ into your life, and that’s not something that can be forced. There are a minority of Christians, including me, who are Calvinists. But even there, we believe only God can cause the change of heart necessary for conversion. We can’t do it, and we certainly couldn’t do it with guns.

                      There are a minority of Calvinists (theonomists like Gary North) who do want to punish public blasphemy (note that I do NOT agree with this) but even then they are doing that because they want to enforce OT law and maintain a Christian CULTURE, not enforce conversions. Even in the OT private practice of non-Christian religions would be allowed for.

                      I don’t know of anyone who would want to convert people at the guns of the State. There are evangelicals who want to use the sword of the State for virtually everything else under the sun: redistributions of wealth, drug wars (because evil weed propaganda and such), gun control, wars to “spread democracy” and so forth… but not for forced conversions.

                      Of course, we recently found out that the CIA tried to torture Islam out of people, so I’ve been surprised before. Maybe there are a few. There aren’t many. At the risk of no true scotsman, I don’t think of these types of people as evangelicals.

                      Regarding evangelism, I’m sometimes obnoxious to. That’s more due to poor social skills than anything to do with my faith. I’m even more obnoxious regarding politics.

                      My take is this. If someone knocks on your door because they want to have a discussion with you or whatever, I think that’s fine. If you ask them to leave, the only ethical thing to do would be to leave. Typically, when we have Jehovah’s Witnesses come to our door we’ll talk to them if we have the time, even though we know they have no clue what they’re talking about, because we want to tell them about Christianity.

                    • @Bevin- There are some disagreements regarding external actions. As far as crimes go, we mostly agree on those, though there are some variations (I think the unborn qualify as human lives for instance.) But we do agree on the core principle of the NAP, the disagreement with regards to that would primarily be how we justify it.

                      That said, there are actions I believe are sinful that don’t violate the NAP at all. Mind, that doesn’t mean I think those actions should be CRIMINAL, but I would hold that they are sinful. So, i don’t think it would be fair to say that we completely agree on ethics…

                    • Dear Escher,

                      Well said.

                      In fact, the danger is far from theoretical.

                      The Taiping Rebellion was a massive civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, against the ruling Manchu Qing dynasty.

                      It was a millenarian movement led by Hong Xiuquan, who announced that he had received visions, in which he learned that he was the younger brother of Jesus.

                      At least 20 million people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history.[4]

                      As you can see, my fears about theocracy are hardly paranoia.

                    • Dear David,

                      As many atheists in this forum have reiterated, the fear is that a deeper allegiance to religious law will trump a shallower allegiance to the secular ethical principle known as the Golden Rule or the NAP.

                      If theists can restrain themselves, then I have no problem with them thinking that certain acts that do not violate the NAP are “sins.”

                      As long as it remains an internal attitude and is not acted out against others, it is not a problem, for me.

                    • Amen, Bevin!

                      I can abide the religious notion of “sin” if it manifests as a benign/passive (and kept-to-oneself) internal monologue along the lines of: Gee, I can’t imagine doing that.

                      For instance, when I see a really fat person waddling through Wal-Mart, pushing a cart full of chips and soda.

                      I think it’s sad and gross – and would never allow myself to become like that (and would do something about it if I did become like that). But it would be my business – no one else’s.

                      I’d certainly never “preach” to the fat person – let alone apply force to compel him to hear and abide by my “good news” about eating right and exercising!

                    • Hi Eric,
                      Unfortunately what you and Bevin said about the Abrahamic religions is true. There has been a lot of good done by Christians, such as setting up schools and introducing modern ways to poor communities in Africa, Latin America and Asia, and the beauty of Christian architecture and hymns can move the soul. Unfortunately it is all inseparable from the larger agenda of conversion. Modern Christians use a softer approach, and Muslims still rely on the tried and tested sword. No wonder Islam has bloody borders, as Huntington said.

                    • Hi Escher,

                      Thanks for the back up!

                      I have nothing, per se, against religious belief. I just don’t believe. So long as the believer is willing to accept that his beliefs* impose no enforceable obligations on others – and the non-believer doesn’t demand the believer stop believing – everything is, as they say, cool.

                      The problem with the Abrahamic religions, historically (as well as in terms of their theology) is that they are not content to “live – and let live.”

                      It’s kinda like socialism. I’d be fine with it, if socialists only “socialized” other willing socialists – and left the rest of us alone!

                      * “belief” meaning ideas about god, what this alleged being demands, “sin” and so on.

                    • Dear Eric,

                      Your analogy with obesity is dead on.

                      As you and many other libertarians, including myself have warned, legal controls on cigarettes and nicotine would eventually lead to legal controls on food and calories.

                      Michael Bloomberg and his successor Bill de Blasio have both demanded legal limits on the size of soft drinks sold.

                      One could of course point out the idiocy of this, as one can simply buy two cups instead of one. But that would miss the real danger of the law.

                      The real danger is conceding the underlying principle, i.e., the “myth of authority.”

                      The Myth of Authority: the myth that people with something called “authority” may violate the rights of people without it.
                      — Quotations from Chairman Zhu

                      Whenever We the Sheeple concede this principle, even implicitly, the totalitarian ratchet inevitably gets tightened another notch. Click!

                      Over time, we wind up where we are today. One can only imagine where we will be tomorrow.

                      Unless we put our feet down and say “No more!,” the process will never stop. It will go on until we wind up with compulsory implanted RIFD chips or even in the pods depicted in The Matrix.

                    • If some relatively modern person thought he was the “brother of Jesus”, he obviously didn’t understand the Bible very well. If I’m thinking of the right guy, that guy was a communist as well. Which the Bible is not.

                      RJ Rushdoony (the founder of the modern Reconstruction movement) once said “Biblical theocracy is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.” The modern theonomist movement, including Gary North, subscribe to similar views as Rushdoony.

                      Is every point of their philosophy in line with libertarianism? No.

                      But I submit that Biblical theocracy in the way Rushdoony and North have defined it is FAR less oppressive a form of government than what we have today.

                      Things reconstructionists agree with libertarians on:

                      Minarchist government that does nothing but enforce justice (yes, I realize that most of us are an-caps)

                      Sound money (no fiat money or Federal reserve)

                      No gun control at all

                      Virtually no economic regulations (I don’t even know if there are any)

                      Privatized roads

                      Ending the war on drugs, legalizing all drugs

                      No tax rates equal to or higher than 10% allowed (per 1 Samuel 8… Joel McDurmon goes one step further and says there shouldn’t be any taxes at all).

                      No government spying program. No government TSA.

                      No foreign policy interventionism. War for purposes of self-defense only.

                      Often opposed to all police, or at least a radically different conception of the police.

                      Making most political decisions at the county level.

                      Now, I am not saying everyone who calls themselves a theonomist or “Christian theocrat” agrees with all of those things. But, this is as far as I understand what Gary North believes.

                      Now, yes, theonomists would enforce capital penalties against public blasphemy, homosexual sex, adultery, among other things where there is no direct victim. And I don’t agree with you on those things. But as far as I understand the viewpoint:

                      first of all, they’re looking to do that one county at a time, they aren’t looking to impose it from the top down.

                      Second of all, they aren’t going to be spying on people to try to find people who break those laws. There would have to be two or three witnesses before enforcement could occur.

                      Third of all, they are postmillennialists generally, so they’re envisioning a Christianized culture.

                      I’d say they have more in common with us than not, all those things considered…

                    • Dear David,

                      You wrote,

                      ‘If some relatively modern person thought he was the “brother of Jesus”, he obviously didn’t understand the Bible very well. ‘

                      Tell me you realize, in retrospect, how unintentionally laughable that sounds.

                      The whole point of theistic faith, including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is that it is founded on baseless and subjective assertions. It is the “normalization of confirmation bias.”

                      “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.”
                      — Saint Augustine

                      Augustine of Hippo, also known as Saint Augustine or Saint Austin, was an early Christian theologian and philosopher whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity and Western philosophy. He is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers in the Western Christianity.

                      Hong’s faith based religious assertions are no more or no less absurd than those of Joseph Smith or Mohammed or Jesus.

                • Ditto that, Getcha!

                  We do the best we can with what we’ve got… and then our time is up.

                  I like Bill & Ted’s motto: Be excellent to each other. In a way, that was a wonderful Libertarian film.

                  • That’s pretty much how I live.I try and be good to others at least leave them alone.I just don’t get the urge to control others,unfortunately most are not like me.I cannot stand most of the people I work with(and I am sure they are a Microcosm of Humanity),they are all in each others business,worried about everybody else’s personal lives.I just can’t comprehend it.It’s very cloverish,this wanting to control others.I just want to be left alone and I will leave you alone.What is the big problem????

                    • Hi Getcha,

                      Me, too.

                      But – as you describe – most people are not like us. The reason? There are many factors, I suppose, but the big one is generations of conditioning. Government schools. The “universal” culture we swim in that assumes authoritarian premises for everything. Most people never question it. And thus, everything proceeds from it.

                    • Eric – “The “universal” culture we swim in that assumes authoritarian premises for everything. Most people never question it.”

                      Indeed. I am skipping the Christmas gathering this year for this very reason. I can’t stand to be in the company of the ignorant yet arrogant, incurious, state worshiping fools any more.

                      After the Thanksgiving experience, there is no joy in being in a room full of people who……….(I was going to specify what type of people but statistically speaking and within the margin of error, it’s all of them)

  18. There were 365 years(1244 BC to 879 BC) when Jews/Christians/Muslims had no king.

    Since the Jews had no king, when they needed guidance they turned to “judges,” who were both warriors and prophets.

    The Talmud calls the Book of Judges, “the Book of the Straight.”


    Because the ultimate goal of every Jew is to use his free will to work out what is wrong and right, using the Torah as a guide. And this is what happens during Times of Judges.

    In those days, there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in his eyes. Perhaps this time is returning to today’s men of faith.

    There was no anarchy; the vast majority of Jews were totally dedicated to Torah and were making decisions in the right way, and didn’t need someone tell them what to do. Indeed, that is the ideal situation.

    The tribes functioned as a loose confederation of states with strong central leadership arising ONLY when the nation was threatened by an external enemy.

    • Yes, ancient Israel was “anarchistic” in the philosophical sense, or at least it was close. The judges stepped in when needed but they didn’t domineer their fellow men.

      • In most cases, the judges were just the ‘elders’ of the city, to whom those with disputes would come for resolution. The Torah was their guide, and they would consult the priests if they were unclear on something. There were also ‘appellate’ judges, chosen by consensus, based on their demonstrated wisdom.
        The fact that ‘there was no king in Israel’ was not a compliment, because they were supposed to acknowledge God as their King. When they went to Samuel (the head judge at the time) and demanded a king, the problem was not the demand, per se, but their reason – so they could be like all the other nations around them.

        • Not to nitpick Sky Stalin doctrine, perhaps my diocese was in error?
          What I was told in Catholic school:

          God is our JUDGE in heaven. He will evaluate us as a farmer might evaluate his produce at harvest time.

          “For the winnowing fan is in his hand and he purges his threshing floor, and he gathers the wheat into his barns, and the chaff he will burn in fire that is not extinguished.”

          A judge over life and death and our status in eternity. Not a king who concerns himself with administrative fidelity. It seems like the word king is used only in response to human misunderstandings and as an attempt to clarify things.
          – – –

          1) Joshua describes the classic polity envisaged in the Torah, headed by God’s prime minister, paralleled by a high priest.

          This polity is responsible for the civil rule of the classic Israelite federal republic , what is much later to become known as the function of domain of civil rule and the domain of priesthood.

          Both share the task of interpreting the Torah-as-constitution, the function of the domain of constitutional interpretation. Both leaders function within the framework of a very active tribal federation in which the tribal leadership plays a vital role. The regime is presented as generally successful and classic in its form.

          The Regime of the Judges

          Joshua presents a picture of the classic Mosaic regime in its ideal manifestation, the Book of Judges presents a picture of a far different reality. By that reality, Israel shifts from being a reasonably strong federation to a weak confederation, operationally hardly more than a league at times.

          According to the Bible, the Assembly of Israelites — the accepted term for the Jewish commonwealth used in the Bible and subsequently in Jewish halakhic [legal] literature took a new turn after the end of “the polity settled by Moses” that came with the death of Joshua.

          While the tribes were still linked by covenant, the Israelites shifted to less institutionalized national government, rooted more in tribal and local custom, modified only by the emergence of charismatic judges in times of crisis who emerge as civil and military leaders as needed.

          Governmentally, the national political system came close to anarchy. This had consequences in internal affairs including problems in the maintenance of the covenant among the tribes as well in external affairs in dealing with “barbarian” invasions, wars with local Canaanites, and, in the end, the Philistine menace. Gideon, Jeptha, and Samson were the most famous military heroes with varying degrees of peacetime authority.

          Kingship is directly and indirectly presented as religiously and constitutionally wrong throughout the bible. Gideon specifically turns down the people’s offer that he become their king for religious and constitutional reasons. His offspring, Abimelekh, who is portrayed as an improper ruler in every respect, from his ancestry, his seizure of power, and his personality, tries to impose monarchic hierarchy on Israel. This unconstitutional effort is viewed very disapprovingly in the book.

          The only references to kingship that could possibly be interpreted positively are the references to “there was no king in Israel” which come after the decline is in full swing. Picked up by later generations of apologists for the monarchy, I would suggest that they need to be read in the context of a major prophetic shift from an anti-monarchic position to one that sees kingship as a necessary evil and is on the way to viewing kingship as a punishment, where the king is portrayed by the prophets as someone who is legitimately entitled to usurp the rights of the people.

          Thus a sequence is established. The ideal righteous regime is established with a maximally public-spirited citizenry led by republican leadership as presented in the Book of Joshua. The deterioration of this regime is presented in the Book of Judges. The consequences of that deterioration, namely the downfall of the republic, is portrayed in the two Books of Samuel, followed by the downfall of the monarchic regime, first in the north and then in the south in the two Books of Kings.

          Nevertheless, at the beginning, the book seems very accepting of the regime. Even the rhythm of backsliding and redemption seems to be part of the regular rhythms of life, i.e., peace and prosperity, religious backsliding, the emergence of a charismatic judge to lead the people to redemption in security matters by returning them to the true ways of God-fearing, thus bringing a generation of peace before the process starts all over again.

          (The Bible, while not being strictly a book of history, has an historical sense, in other words, that life is dynamic and not static; therefore no single state of homeostasis is to be expected. Rather, there is to be a rhythm in events. The question is whether that rhythm is within the range of God-fearing or not. Obviously the prophets would have preferred it if the people would have remained God-fearing all the time, but apparently they could live with a degree of human weakness. It was only when that weakness passed an acceptable point that God’s punishments became other than limited and generational, to become more extensive and multigenerational. The progressively harsher tone of the Book of Judges as we have it, coupled with the consequences presented in I Samuel, suggest this. The more condemnatory tone develops only in the latter chapters of the book.

          If one emphasizes the documentary hypothesis of biblical criticism in its pure form, which does not seek coherence in the Bible and indeed rejects it, then this is easily explained. If, however, one believes that, however formed, the Bible as we have it is a coherent work, then the shift three-quarters of the way through the book must be accounted for in some reasonable way. Michael Walzer has suggested recently that the Bible has to be read as a dialogue between different viewpoints, much as later Jewish sacred literature, e.g., the Talmud. Judges would certainly fit his thesis.

          The book is written in the spirit of covenantal religion in the covenantal polity, although the only direct references to covenant are at the beginning. The first is, where a messenger of the Lord appears to the Israelites to accuse them of breaking God’s covenant with them by entering into covenants with the inhabitants of Canaan, which have allowed idolatry to persist in the land. In the end, as a punishment, God will not drive out the rest of the Canaanites. Upon hearing this the Israelites wept and named the site of the visitation “Bochim”, which means “They cried.” It is this visitation that sets the stage for what happens in the rest of the book. Judges, then, is the first book of the Bible based upon the playing out of the theme of the broken covenant.

          At two other points in the book there are special references to what would have been understood by the readers of the time as covenantal: Gideon defers the kingship proferred him by the Israelites on the grounds that according to the Israelite constitution only the Lord is to rule Israel as king; and then again in where the Israelites find a way to restore the tribe of Benjamin after its punishment for the gross incident of the murdered concubine. On the other hand, the pattern of backsliding and foreign invasion as punishment, repentence and redemption by a judge who mobilizes the people, is in itself the repetition of a covenantal pattern, but recognizes the reality of human weakness.

          The Israelite Tribal Federation

    • There were 365 years(1244 BC to 879 BC) when Jews/Christians/Muslims had no king.


      I do not think there were any Christians or Muslims during that (1244 BC to 879 BC) time frame.


      • Those labels didn’t exist certainly, but the people of that time are seen as proto-Christians, and proto-Muslims respectively.

        Christians consider themselves the rightful heirs of Judaism. Muslims consider themselves the rightful heirs of Judaism and Christianity.
        – – –

        Belief in the Books of God: Muslims believe that God revealed holy books or scriptures to a number of God’s messengers. These include the Quran (given to Muhammad), the Torah (given to Moses), the Gospel (given to Jesus), the Psalms (given to David), and the Scrolls (given to Abraham).

        Six Major Beliefs

        Belief in the Oneness of God: Muslims believe that God is the creator of all things, and that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. God has no offspring, no race, no gender, no body, and is unaffected by the characteristics of human life.

        Belief in the Angels of God: Muslims believe in angels, unseen beings who worship God and carry out God’s orders throughout the universe. The angel Gabriel brought the divine revelation to the prophets.

        Belief in the Books of God: Muslims believe that God revealed holy books or scriptures to a number of God’s messengers. These include the Quran (given to Muhammad), the Torah (given to Moses), the Gospel (given to Jesus), the Psalms (given to David), and the Scrolls (given to Abraham). Muslims believe that these earlier scriptures in their original form were divinely revealed, but that only the Quran remains as it was first revealed to the prophet Muhammad.

        Belief in the Prophets or Messengers of God: Muslims believe that God’s guidance has been revealed to humankind through specially appointed messengers, or prophets, throughout history, beginning with the first man, Adam, who is considered the first prophet. Twenty-five of these prophets are mentioned by name in the Quran, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. Muslims believe that Muhammad is the last in this line of prophets, sent for all humankind with the message of Islam.

        Belief in the Day of Judgment: Muslims believe that on the Day of Judgment, humans will be judged for their actions in this life; those who followed God’s guidance will be rewarded with paradise; those who rejected God’s guidance will be punished with hell.

        Belief in the Divine Decree: This article of faith addresses the question of God’s will. It can be expressed as the belief that everything is governed by divine decree, namely that whatever happens in one’s life is preordained, and that believers should respond to the good or bad that befalls them with thankfulness or patience. This concept does not negate the concept of “free will;” since humans do not have prior knowledge of God’s decree, they do have freedom of choice.
        – – –

        Jesus is believed to be descended from Abraham. Christianity is seen by Christians as being divinely ordained to succeed and replace Judaism. They are the only permitted Judaism. The new and correct kind of Judaism that must be followed. Or else death, as Bevin’s video explained quite well.

        Revelation 22:16
        “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

        Gospel of Matthew’s Geneology of Jesus:
        Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah & Tamar, Perez, Hezron
        Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon & Rahab, Boaz & Ruth
        Obed, Jesse, David & Bathsheba, Solomon & Naamah
        Rehoboam, Abijam, Asa, Jehosaphat, Jehoram
        Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh
        Amon, Josiah, Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel
        Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud
        Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph & Mary, and at last: Jesus

        – I have no quarrel with guns. But every quarrel with gun-vermin (govt)
        – I have no quarrel with god. But every quarrel with god-vermin (govt)

        Larken Rose – National Security

        Nations care about themselves and their power. And nothing about you.
        Religions care about themselves and their power. And nothing about you.
        – —
        Mysticism of Spirit and of Muscle

        Mysticism of God-Vermin and Mystics of Gun-Vermin

        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.

        Selfishness—say both—is man’s evil. Man’s good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.

        The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.

        They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present.

        What is the nature of that superior world to which they sacrifice the world that exists? The mystics of spirit curse matter, the mystics of muscle curse profit. The first wish men to profit by renouncing the earth, the second wish men to inherit the earth by renouncing all profit.

        Their non-material, non-profit worlds are realms where rivers run with milk and coffee, where wine spurts from rocks at their command, where pastry drops on them from clouds at the price of opening their mouth. On this material, profit-chasing earth, an enormous investment of virtue—of intelligence, integrity, energy, skill—is required to construct a railroad to carry them the distance of one mile; in their non-material, nonprofit world, they travel from planet to planet at the cost of a wish. If an honest person asks them: “How?”—they answer with righteous scorn that a “how” is the concept of vulgar realists; the concept of superior spirits is “Somehow.” On this earth restricted by matter and profit, rewards are achieved by thought; in a world set free of such restrictions rewards are achieved by wishing.

        And that is the whole of their shabby secret. The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality—is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish.

        For centuries, the mystics of spirit have proclaimed that faith is superior to reason, but have not dared deny the existence of reason. Their heirs and product, the mystics of muscle, have completed their job and achieved their dream: they proclaim that everything is faith, and call it a revolt against believing. As revolt against unproved assertions, they proclaim that nothing can be proved; as revolt against supernatural knowledge, they proclaim that no knowledge is possible; as revolt against the enemies of science, they proclaim that science is superstition; as revolt against the enslavement of the mind, they proclaim that there is no mind.

  19. If God exists, and I think there’s far more evidence that he does than the inverse, I would think what he would have to say is pretty important.

    If God does not exist, I don’t think terms like “right” and “wrong” are anything more than social conveniences, which seems like what Eric is saying. So, non-aggression is all well and good, but if State aggression leads to better results, who are we to say its “wrong”?

    Heck, how do we define what “good results” are? Maybe survival of the fittest is the best result?

    At some level I think rulers are an unavoidable reality. Either rule by God, or rule by men. I by far prefer the former. ” No King but Christ.”

    • Hi David,

      Check your premises (and word choice!)

      The state does not commit aggression. People do.

      The state is no more a reality than “society.”

      I prefer to be ruled by none. And while I may have no choice but to submit to it, I will never accept it.

      • I agree that “the State” Is just people. But, who says people shouldn’t engage in aggression when convenient? Where does the moral indiction come from?

        If its conveniance, as you say, it can be disregarded when inconvenient. Nevermind the presupposition that convenience matters, or even the convenience of other people.

        • Hi David,

          Because it means a free-for-all. Because if Smith steals because he can – and that makes it ok to steal – then why shouldn’t Jones also steal, if he can?

          But it is more than just practical/self-interest. There is our sense of empathy. I don’t like being the object of aggression; therefore (as a human being) I should feel a gut dislike at the prospect of someone else being the object of aggression.

          Neither position requires falling back on “because god.”

          Besides, there’s something bleak about this business of being decent not because it’s the cool thing to do to be decent to our fellows – but because Sky Stalin tells us so.

          • Here’s the real question Eric. Why do you care about being decent to your fellow man? Why does that matter? Why does it matter if its a free for all? This conversation actually sort of reminds me of statists “If it wasn’t for police there would be a free for all” or what have you.

            I submit that you care because you were made in God’s image, and God cares. Not just because its “practical.”

            • Dear David,

              You wrote:

              ‘This conversation actually sort of reminds me of statists “If it wasn’t for police there would be a free for all” or what have you.’

              Tell me you realize this refutes your argument, and not Eric’s.

              After all, what is your position, but,

              “If it wasn’t for god there would be a free for all?”

              Your argument is the statist argument in religious form.

              The statist argument is your religious argument in secular form.

              That is hardly surprising. Libertarians have long argued, correctly, that democracy is the statists’ secular faith, and voting is the statists’ secularized sacrament.

                • That video is hilarious. And all too true.

                  Being that the bible is nothing but cover to cover hate speech, I propose a sin tax of 10,000% on each one.

                  And that all of them be registered. If you own a bible, you have to keep it in a safe or it has to be put inside a mechanism that keeps it locked when its not in use.

                  You can only have them in your home and in your church. If you have to transport them, they have to be inside a safety orange pouch that has cautions and warnings all over it.

                  Seems about time the JudeoChristians get a taste of their own bitter idiocy they’ve been forcing down everyone’s throats all these years. If your mind offends thee, cast it out. Better to go through life brainless and with an empty skull, than to think of something sinful or impure.

                  The primitive mindset that likes being dictated to by the government is the exact same mentality that likes being threatened and abused by angry invisible overlords that live in outer space.

                  • Dear Tor,

                    Wasn’t it?

                    The crazy thing about it was that the quotes were all taken straight out of the bible. No need to misrepresent what was being said. No need to take anything out of context.

                    Nothing could have been more damning than the verbatim quotes, served up straight.

                    • Here’s the one I read cover to cover at the youngest age.

                      It’s like a mother’s little helper. A book of scary monsters that claim to love you very much. And who keep you in line like some vengeful omniscient bloodthirsty invisible babysitter.

                      Not unlike the govt. Or the cynical reality of “parenting.” Or the way we aggress against nearly everyone we meet. Pry into their affairs. Relentlessly badger them. Try to get inside their heads and fill them with doubt and fear.

                      This things sure scared the bejeebus out of me, and the funny thing is, neither of my parents are that devout or cowed by religious dogma. My Moms picks churches with the best architecture. Pops couldn’t give a flying frog’s hindquarters.

                      In my parents case, when they were young, they were working and then they were sleeping.

                      But I had things easy. My parents made things “better” for me. Which meant I had all the time in the world to really mutilate my mind by trying to make heads or tails out of things like that. It’s truly diabolical.

                    • I don’t read the bible, but I have a King James version. I looked up a couple of the quotes from the video. It is totally different than the version quoted in the video.

                      The bible has been translated so many times and intervened in by governments that it doesn’t represent God. Churches don’t represent God either. They are creations of men.

                      This video was about as impressive as a Barney Frank speech.

                    • Hi Ancap,

                      I agree.

                      But, of course, the problem you mention is precisely the problem. The Bible (and all religious texts) are the work of men, not gods. Written, re-written, edited and interpreted by men.

                      There may be a god. But the assertion that the Bible (or any religious text) is the authoritative “word” is preposterous because the “word” is subject to (and has already been subject to) almost infinite parsing and can be (and has been taken to be) many things to many different people. This is why there is a different congregation every half mile in my neck of the woods. They’re all Christians – but each have their own view of what “Christianity” means. And there’s no objective way for any of them to prove they’re in the right and the others are wrong!

                    • RE: “there is a different congregation every half mile in my neck of the woods. They’re all Christians – but each have their own view of what “Christianity” means. ”

                      Why do you constantly harsh on their mello?
                      i find that distressing and perplexing.

                      It all seems like perfect Panarchy to me.

                      Your thoughts are just another version of that very same Panacrchy.

                      …I think you know that. However… you seem to have this attack … Ah, Nevermind. …I give up trying… You’ve made up your mind… Free will.
                      Thank God for Free Will.
                      And, It’s strange that my fellow freedomistas have hard thoughts against me for believing in God.
                      It’s downright Bizarre how they fight against it. …As if their being alive didn’t quite prove a Thing.

                      George Washington Never crossed the Potomac!

                      Well, how do you know?

                    • Hi Helot,

                      It wasn’t my intention to be harsh – sorry it came across that way. It was just an observation. That is to say, Christians are of very different opinions as to what constitutes Christianity.

                      I’m not an atheist, incidentally. I am very open to the possibility of almost anything because there is much that is obviously beyond our ken.

                      But I’ve rejected Christianity for the same reason I reject Islam, or the other religions I’ve examined.

                • Bevin,

                  Why does a book, which has been translated hundreds of times, intervened in by governments throughout history, have to be the final arbiter of the nature of God?

                  I submit that it doesn’t. The errors contained therein, are the errors–sometimes outright lies–of men.

                  • Dear anacap,

                    The thing is, I have never said that “The Bible is the word of God.”

                    I don’t even believe there is a “god” as defined by Christian and other major religions. So how could I believe that some book represents what a non-existent being said?

                    David and millions of other Christians say it is the word of god/God. That’s something you can take up with him.

                    I was merely saying that IF this is what Christians believe in, THEN it is pretty dubious from a libertarian ethical perspective.

                    And it is in fact what SOME editions of “The Bible” say, as Tor as verified.

                • Bevin, I just watched your video (shame on me for wasting ten minutes of valuable life.) The most generous thing I can assume is that you have absolutely no knowledge of Bible interpretation, at all.

                  First of all, the maker of the video moronically asserts that things in the Bible are repulsive without explaining why. Furthermore, he ad hominems any of his opponents who might disagree with him. I am not a 21st century relativist, therefore, I WILL demand sound reasons for why slavery, genocide, execution of tens of millions of Americans, or whatever else are repulsive. Does that mean I support those things? No, of course not. BUt that doesn’t mean simply asserting it and expecting 21st century relativist emotions to kick in is actually an argument.

                  In the second place, the vast majority of Christians would hold that the Old Testament penal sanctions are only for Israel. A small minority of Christians (theonomists) would disagree with this. But even then, most of these people are looking to revert to Old Testament law one county at a time as society is Christianized (And as postmillennialists, they think that will eventually happen.) Also, modern legal code has so many laws nobody can possibly know them all. OT law has only 613 laws, the MAJORITY of which aren’t actually supposed to be enforced by government. Yes, eventually they’d like to get a point where society is mostly Christian and OT law is in place. No, they aren’t looking for an authoritarian top-down State to “kill tens of millions of Americans”. I don’t know of ANY Biblical exegete who wants to enforce OT death penalties where those aren’t even passed into law. The vast majority of Christians don’t even believe those laws were supposed to be enforced at all outside the OT theocracy.

                  Third of all, Biblical slavery primarily consists of someone selling themselves into temporary slavery as payment for a debt. Its not like modern Americans think of slavery where people are kidnapped and enslaved. In fact, OT law punishes kidnapping with death (ironically enough, police would be one of the biggest violators here, lol…)

                  Fourth of all, Jesus is not the idiot, the maker of the video is. I have NEVER heard a single Biblical exegete try to argue that the passage about “self-amputation” was anything but hyperbole. I think the maker of the video knew this to, hence he is a liar, HE is repulsive and evil. And that’s not by my standards, but God’s. The Bible says God hates liars.

                  Fifth of all, pretty much every passage about war in the Old Testament was a specific, single-instance command, and was never intended to be authoritative. I have multiple theonomist friends who agree with me on this point. Yes, I have heard some stupid people justify “collateral damage” based on those passages, but there are numerous problems with that.

                  Sixth of all, yes, according to the creation order women aren’t supposed to teach in the church. Does this make them inferior? Of course not. Its a difference in role. Men and women complement each other. Virtually ALL Americans agreed on this point until 1970 when radical egalitarians tried to push the idea that men and women are the same in every way. Really, this is the worst point on his list because I don’t see anything that’s even INTUITIVELY repulsive about this. Of course, that just means the idiot who made the video would call me “repulsive” rather than having an honest debate.

                  I’m done now. I don’t remember everything in that video, but I’ve refuted enough of it. Are there things in the Bible that make me uncomfortable and that I don’t understand? Sure there are. But I understand a heck of a lot more of it than any atheist on this planet. I actually understand basics of Biblical interpretation, this moron doesn’t.

                  Secular humanists can kill hundreds of thousands overseas as long as its for “secular” reasons, and butcher tens of millions of their own children in the womb, then call the Bible “repulsive” for far less. I’m guessing these people will never ask themselves why Jesus, Paul [after conversion to Christianity], Peter, John the Apostle, John the Baptist, or so many other figures in the Bible never killed anybody either.

                  You realize you aren’t helping the libertarian cause by doing this either, right? Calling God “Sky Stalin” will just make self-respecting believers who are not libertarians ignore you out of hand. Heck, I’m getting to the point where, even as a fellow an-cap, I’m pretty much ready to ignore you out of hand.

                  Here, this might help, its even from an atheist, Merry Christmas: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/walter-e-block/is-libertarianism-anti-religious/

                  Also, to paraphrase Murray Rothbard:

                  If communist Russia couldn’t destroy religion, libertarians certainly aren’t going to destroy it with a few Randian syllogisms.

                  I’d love you guys to become believers, but I’m not expecting that. You don’t have to believe to treat the Bible fairly though. You don’t even have to agree with everything in the Bible to treat it fairly…

                  • Dear David,

                    ” The most generous thing I can assume is that you have absolutely no knowledge of Bible interpretation, at all.”

                    I didn’t interpret it. I merely read it.

                    The part that struck me as somewhat at odds with the NAP was:

                    “Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.”

                    As I said, I didn’t interpret it. I merely read it.


                    New International Version
                    For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.

                    New Living Translation
                    You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.

                    English Standard Version
                    Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

                    New American Standard Bible
                    ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

                    King James Bible
                    Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                    Holman Christian Standard Bible
                    Work may be done for six days, but on the seventh day there must be a Sabbath of complete rest, dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

                    International Standard Version
                    Work may be done for six days, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does work on the Sabbath is certainly to die.

                    NET Bible
                    Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must surely be put to death.

                    GOD’S WORD® Translation
                    You may work for six days, but the seventh day is a day of worship, a day when you don’t work. It is holy to the LORD. Whoever works on that day must be put to death.

                    Jubilee Bible 2000
                    Six days shall work be done; but the seventh, the sabbath of rest, shall be holy to the LORD; whoever does any work in the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

                    King James 2000 Bible
                    Six days may work be done; but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever does any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                    American King James Version
                    Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whoever does any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                    American Standard Version
                    Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jehovah: whosoever doeth any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                    Douay-Rheims Bible
                    Six days shall you do work: in the seventh day is the sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord. Every one that shall do any work on this day, shall die.

                    Darby Bible Translation
                    Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, holy to Jehovah: whoever doeth work on the sabbath day shall certainly be put to death.

                    English Revised Version
                    Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                    Webster’s Bible Translation
                    Six days may work be done, but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whoever doeth any work in the sabbath-day, he shall surely be put to death.

                    World English Bible
                    Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

                    Young’s Literal Translation
                    Six days is work done, and in the seventh day is a sabbath of holy rest to Jehovah; any who doeth work in the sabbath-day is certainly put to death,

                  • Dear David,

                    “You don’t have to believe to treat the Bible fairly though. You don’t even have to agree with everything in the Bible to treat it fairly… ”

                    As I noted in my previous comment, I didn’t “treat” the Bible any particular way, either “fairly” or “unfairly.”

                    I merely read it, then pointed it out to you.

                    How is expressing disapproval of the death penalty merely for working on Sunday “treating the Bible unfairly?”

                    If you think that puts the Bible in a bad light, what does that say about the Bible?

                    The many variants on

                    “Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.”

                    are hardly consistent with the NAP.

                    • I’m often willing to presume the NAP when I’m talking to another libertarian, but really, the NAP is not my starting presupposition. Scripture and logic are my two starting presuppositions, and I build a worldview from those two things. I may not do it perfectly, but that’s my goal.

                      Now, the Bible never, ever says anyone should be put to death for working on Sunday. The OT Sabbath was Saturday. Maybe learn these basic details before commenting on the Bible? Yes, I know its equally an issue either way, but at least knowing what you’re talking about before commenting would be a good idea. Then again, anti-theists are to the Bible what clovers are to libertarian theory… no reading comprehension…

                      The fact of the matter is that no Biblical exegete has ever advocated “rounding up tens of millions of Americans and killing them for not keeping the Sabbath Day”. Not one. Considering the fact that Bible interpretation is often controversial and given the fact that not all Biblical exegetes are modern and have western values, this is a fact that says a lot.

                      A strict theonomist (and even theonomists differ on this point, depending on how exactly one interprets certain NT texts) would want to change the law to honor the Sabbath Day in his county, and ONLY THEN enforce said law against people who break that law in the presence of two or three witnesses.

                      I can understand why you would have a problem with this. I actually don’t think the people who believe this are correctly interpreting the text. But, this is far different from the strawman that the moron who made that video and didn’t do any exegetical work tried to do. I honestly think a five year old Christian child could do better than that guy. Seriously.

                      I think that some form of the NAP is the best way to interpret the combined result of several NT commands (as well as Proverbs 3:30). I think that’s the way Christians are supposed to live, more or less. (I say “more or less” because I believe that Biblical ethics would endorse small violations of the strictest versions of NAP. I believe parents would have a right to spank their children, for instance. And I think it would be wrong to stand by and watch as a man who is overcome with depression leaps off a cliff without trying to stop him.) But I don’t think the NAP is in and of itself a transcendent moral absolute. And I believe God made several exceptions to it in the OT (even as he endorsed it as a general rule in Proverbs 3:30.)

                      Are there things in the Old Testament that make me uncomfortable? Sure they are. That discomfort is mitigated by, you know, actually having some limited knowledge of the Old Testament, but that doesn’t mean its not there. I don’t get glee at the prospect of massacring all the Canaanites or the Amalekites, or at homosexuality and Sabbath-breaking being capital crimes in the Israelite Theocracy. But, even though it doesn’t give me the jollies, I trust God and believe he had a reason for commanding those things at the times he commanded them. And really, I don’t think its “repulsive” at all. To call it “repulsive” is to exalt autonomous man above God and to give man the right to decide.

                      Which… I guess makes sense for an atheist. But its completely absurd if Christianity is true. And even if Christianity is false “this is repulsive because [either no reason stated at all or because any intelligent human being agrees] isn’t an argument. Its as if “the Bible is repulsive” is itself a presupposition, and presupposing the falsehood of a given thing is kind of odd…

                    • Dear David,

                      So you admit that the Bible says that anyone who works on Saturday, as opposed to Sunday, should be put to death?

                      Are we on the same page here.

                      I’d like to clear this up before we go on.

                    • @Bevin- I believe that the Bible commanded that , in Israel under the Old Covenant, that working on Saturday was punishable by death.

                      I don’t believe that law was intended for after Christ, or for other nations, only for the divinely created theocracy.

                    • So, it was ok to execute people in the “divinely created theocracy” (which presupposes – again – the reality of your deity) for the “crime” of working on Saturday… and this does not trouble you? If it’s true, then your god is a first-rank thug. As bad as Stalin. They both murdered people for disobeying their petty rules, for evincing disobedience.

                    • Dear David,

                      The issue of which day of the week is the “Sabbath” is of no concern to me as an atheist.

                      Frankly, it’s not my problem. It’s your problem. You Christians need to get your story straight.

                      “The Sabbath/Sunday controversy has been debated for centuries.”
                      — Fred R. Coulter

                      Google “which day is the sabbath saturday or sunday?” and you will get 32 million entries.

                      It has zero bearing on my point, which is whether anyone has the right to put anyone else to death merely for working seven consecutive days instead of six.

                    • Well, the more relevant point would be “for the Old Testament theocracy”. In other words, it isn’t supposed to be enforced today. Mind you, this point is SLIGHTLY controversial, some theonomists disagree with it. But then, most things in Biblical interpretation are somewhat controversial. I’m just one college-aged Bible student who tries to interpret the best he can…

                    • So, god made a mistake… which he fixed with the New Testament? He was a vengeful petty sociopath in the bad old days… but it only applied to Israel, so no big deal…..

              • I think faith is inevitable, Bevin. The State is a natural, common response to the ingrained human need for a final moral authority. It is, of course, the incorrect one. God is the correct one.

                • Dear David,

                  To the extent that you act on your belief ethically, I would say you are a man of God. Which is a fine thing to be.

                  To the extent you overstep on your belief using coercion or force, I would say you are a misguided pest and God-Vermin. Which is a detestable thing to be.

                • Dear David,

                  It’s ironic. You are making the same mistake Rand made.

                  She defended to her dying day minarchism because she imagined that there had to be a “final authority.”

                  In her case, it was a minarchist government. In your case it is “god,” or “God.” Whatever.

                  I disagree with your shared premise. There does NOT need to be a “final authority,” any more than there needs to be a One World Government to ensure “uniform justice.”

                  The whole point is to have anarchy/polyarchy, leaving people with CHOICE.

                  • And if I choose to try to kill you?

                    Anarcho-capitalism can deal with how that would likely be stopped on a free market. But, why is it WRONG? No political theory can answer that question… Only religious presuppositions can…

                    • Nonsense, David.

                      You continue to insist that a given act is wrong (or right) “because God.”

                      Specifically, your conception of god; the Christian god.

                      Which is as arbitrary and purely gratuitous as my insisting “because Flying Spaghetti Monster”!

                      Besides, do you not see the fallacy? If morality is merely whatever Sky Stalin says it is – at his whim – then there is no objective right (or wrong)! Sky Stalin can decree whatever he likes – and it is right (or wrong) accordingly, merely because “god” says it is.

                      There is no “right” (or “wrong”) outside of Sky Stalin’s whims.

                      But to get back to the question:

                      Why is it wrong to kill? Because it is not your life to take.

                      You exist, I exist. We are real, alive, sentient beings. This is not debatable.

                      “God” is.

                      One need not reference a hypothetical to support an actuality. That is, god may (or may not) exist. But I most certainly do exist. And you have no more right to kill me than I have to kill you.

                      What more do you need?

                    • @Eric- But that’s still arbitrary. Who says the stronger of us (who is probably you) can’t kill the weaker (which is probably me)? What transcendent moral principle says so?

                      I do believe God has a good reason for every decision he makes. its not “arbitrary.” Beyond vague generalities like “the good of God’s people” or “for God’s glorification”, I may not be able to give specific reasons for certain commands of God, but that doesn’t mean they are arbitrary.

                      “Sky Stalin” doesn’t exist. Why the purposeful disrespect? Even I haven’t been that disrespectful to the other side, and I’m the one who actually believes your souls are on the line. You do, however, stand to lose every Christian that comes to this page except those who already agree with you.

                    • No, David. It’s not arbitrary. The entire point is that the golden rule applies universally and logically. Follow me now:

                      Everyone is mortal and everyone is subject to being fucked with and no one (who is not sick in the head) likes to be fucked with, to be victimized. That I am physically stronger than my next door neighbor and capable of harming him does not obviate the fact that there is another person out there who is stronger than I am, who could harm me. And so on down the line.

                      We all have a clear interest, then, in agreeing not fuck with others – so that we in turn are not fucked with. Anyone who chooses to fuck with others invites being fucked with himself – and has no basis for objecting to being fucked with.

                      Simple logic.

                      But it goes much deeper than the merely self-interested desire to avoid being fucked with by agreeing to not fuck with others. As I have explained how many times?

                      A not sick in the head human being feels empathy for others, arising out of an awareness of our common humanity.

                      It does not require a god… much less your god!

                    • Dear David,

                      “But, why is it WRONG? No political theory can answer that question… Only religious presuppositions can… ”

                      To be perfectly honest, I’m always astounded every time you make that assertion.

                      That is not a figure of speech for dramatic effect. I am literally astounded that you consider it perfectly reasonable.

                      It is wrong for me to murder you because it is wrong for you to murder me.

                      It is wrong for me to murder you because you consider your life valuable, and it is wrong for you to murder me because I consider my life valuable.

                      This of course, is one of the many concrete instances of the Golden Rule, which comes as close to being a “universal value” as any.

                      The Golden Rule is rooted in reciprocity, fairness, equality.

                      The Golden Rule is so universal because in their more rational moments, human beings see the logic and justice behind it. They realize it is right, even when they violate it.

                      Citing a non-existent “higher authority” whose dictatorial commands supposedly trump the rational judgment of every human being on earth hardly solves the problem of “Why is it wrong?”

                      It isn’t even going to ensure a “uniform code or religious morality.”

                      1.6 billion Muslims, for example, are hardly going to say,

                      “You know what David, you’re right. Islam and our own Shariah Law is wrong. We’re converting to Christianity to ensure that mankind has a uniform code of religious law to follow and avoid moral confusion.”

                      I truly don’t get why you can’t see this.

                • Hi David,

                  Humans certainly need some moral basis for their actions; that does not necessarily mean “god.” And certainly not your god! I understand you feel differently – are internally convinced in the absolute reality and truth of your god. But try to bear in mind that Muslims (and so on) feel just as certain about their god.

                  And around we go…

              • RE: “Your argument is the statist argument in religious form.”


                Since when did the goobermint Ever ask you to choose on your own Free Will to follow it?

                IMHO, to compare following God with that of being forced to be bent by the rules of goobermint is far fetched, my man, far fetched.
                I’m shocked that you don’t notice.

                  • It’s obvious Bevin’s argument stands regardless of the exact timing of the sabbath.

                    You’re both wrong by the way. Using ONLY the scripture and nothing else, it is clear that Saturday, the sabbath begins on Friday evening immediately after sundown.

                    In old testament times all days began at sundown. Because of course there were no mechanical clocks in those times.

                    In modern culture, most of us have been raised to believe that a new day begins at midnight. There is no scriptural precedent for this belief and the way that midnight is reckoned today would be impossible without mechanical clocks.

                    Since Yahweh is the one who created days and nights, it is important for us to understand when He regards a new day to begin. This becomes important if we want to keep the Ten Commandments because the fourth commandment says that we must “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy.”

                    The purpose of this study will demonstrate from the scriptures that evening marks the time when a day has ended and a new 24 hour day begins. Some have written and asked me to address various objections where some believe that a day ends at sunrise. If you are interested in reading a response to those points, feel free to contact me and I’ll give you a link to a point-by-point response.

                    As you read this study, you will notice that I often refer to the Hebrew and Greek. This is so that we can be sure that we are getting the true meanings that Yahweh intended when He inspired the scriptures. The best way to arrive at a proper understanding of a Hebrew or Greek word is to examine how it is used throughout the scriptures. Lexicons are nice, but examining the various contexts of Hebrew and Greek words is the very thing that lexicon writers do when coming up with their definitions. Therefore, it is important that we trace their steps rather than just blindly accepting what any lexicon may have to say.


                    • Hi Tor,

                      I worry as much about “keeping the “Sabbath” as I do about keeping “holy” the Feast of Crom. These are relics of a past that ought to be of interest to historians only.

                      Crush enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentations of their women.

                • Dear helot,

                  Assuming it was, allow me to be more specific.


                  Bible > Exodus > Chapter 31 > Verse 15

                  ◄ Exodus 31:15 ►
                  Parallel Verses

                  New International Version
                  For six days work is to be done, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day is to be put to death.

                  New Living Translation
                  You have six days each week for your ordinary work, but the seventh day must be a Sabbath day of complete rest, a holy day dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.

                  English Standard Version
                  Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death.

                  New American Standard Bible
                  ‘For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; whoever does any work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

                  King James Bible
                  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                  Holman Christian Standard Bible
                  Work may be done for six days, but on the seventh day there must be a Sabbath of complete rest, dedicated to the LORD. Anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

                  International Standard Version
                  Work may be done for six days, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does work on the Sabbath is certainly to die.

                  NET Bible
                  Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the LORD; anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must surely be put to death.

                  GOD’S WORD® Translation
                  You may work for six days, but the seventh day is a day of worship, a day when you don’t work. It is holy to the LORD. Whoever works on that day must be put to death.

                  Jubilee Bible 2000
                  Six days shall work be done; but the seventh, the sabbath of rest, shall be holy to the LORD; whoever does any work in the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

                  King James 2000 Bible
                  Six days may work be done; but on the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever does any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                  American King James Version
                  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whoever does any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                  American Standard Version
                  Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jehovah: whosoever doeth any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                  Douay-Rheims Bible
                  Six days shall you do work: in the seventh day is the sabbath, the rest holy to the Lord. Every one that shall do any work on this day, shall die.

                  Darby Bible Translation
                  Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, holy to Jehovah: whoever doeth work on the sabbath day shall certainly be put to death.

                  English Revised Version
                  Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

                  Webster’s Bible Translation
                  Six days may work be done, but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whoever doeth any work in the sabbath-day, he shall surely be put to death.

                  World English Bible
                  Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Yahweh. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall surely be put to death.

                  Young’s Literal Translation
                  Six days is work done, and in the seventh day is a sabbath of holy rest to Jehovah; any who doeth work in the sabbath-day is certainly put to death.

            • Hi David,

              Why do I care about behaving decently toward my fellow men? I thought I had answered that already! Because I have empathy for my fellow men. Because I am myself a man. I feel pain; they feel pain. I do not like to feel pain; it is therefore logical and empathetic to not wish that others experience pain.

              Logic – rationality – does not require “because god”!

              And: I am objectively real (I am a man, I exist). So do other men. Their suffering – and mine – is real. It exists; cannot be denied.

              Your god, on the other hand, is no different than the multitude of gods postulated throughout the ages: He is a conjecture, an assertion.

              It fascinates me that the above, in particular, does not at least give you (and other convinced believers) some pause. That – to cite just a handful of many examples – people in ancient Egypt believed just as earnestly in Ra (and the rest of their pantheon) for thousands of years… just as the meso-Americans on the other side of the world believed with equal conviction in Huixtlopchtli and Queztelcoatl… just as today tens of millions of Muslims and tens of millions of Hindus live and die never even having heard “the good news” of your putatively universal Christian conception…

              The fact is your god, like their gods, is a temporal and parochial – and tribal – god. Peculiar to a specific geographic area and “revealed” (like all the other gods) not to humanity generally but (always) a “chosen” people who – naturlich – are special to this (vengeful and jealous) god….

              Do you honestly believe that, 3,000 years from now, people will still believe that “Jesus saves”?

              A wag observed – aptly – that Christians are already non-believers. After all, they do not believe in Ra, or Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus.

              Why stop there?

              • I’ve never seen any of those other so-called gods do the miraculous. Nor do any of those gods have writings that are as internally consistent despite dozens of different authors than the Bible…

                The preponderance of the evidence is really strong here. Of course, certainty is impossible without presuppositions.

                • What miracles, David?

                  The ones you’ve read about? Heard about?

                  Can you show me the claimed miracles?

                  The Mormon prophet Joseph Smith claims to have witnessed several miracles. Do you believe him? If not, why?

                  How about the miracles described in Egyptian religious lore – such as the resurrection of Osiris?

                  • I’ve actually heard of demons being cast out… not something I myself saw, but people I know personally have. I’ve also heard tons of testimony… again… from people who were persecuted and tortured for their faith, of miracles occurring. Which, again, why would you go through that kind of stuff for a lie?

                    In my personal life I’ve seen things that, while technically not “supernatural”, were nonetheless too coincidential to have occurred as many times as they did without divine intervention.

                    Do I expect you to believe this? Not really. But I’m telling you the truth…

                    • “I’ve actually heard of demons being cast out…”

                      Ok, and I’ve heard of shape-shifting aliens… does that mean you should accept as true that shape-shifting aliens exist?

                      Lots of “testimony” that Joseph Smith dug up “golden plates”… do you believe the golden plates are real?

                      “why would you go through that kind of stuff for a lie?”

                      A variety of reasons, David. Among them, psychosis. The Heaven’s Gate cult went through lots of stuff (death) for a lie they believed to be true.

                      “But I’m telling you the truth…”

                      No. You are telling me what you believe.

                • David, I agree with you. I’ve never seen any of those gods do diddly. Of course, I’ve never seen YOUR god do diddly either. I’m guessing, and it surely is a guess but I’ve had 65 years to perfect my guess and that guess says your god is simply as unbelievable as any other “god”. “Certainty is impossible without presuppositions”. And people are put to death, not only immorally but wrongfully in this state(and every other state I know of)by a preponderance of MISTAKEN evidence….. on a daily basis. And everyone else here let you slide with that?

                  And then, you use the printing press to legitimize your conclusions. Jaysus!!

                  • Its impossible to be certain of anything using empiricism. Certainly requires presuppositions. Of course, you and I both already know my God exists, per Romans 1. You have absolutely no excuse for not believing in him.

                    Again, the Bible and logic are my presuppositions which I use to build a worldview.

                    What precisely this has to do with the evil State I am not sure. I want to get rid of it as you do.

                    • “Its impossible to be certain of anything using empiricism.”

                      Really, David?

                      So my existence is uncertain? That I am typing on a keyboard at this moment?

                      And how, pray, do you make the epochal leap from “our senses are limited and reality may be more than it appears” to “Jesus is Lord”?

                      It’s amazing.

                      No doubt; no leavening.

                      Just absolute conviction – and an ability to hold in one’s mind and maintain that both things are equally true such baffling propositions as a monotheistic deity who has a son. A “universal” god peculiar to a particular tribe in one small corner of the world. Who just kind of popped into existence a few thousand years ago…the countless generations of human beings who lived and died before anyone had ever heard of him being of no importance….

                      Again: You are welcome to believe all you like. I have no problem with your belief. Hundreds of millions of Muslims believe, too. As did millions of ancient Greeks and before them, Egyptians.

                      I just wish you’d quit asserting your beliefs as facts – and insisting that failure to believe in your particular beliefs puts the nonbeliever on a lower rung of the intellectual-philosophical ladder.

                      Imagine me reciting exactly the same arguments you make, only substituting Ra or Zeus for Jesus.

                      There is no meaningful difference, David.

    • David,

      I don’t believe that God wants to be our “ruler”. I believe he wants people who don’t need rulers. What point is heaven, if it is no better than earth? Why would God want people he must command and rule over in the next life? It doesn’t make any sense.

      If we never gain enough intelligence to govern ourselves, we aren’t of any value. If we can’t govern ourselves, God wont teach us anything higher. Why would he?

      • Ancap – I agree that God wants us to govern ourselves, but He wants us to do that according to His standards. The New Jerusalem will be better than earth, because it will be populated by people who have chosen to serve Love, true, pure Love.

  20. Oathkeepers in Ferguson
    – –

    I’m no ornithologist, I had a friend who had all manner of barnyard pets that lived on her Dad’s large soybean farm. I’ve done time as a child laborer in soybeans, corn, and being a contract detassler. But barely know the most basic, dumb grunt labor level things about farming.

    I wish more of those with crucial knowledge and skills would share their experiences, but what incentive do they have to do so in a broken system?

    Lifespan of a chicken

    Lifespan of a laying hen

    The life span of a commercial layer hen belonging to an egg company is usually about two years as they are culled at about 2-3 years, once production peaks and begins to decline.

    Free ranging hens kept on a farm, safe from predators, may live as long as 12-15 years, long after they have ceased laying eggs.

    • “free ranging” and “safe from predators” are contradictory conditions, at least on my place. What does the fox say? She says nothing, she is in stealth predator mode to feed her pups.

      • Raising Chickens 101

        Raising Backyard Chickens In Your City

        Chickens: $3.00 to $30.00 per chicken depending on breed and age.
        Coop: $50.00 (secondhand/recycled) to $600.00 (new)
        Feed approximately $15.00 per month.
        Miscellaneous $10.00 per month.
        – – –
        Nathaniel Branden: A Farewell. Stef Molyneux

        • Dear Tor,

          Left a comment:

          Bevin Chu
          1 second ago

          This is sad news indeed. Nathaniel Branden was a great man who made many highly public mistakes early in his life. But he had the courage to acknowledge them, and more than made up for them in the wake of the “Great Schism” with his mentor Rand.
          He addressed a serious defect in Objectivism, its failure to provide a proper place for human emotions. He saved countless Rand followers who believed they were lives of reason, but were in fact living lives of repression. His death is a great loss. 

      • PtB, you hit the nail on the head. My cats are free-ranging too and so are coyotes. What I feel for my cats and coyotes isn’t necessarily logical, just my own “set of morals” I suppose you could rightly name it. Sure, Wile E is doing what comes naturally and when he’s stalking my cats I do what comes naturally to me and shoot him dead….and CJ will run his ass down and kill him. I really don’t see this as a “right and wrong” issue. It is what it is. To be honest, I have bigger fish to fry.

        I was taught to read at an early age by my sisters, before ever going to school so reading the Bible, I may have gotten more out of it than most kids my age. Not a lot in there I agreed with as I aged and thought about it. Then I discovered the Old Testament and realized for my parent’s generation most of that wouldn’t fly and even my grandparents didn’t much cotton to it.

        Can they both be the word of God? If they are he must have had some good acid to do a flipflop like that. One second is catchword is “love” and the next it’s ‘kill” or “punishment”. To be a Christian, you really have to pick and choose and the guy sitting beside you in church is picking and choosing differently from you and you’re both supposed to be not only of the same faith but of the same bend that your church spins.

        Then there’s always the new preacher and some inevitably think that new one is a bit lax or too tough, depending on who is listening. I never could figure out how church-goers could agree with one preacher and then agree with another who didn’t agree with the first one. That may not make sense but I’ve only had half a beer. My writing should improve later……or not.

        There used to be a show called Dinosaurs. They did a good job of pointing out hypocrisy and idiosyncracies of various demographics. Not many sitcoms end very well but this one did. There were the meat-eaters and the vagans. Some of the young dinosaurs, the “teens” as it were from the meat-eaters began to take on philosophy of the Vegans. There was a great scene where they were sitting around in sandals, headbands, psychedelic music going and smoke from various sources rising and they broke into song. The lyrics went like this “All we are saying is give peas a chance”. Things escalated as the meat-eaters began to fear their kids would wholly accept the vegans and their lifestyle. Of course their politicians did what politicians do and added fuel to the fire. The series ended when a nuclear war ensued, power was lost and the sun was blocked out. The family it was mainly based on sat around with looks of bewilderment and terror and wondered out loud what was happening and then it got really dark. Best ending of a show I ever saw.

    • Excellent

      The police and National Guard did an admirable job of protecting government property, with the exception of a couple of cop cars. Those are easily replaced; the knick-knacks on the desks of bureaucrats are not. Thus, the government buildings must be protected at all costs. And if people lose their businesses, then so be it. But the American people have once again learned a valuable lesson about their government from the local weenies right up the chain to the federal blunderers. That lesson is: 911 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer. People in Ferguson reported that they called 911 only to have the dispatcher say there was nothing they could do—and then hung up.

      The government was too busy defending the government to bother with defending homes and businesses, so a citizen militia called the Oath Keepers stepped up and did it.

      But something else looters know is that armed citizens are not hamstrung by bureaucrats and official policies written by career tax feeders who can write policy but cannot so much as understand the recipe for boiled water. The police won’t open fire with live ammunition, but business owners will. That’s what makes them effective in protecting their own property. Police might use “non-lethal ammunition”, but business owners won’t. It’s far easier, as a private citizen, to obtain 00 buckshot than beanbag rounds. About as “less lethal” as you’re going to get with a business owner is birdshot. And no looter wants to spend the night having birdshot extracted from his buttocks, one by one, with only 42 more pellets to go after the first painful extraction.

  21. Inside a factory farm. Guy under contract with Perdue lets in the cameras to see what’s going on. It’s not like these kinds of chickens are going to live normal 7 year lives like egg laying chickens. But dayum.

    The PTB, JudeoChristianAbrahamIsaacSacrificers, Alien Reptilian Overlords, will seduce you into having mere opinions about this. Tell you that choosing your overlord is doing your duty. Just reduce this to a dialectic and then pick the side that seems best. But you’re smarter than that I think.

    You’ve grown up and put away the Great Man Theory of schoolchildren of all ages.

    Attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals is a hopelessly primitive, childish, and unscientific position. What matters is the kind of mechanisms countless individuals have fashioned and how it integrates and cooperates. It depends on the spontaneous actions of a great many doers acting in concert and in opposition. Not on the deciders.

    • Tor – You think egg-laying chickens live 7 years? It’s 2-3 years even on my place, and only 1 in commercial outfits.

  22. It’s just a shot away. Great song. Gimme Shelter. By the Rolling and Recently Disarmed Stones.

    In ghetto districts they say “gibs me dat.” In the working class, middle class, upper class neighborhoods they say “gimme shelter.” “Gimme order.” “Gimme law.” A chimp by any other name or of any other color would smell as foul.

    Uncle Toms come in all colors and demographics. Be nice to see an analysis of how Uncle Toms Cabin has becomes Uncle Sams Mortgaged Cabin.

    The closed plantation has become the open plantation. Slaves choose their own homes, mates, what crop to harvest. There’s more honor in it now. You can move about the country and work under various plantation administrators.

    You vote for who your masters are now. Of course you can’t vote not to be slaves. Don’t be silly Kunta… I mean Kevin Kentay.

    317 million slaves still under the plantation system. Be nice to see the rest of the “Roots” and “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” stories written, so we can better understand who we really are today.

    Gun Ban in the United Kingdom

    Number of guns per capita:
    Japan 0.6, N Korea 0.6, China 5, England 6, Mexico 15, Australia 15, Germany 30, Canada 31, Switzerland 46.

    Maggie Siff – Lullaby for a Soldier – Arms of the Angels – Sons of Anarchy – Better Than Official Anthems of State Slavery Anyways

  23. And the beat(down) goes on …

    NYC Grand Jury just exonerated the half dozen or so cops who choked another big black kid, Eric Garner, to death, for the horrible crime of selling some loose cigarettes.

    And in Cleveland a week and a half ago, the cops executed a 12 year old kid for playing with a toy BB or AirSoft gun, reports differ. Do a web search for “Tamir Rice”. Some GD coward called 911 about the kid and told them at least twice the gun might not be real, but the dispatcher never told the cops that. So the cops come roaring into the park, onto the grass, and Coward Cop Timothy Loehmann jumps out of the car and shoots the kid to death in 2 seconds. Then the cowards hide behind the car for 4 or 5 minutes while the kid bleeds out instead of giving any first aid.

    If you’re such a GDF coward you can’t deal with a 12 year old kid, you shouldn’t be a cop. This shit has to stop.


    It’s just a shot away …

    Don K

    • Amen, Don.

      It’s soul sickening.

      On the one hand, we’re expected to regard cops as “heroes” – yet these pants pissers are obsessed with their “safety” to such an extent that even a perceived threat (not an actual one) is apparently sufficient to justify an immediate beat-down or summary execution… just to be “safe.”

      Heroes, indeed.

      • “even a perceived threat” – so maybe what we should be insisting on is ‘perception training’ – so they learn the difference between potential and actual danger.

  24. Does anyone remember the good old days when cops were not viewed as “heroes” to the average middle class white person????Remember when people flashed their high beams to warn of a speed trap ?????Now people call the cops to rat you out when you are speeding(it happened to me a few months back,and I was pulled over for it).My favorite though by far is when they are beating on a victim and keep repeating to stop resisting,they do it every time……….unbelievable

    • ‘beating on a victim and keep repeating “Stop resisting!” ‘

      Basically a microcosmic version of the 9/11 false flag operation.

      Initiate force, then conflate offense and self-defense.

    • RE: “Does anyone remember the good old days when cops were not viewed as “heroes” ”

      I do.

      And, it didn’t matter if you were an average middle class white person.

      It was, “EveryBody”.

      It’s funny how times have changed.
      And how some people cling to racial stereotypes as if it were an excuse for the motions of their overlords. A.k.a. The Power Elite. …It’s almost like “some people” were getting paid.

  25. Daryl Dixon: You go out looking for firewood, stay close. Only got so many arrows. How you doing on ammo?
    Rick Grimes: Not enough.
    Maggie Greene: We just can’t stand around here with our asses hanging out.
    Hershel Greene: Watch your mouth. Everyone stop panicking and listen to Rick.

    WTF? It’s his farm. It’s his family. Why on earth would Hershel abdicate and chastise his own flesh and blood to “listen to Rick.” Someone they don’t know from Adam. An unhinged looney who calls his dead wife on the phone and suchlike. The answer is because of the myth of the ‘Great Man.’ Until we shed our toddleresque notions of the Noble Authority. Until we come producers of civilization. Instead of angst ridden worried consumers who patiently wait until the makers of civilization once again start producing it for us.

    Hershel’s pacifism is exactly the kind you develop from a lifetime of listening to the “good word” by the clerisy class. Because it’s a twisted version of the good word. It’s a Eugene version.

    The church authorities have no more knowledge about actual spiritual matters. Than Eugene has about curing the plague. They each overstate their case for the exact same self-preservational and self-aggrandizing purposes.

    Hershel Quotes
    – – – –

    Near exact replica of 1967 Apollo 4 Mission launches Dec 4th.

    2014 US Space Launch Manifest

    • Dear Tor,

      I guess I see what you’re saying.

      I have a different, less harsh take on Herschel and Rick.

      Rick was rendered temporarily incompetent due to the trauma of his wife’s death. But he was never in my estimation, some mad dictator. He was never a Caligula or a Commodus.

      I didn’t see him as conventional political tyrant. If memory serves me, he merely said that he intended to do things a certain way. People could stay if they believed in his decision making ability. Or they could leave if they didn’t. It was up to them.

      To me that was merely a case of “natural leadership” in a voluntaryist context. It was not conventional monopolistic government, where goonvermin officials unilaterally assert “authority” over you.

      Anyway, this is what I mean when I say the show is all about ethics, and that’s what makes it so engrossing.

      • Dear Tor,

        I just happened upon this:



        In the season 4 finale, we saw clarity dawning for Rick as he saves his son and reunites with his “brother” Darryl. In that moment, Rick reconciles who he used to be, who he has become and who he needs to be.

        Rick, the de facto leader of a small band of survivors, has not always been someone it makes sense to follow. In the course of this show’s first four seasons, he has been at his worst when he loses sight of himself. In trying to be all things to all people, in trying to reinvent himself after the loss of his wife, and in trying to redefine his moral code, he fails.

        Coming into season 5, Rick is now clear about who he is and what he stands for. With that foundation he is also clear about his own philosophy of leadership. This behavior is one of the six leaders need to Model the Way.

        Leaders who are clear about their own philosophy of leadership invest time and thought in considering who they are. They deliberately identify their core values and align their actions to reflect those values. As a result of their own clarity and credibility, others are clear, too, about what the leader stands for. The natural result is confidence in the leader.

        As I said, regardless of where one falls on these issues, the show presents use with these dilemmas and asks us “What would you do?”

        That’s what I like about it.

  26. TWD Issue 53. Spoilers for those who watch AMC adaptation exclusively:

    Abraham Ford takes on the role of Rick’s right hand man following the death of Tyreese. After Eugene revealed himself as a liar, telling the group that he is not actually a scientist, and has no clue what caused the apocalypse, Abraham loses confidence in himself.

    This causes him to step-down from his joint leadership role with Rick, believing Rick to be a more capable leader, and he settles as Rick’s second in command, helping Rick make any important decisions, but, not involving himself too much in group matters.

    Abraham is confronted by Rick, who asks him if he is still angry at Eugene. Abraham tells him that he is not angry at Eugene, rather, he is angry at himself for believing Eugene’s lies, and killing all the innocent people that got in his way during the road to D.C.

    [I would say Judeo-Christianity is a similar dynamic to the Abraham and Eugene bromance. The weak-dependent Eugenes construct elaborate lies that work to their benefit. The strong would-be-independent Abrahams sacrifice their freedom to serve Eugene’s lies and kill all kinds of innocents in service of Eugene’s elaborate fanciful fabrications. ]

    It is revealed that Abraham never loved one of his traveling companions, Rosita, despite telling her so, and providing her comfort. He decides to cheat on her by sleeping with Holly, after saving her life. He tells Rosita that he only formed a romantic relationship with her because he did not want to be lonely, and that she felt like the last women on Earth to him, in a way doing it out of pity for her.

    However, in his dying moments, Abraham tells Eugene that he wants him to look after Rosita, saying he just wants her to be happy like he was when he was with Holly.

    Josh McDermitt – stand-up comedian who plays Eugene on The Walking Dead:

    “I was in the military for a while. Actually I worked at Old Navy. That survival training was intense. They dropped us off in the middle of the mall with a bag of carrots and a KitKat and said “Survive.”

    We were running some recon work down by Dillards, and we took some heavy fire from the pricing gun. We lost six guys that day I’ll never forget. Rolling up with my squad, seeing my team leader laying there dead. “$3.99″ written right across his forehead. Stuff sticks with you.”

      • I am seldom emotionally moved by a TV series.

        Feature films, sure.

        But TV series? Usually entertained but not deeply moved.

        TWD ranks among a handful of shows that has genuine depth, intellectually as well as emotionally. It’s no wonder certain key episodes have gotten a mind-boggling 17.3 million viewers!

        The entire show is essentially an extended exercise in “lifeboat ethics,” in the desperate struggle of a tiny band of survivors struggling to retain their humanity in a ruthless, post-apocalyptic hell, one that may well be ours not long from now.

        When yet another member of the group is lost, it feels as if the darkness has closed in another notch on what remains of human civilization.

        • Hi Bevin,

          I experience a mix of awe and sadness whenever I view scenes from When We Left Earth, especially of the Apollo 8 mission.

          The launch sequence of the first manned Saturn V. Incredible. The achievement… the audacity of the thing. And then, sadness overwhelms me. Because I remember that this was more than 45 years ago. The magnificent men who did those incredible things will all soon be dead. And the promise – the expectation – that other men would have walked on Mars by 1980 is now a pipe dream, as unlikely seeming a thing as it must have seemed circa 1961 when JFK announced his determination that men walk on the Moon before the decade had ended.

          Just memories now – and the truly scary thing is that, as time passes, it seems as though it never happened at all…

          Ever read Rand’s essay, “Apollo and Dionysis”?

          • Dear Eric,

            Ever read Rand’s essay, “Apollo and Dionysis”?

            You betcha!

            I used to have every book, every magazine, every newsletter, every pamphlet, every monograph ever published by Rand and Company.

            They all got lost when I moved back to Taiwan. That’s okay. it’s all up here anyway. I read them all, and digested them all.

            Some others mentioned a great SF novel a while back that evoked the same feeling for me. “Earth Abides” by George R. Stewart. I read it about 30 years ago.


            In it everything we know as human civilization is wiped out. One adult, the protagonist, struggles to preserve what he knows of science and technology. But his struggle proves to be fruitless. The younger generation takes its absence for granted. The world will never go back to what it once was. The feeling of hopelessness that overcame me upon finishing the book shook me to the core.

            It was even more emotionally powerful than TWD, and that’s saying a lot.

            • Saving Mr banks really hit me in the feels

              Now I’m watching the stand inspired by earth abides.

              Good stuff from s king so far

              • I saw Saving Mr. Banks.

                Good movie, qua movie.

                Watching it was a surreal experience though.

                I had just read an expose of Walt Disney as an Illuminati pedophile. So all the while as I was watching the film, I couldn’t help thinking about what else must have been going on in kindly Uncle Walt’s private offices.

          • Eric we can have men stand on Mars. Are you willing to pay billions of dollars of your money to put them there? Hell no.
            As for Brown, he was truly a thug. A 265lb thug that liked to beat up people. What can you expect when his step-dad told the people to burn the city. He should be in jail also or is that a libertarian right?

            When we have a country where anything goes, people can beat up on cops or whatever they feel like, then that is near the end of your so called liberty and the start of a third world country where guns and thugs rule the streets.

              • It took about 9 years from the time JFK uttered his wish until NASA succeeded in putting men on Luna. How long would it have taken in a free market? We’ll never know. Probably much less, if there was a good (profitable or charitable) reason. W/o gunvermin theft of resources, we might still be waiting. So what? If all we got out of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs was video of a man standing on what some claim is a faked lunar landscape, and Tang, I would rather have whatever the free market would have done with that amount of money.
                Mars? Why? But with a free market, we could probably be beyond Mars by now, IF we had a good enough reason.

            • Dear clover,

              You wrote,

              “When we have a country where anything goes, people can beat up on cops or whatever they feel like, then that is near the end of your so called liberty and the start of a third world country where guns and thugs rule the streets.”

              You apparently got a few of the words out of order. What you should have written was,

              “When we have a country where anything goes, cops can beat up on people or whatever they feel like, then that is near the end of your so called liberty and the start of a third world country where guns and thugs rule the streets.”

              There now. Isn’t that what you really meant to say?

              • Bevin I have no problem with cops shooting 265 lb thugs that try to beat them up. That is second force right? Bevin I should not give you the benefit of speaking with you because you are brainless.Clover

                • So clover,

                  Let me see if I understood you.

                  You don’t object to the fact that “cops can beat up on people or whatever they feel like… ”

                  But you do object to the fact that “people can beat up on cops or whatever they feel like… ”

                  Is that right?

                • Clover – if you truly think Bevin is brainless, then you have no clue what intelligence is. His pinky is probably smarter than you are.
                  If, as I suspect, it was merely an ad hominem attack, it is just more evidence that you have no case.

                  • btw Clover – do you even know what an ad hominem attack is? It’s when you know you cannot win the debate on the merits of your argument, so you attack your opponent instead.

                    • Dear Phil,

                      Here’s an apropos quote, ironically from an MSM pundit.

                      “A good rule of thumb in political debate is that you can judge the seriousness of an adversary’s argument by the seriousness with which he treats yours. If he takes you seriously, it means he’s pretty certain he’s got you beat on the merits. But if he resorts to hyperbole, parody, and sarcasm, then he clearly fears an honest debate.”
                      — Eric Alterman
                      columnist for The Nation, regular contributor to MSNBC

                      NB: Alterman is an orthodox liberal and gun control fanatic. But this particular observation is dead on. I quoted it in an essay years ago, and occasionally cut and paste it into my online comments.

                    • Phillip the Bruce I would classify someone who uses words that no one else would use in a normal conversation as someone with a severe inferiority complex that tries to show someone else that he is superior when he is not. Phillip the Bruce, I classify someone as intelligent if they are capable of using common sense. Something you and others here are incapable of.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      A limited vocabulary suggests a limited education. But your defect is a limited ability to understand, let alone discuss, concepts and principles. Which is indicative of limited intelligence.

                      What is “common sense,” exactly? Can you define it objectively? No, you cannot. No one can.

                      It is your opinion – nothing more.

                      Unlike, for example, the principle that if it is permissible to subject people who’ve given no specific reason to suspect them of having committed any crime to a criminal investigative procedure for “x” then it is implicitly and explicitly acceptable to do so for “y” and “z” too. Which means in principle that innocent people no longer have any meaningful protection against probable cause-free criminal investigative procedures. Which means, innocent until proved guilty has been upended. Which means, you have opened the door to a police state.

                      This has been explained to you at least 100 times. But because you are guided by “common sense” rather than conceptual/principled thought, you are incapable of comprehending it.

                    • Dear Phil,

                      Clover is a busybody and a bully who along with others of his ilk are responsible for “manifesting” the Leviathan State.

                      Manifesting is a term from New Age psychology. People manifest on the outside, what they adhere to on the inside, both individually and collectively.

                      Statists manifest the state through their inner belief in brute force coercion for the sake of “public order.” Their collective belief in, and support for, the oppressive machinery of state is what brings it into existence.

                      If it were not for this stark reality, which results in our victimization, I would feel guilty about picking on someone with clover’s glaring intellectual shortcomings.

                      Debating him is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s downright unsporting.

                    • CloverEric you are calling me stupid with lack of education? Eric I was not the one that spent hours telling us that GM was a dead company. The stock price is up since you wrote that many months ago. Eric if you are not able to take what you know and deduce what the outcome would be then what good is your type of education? You say that speeding kills no one. Sorry Eric but with my little education as you call it I can read and see the facts that are out there. I have seen the news articles and pictures of better drivers than you having fatal accidents because of speeding. You say that we should allow drunks to be on the road because they harm no one. The fact is that drunks have killed 10s of thousands of people each year. Then you say that increased enforcement of traffic laws does nothing. The facts show that when enforcement was increased by states over the holidays that the death rate from accidents dropped like a rock in those states. Eric you can use your long words that have multiple meanings that a 2nd grader can look up in a dictionary but that does not mean you are a smart man. You have proved differently. You have proved to me that you are a stupid person.

                    • Clover,

                      I’ve never argued that “that we should allow drunks to be on the road because they harm no one.”

                      I have stated my opposition to forcing people who’ve given no reason to suspect them of being drunk to prove they’re not.

                      You are either an imbecile – or a liar.

                      Which is it?

                    • Eric with my common sense I can deduce that if you do not want to do simple things to eliminate or reduce drunks on the road then in effect you support them being on the road. With my common sense tells me is that if you say that drunks should be on the road until they crash then you support drunks on the road. You have many times said there should be no checks for drunks either by breath or by blood or by physical tests. You said that you want to let them crash before we do anything.Clover

                    • Clover writes:

                      “Eric with my common sense I can deduce that if you do not want to do simple things to eliminate or reduce drunks on the road then in effect you support them being on the road.”

                      So then, if I oppose “simple things” like random spot checks of people’s homes, I “in effect” support wife-beating, child abuse… etc.

                      You’ve answered my question.

                      You’re an imbecile.

                    • Hey Clover, how about having the government inspect your home regularly to make sure you haven’t done anything to the natural gas lines. You know, so your house doesn’t explode and kill your neighbors in the process.

                    • Dear Eric,

                      You asked clover,

                      “You are either an imbecile – or a liar. Which is it?”

                      Does it have to be one or the other?

                      Can’t it be both?

                    • Quite so, Bevin!

                      It is possible Clover (due to low intelligence) doesn’t understand that he grossly misrepresents my position when I criticize random, probable cause-free police investigations. His feeble mind may honestly (as he sees it) process that as “Eric defends drunk drivers.”

                      I think this is the case.

                      The guy is an idiot. Not merely of a different viewpoint, but incapable of comprehending the opposing viewpoint.

                    • CloverEric you person of little mind or should we call you an imbecile? When you say that if people are stopped because of suspected drunk driving with their actions and you then say that they should not give them any tests whatsoever because they have not killed anyone yet then you are the imbecile. When are you going to end your miserable life to better society?

                    • Clover,

                      Before you impugn my intelligence, you might at least learn how to construct a complete sentence. And then, perhaps you might try facts and logic rather than ad hominem.

                    • Let’s see, Clover:

                      “When you say that if people are stopped because of suspected drunk driving with their actions and you then say that they should not give them any tests whatsoever because they have not killed anyone yet then you are the imbecile.”

                      Italics added.

                      To highlight your deliberate – and pathetic – lies.

                      The entire basis of our disagreement is that I object to pulling people over at random, for no specific reason whatsoever, who have done nothing to indicate they’ve been drinking, much less that they’re drunk. I have carefully explained this scores of times!

                      So: Either you are a person incapable (by dint of low intelligence) of comprehending simple statements.

                      Or you are a despicable liar.

                      Which is it, Clover?

                      The bottom line is this:

                      You support randomly stopping people to “check” them for a reason you deem justifiable on the basis of some “greater good.”

                      I oppose this for the simple reason that it’s an assault on the core basis of a free society to subject people at random to police investigations and because if this is accepted for one “greater good” reason, others will necessarily follow as there is no longer anything to prevent it beyond the “common sense” opinions and feelings of cretins such as yourself.

                    • CloverI understand Eric. You say that “pulling people over at random, for no specific reason whatsoever”? Yes you are an imbecile. Saving thousands of lives is no specific reason? You must have an IQ of about 10. I have never heard anything so stupid as what you say. Why are you here? Do you love showing people how stupid you are?

                    • Clover,

                      You’re epic.

                      I’ve clearly stated – repeatedly – no specific reason to suspect them of “drunk” driving (or any other crime).

                      How does it “save thousands of lives” to pull over people who are not drunk, Clover?

                      Innocent people have a right to be treated as such until they give specific reason to suspect they (as specific individuals) may not be innocent.

                      Merely driving on a given road at a given time and stumbling onto a checkpoint does not qualify.

                      If it does, then randomly spot-checking people’s homes also qualifies.

                      After all, it could be argued that “saving thousands of lives” would be the result of that, too. And why not have the IRS audit each and every person’s return? After all, there’d be so much less “tax evasion” that way.


                      That is the essence of your position, though. You believe that if a hypothetical “someone” might be doing “x” then it is justifiable to use random/dragnet-style tactics for the purpose of identifying and apprehending that hypothetical “someone” even if it means a literally endless number of completely innocent people are forced to prove their innocence along the way.

                      Most Americans used to oppose this view because they understood the danger it represented. You and I and every other person who hasn’t given a reason to suspect us of having committed a crime have a right to be left the fuck alone. To not have to prove that we haven’t committed a crime.

                      Take away that shield of innocence until proved guilty, the right to be left in peace so long as we are peaceable, and you have undermined the bedrock concept on which a free society is based.

                      But you don’t care. Because your limited, animal-like consciousness cannot comprehend principles, much less grasp that they apply to particulars. You and those like you are thus useful idiots, pawns in the service of people smart enough to understand the importance of principles, who use imbeciles such as yourself to piece-by-piece undermine the ones that formerly limited their power, so that, one day, their power will be unlimited.

                      You, of course, do not see this. All you’re apparently capable of seeing is “catching dangerous drunks.” It’s pitiful. And alarming.

                      Because there are so many millions of useful idiots out there who are exactly like you.

                    • Clover, you must be drunk. Go hand yourself in so you can save lives – by the rest of us not coming to get you.

                      BTW, how many people are saved by these dragnet breatho’s every year – listed by year since they began please?

                      Exact numbers only.

                    • Eric our government is in place to protect the people. If police are capable of saving thousands of lives, thousands of injuries some of which make the person incapable of making a living and billions of dollars in costs just by talking to people would they not be negligent if they did not do it? Clover
                      Again Eric you bring up searches in homes. Tell me what a home has to do with a public roadway. You can not injure me in your home but you can on a public roadway if you are drunk. Your comparisons shows me how stupid you are.
                      Eric again you are more concerned about car engines by spending all that time changing oil but are unwilling to stop and talk to someone for seconds to save lives and billions of dollars of costs? Libertarians are idiots!Clover

                    • Clover,

                      With each post you confirm your inability to understand the principle at issue.

                      If the criteria is “If police are capable of saving thousands of lives, thousands of injuries some of which make the person incapable of making a living and billions of dollars in costs…” by conducting random, dragnet-style “checks” then please tell me why, in principle, cops ought not to be empowered to conduct random/dragnet-style “checks” of people’s homes (and so on) since the exact same criteria can be trotted out to justify it?

                      I can’t injure you in my home? Perhaps not. But how many innocent kids are injured in private homes every day? How many wives/spouses? Older people? It seems you only care about yourself. You fear “drunk” drivers because you feel threatened by them. But (apparently) you’re indifferent to the plight of abused children, battered spouses, elder abuse… and so on. Because you’re not a kid, your spouse (if any) does not beat you… and so on.

                      A typical sociopathic Clover.

                      In any event, that fact is people are harmed in their private homes. Some are killed. So – again – why not conduct dragnet/random “checks,” in order to prevent that from happening? Do you see – you got-damned imbecile?

                      And, again: You can’t help lying, can you?

                      Police do not “talk to people.” They forcibly stop them and question them under duress. Can your feeble, barely sparking little brain comprehend the distinction?

                      No, of course not.

                    • Dear Clover,

                      “[Eric is] unwilling to stop and talk to someone for seconds to save lives and billions of dollars of costs… ”

                      Still trying to convince people that Officer Friendly just wants say hello, eh?

                      Also, I noticed you are still using, “I could care less… ” in your gems of wisdom.


                    • Clover,
                      You want safety?
                      Get a law passed where everyone but government people live their lives in veal pens.

                      There’s your safety end game.

                    • Eric if I was as stupid as you are I would take a shotgun to my head. You say I am for protecting people but do not give a damn about people injured in the house. You really said that? Clover

                      For one thing Eric a stupid person would have come up with that one. Tell me how a random check of a house is going to save thousands of people? If people would be injured like you say so much that a random check would catch them in the act then the person would have been dead long ago.
                      Eric you say how brilliant you are with the English language and you show us zero reasoning ability! Eric I would rather be illiterate than just plain stupid like you are.

                    • Dang, I must have been working during all this. Some real diamonds here. If clover ever wises up(if i was as stupid as you eric), it doesn’t bode well for his own head.

                      I worked for a straw boss in a big corporation and he’d spout his philosophy(Reader’s Digest) occasionally. He didn’t realize his drinking would have all his supposed “friends” kicking his ass as well as his pastor, wife and fairly much anyone else he hung out with excepting his drinking buddies of which I knew a couple of them well.

                      We’re speaking of cops bashing some local people’s place(he didn’t approve of them”and how they destroyed their house. He said he didn’t think cops should even need a warrant, they should be able to come into your house when they got ready. It took me a minute to regain my composure and not go off on him like the idiot he was. I turned to another tack right in front of all our co-workers. So, says I, it’s ok if they all show up in your bedroom anytime they like and haul you and your wife to jail? He responds that’s just silly. But I thought you wanted to fight crime, make sure laws are obeyed. He rubs his chin and asks how that works, coming into HIS house. Since he had 4 kids I could only assume he’d had sex with his wife and in Tx. at the time, some of those things you and your spouse might do were criminal.

                      When he didn’t get it I spelled it out for him. You know, cunnilingus is illegal as is fellatio and sodomy. In fact, in this state(at that time, I don’t know now and don’t give a dam either since I think very little of almost any law you can think of)consensual sex between a man and woman is only legal in the Missionary position. You know what that is don’t you? He looked at me for a few seconds, turned and left. Everybody else cracked up. I was still trying to get the smoke boiling out of my ears in check. Stupid shit like that just pisses me off to no end.

                      That big boom you may hear one day will be after clover realizes she’s as stupid as she accuses eric of being. She said it, not me. I won’t save her.

            • Clover – Yes Brown was a thug, much like Trayvon Martin. Remember him, the ‘boy’ who looked like the son Obomba never had?
              But why was Wilson confronting him? He had no idea at the time that Brown had committed robbery/assault. That was a convenient after-fact.
              Wilson did not like the fact that Brown was walking in the road. This is where racism MAY have entered into the equation. Would Wilson have been as belligerent if the ‘jaywalker’ was white? I don’t know and don’t care. But if all he wanted him to do was get on the sidewalk, why did he draw his gun? Brown could not have attempted to take it away if it was still in his holster where it belonged. End of Story.

              • Phillip the Bruce, you walk down the middle of the street where you live and see what happens. It was not jaywalking. I could care less what you believe. Everyone was saying that Brown had his hands up and had his back to the cop. That is, everyone said that was not there to witness what really happened. If you look at the facts which libertarians are incapable of doing then you would know what really happened. Clover
                If you say that you would not have shot him then tell me what you would do when a 265 lb 6′ 5″ young strong adult takes a swing at you and charges you. I would really like to know what a libertarian would do.

          • eric, I very much wish you could have been there watching this all in real time. Talk about quiet….even the criers. Talk about heart in your throat. People didn’t even look at each other. When things looked much better for success there’d be audible gasps as one.

            I was in college watching all the first manned flights including 13. Seemed like nobody could sleep for that whole time(13). Exactly a month later from when 13 was launched I was doing my best to put Lubbock, Tx. in my rear view mirror even though you couldn’t see much but an evil black thing. Lots of stuff went on that year.

            We were all confident it would only be a matter of a few years before we’d be watching men going to Mars and maybe some day being able to get a ride to the moon. The Vietnam debacle seemed to overwhelm the nation and so many things so very doable were shelved to make lots of people rich with war profits. A large segment of the population lost faith in fairly everything American.

  27. @Eric- We agree that cops, as a group, are required by the job to be armed thugs, no matter how decent they may be otherwise. That said…

    IF Wilson was initially confronting Brown for theft, and IF Brown did in fact try to take Wilson’s gun, if both of those things are true, Wilson was likely justified in this instance.

    Theft is a real crime, not a victimless “crime”. Thus, it is justified to arrest people who commit it.

    For what its worth, the paragraph two paragraphs above this one is essentially how the story was told to me. I don’t actually have access to the info so I don’t know what actually happened.

    I do think its telling that Al Sharpton and the like are jumping on this case like they did the Martin case. No comments on Kelly Thomas, or other far more obvious victims.

    Was Brown innocent? Its certainly possible. I’m not going to take the police at their word. But its also possible that he was guilty. Since I don’t actually know enough to make the judgment call, I’m reserving judgment on this one.

    • Hi David,

      I think there’s ample evidence Brown was a thug. We have, for example, a video of him snatching merchandise and pushing aside the store owner. Minimally, he was not a “good boy.”

      Does it warrant execution? No.

      So, he’s walking down (or in the middle of) the street when the cop confronts him. I suspect (but do not know) that he (the cop) did so with the usual, now normal arrogance and excess. Brown apparently committed the death-sanctionable offense of balking at the cop’s authority, arguing – and then wrestling – with him.

      Does that warrant execution?


      Cops have this attitude that to touch their sacred person entitles them cry “officer safety!” – and open fire.

      It should not.

      Think about it. Are you or I allowed (legally speaking) to shoot someone who touches us? Over a mere fistfight? No. There must be an unmistakable, immediate and lethal threat to our own life.

      The evidence indicates Brown did fight with Wilson, but then attempted to get away. If Wilson shot Brown then – I’d say it was not justified.

      • @Eric- Some of it depends on particulars, but if you were charging at me with clear intent to beat the crap out of me, and I had a weapon on me, I’m not sure it would be unjustified to shoot you. At that point you are aggressing against me, and if I have to shoot to protect myself (which I probably would, seeing as you are likely in better shape than I am)… I would have the right to do that, wouldn’t I?

        Now, regarding Wilson and Brown, I agree that theft isn’t an executable offense. It would be just cause for an arrest though (I believe the punishment should be restitution, but the punishment isn’t in the hands of the cop, only the actual arrest). If someone tries to steal the officer’s gun when the officer is making a JUSTIFIED ARREST (Emphasis on “justified”, its important) than I’d say the officer does have the right to use his gun to defend himself if he needs to. And, if we lived in a better system in which private PDAs or the community itself carried out arrests, I’d say whoever is doing said arrests would be justified in the same situation.

        Were the original crime something victimless, like drug use or carrying a gun without a permit or something like that, I’d agree that Wilson was unjustified, no matter what happened after that point. Were it true that Brown tried to flee, I’d agree with you that shooting would be unjustified at that point, as long as Wilson had enough time to ascertain the fact that Brown was in fact fleeing. I’d probably pull the gun though, in case he charged me again.

        But, IF Wilson immediately pulled his gun and fired as Brown was trying to take it, as Wilson claimed, and if Wilson had in fact been trying to arrest him for theft (a real crime) than I think Wilson was justified.

        I really don’t know because I’ve heard so many conflicting reports of what actually happened. I think people read in what facts they want to, and I honestly don’t know who has the real ones. I do wish Wilson had had to stand trial, and hopefully more info would have come out, but I suspect he would ultimately have been acquitted.

        And again, I don’t like the career of police officer, but that’s not the issue at hand here. What I said wouldn’t have changed at all were Wilson a civilian, beyond the fact that civilians are currently not really allowed to make arrests (I don’t agree with that either, BTW.)

          • @helot- I believe that arrests for victimless “crimes” are unjustified and that if a cop enforces such a law, anything he does during that encounter is unjustified since the initial encounter wasn’t justified.

            But, in this case the “victim” committed an actual crime, namely theft. That doesn’t automatically make the shooting justified, but it does mean that the contact was justified. Which means that the “victim” was not, on onset, defending himself. Thus, if he were to attack the cop, he would be the first aggressor, and the cop would be justified in doing what he needed to do to defend himself.

  28. IMO, this is the best political article you’ve posted.

    Your right…”we’re all niggers now.”

    What’s fascinating is how many of us civilian trash still think that if the jackboots ever brutalize a citizen, he must have “had it coming…….” right up until the moment it happens to them too

      • eric, I went on a week long internet search for a used bike. Gee, ebay and esp. Craig’s List have turned into places to get way too much for your used anything. But other places showed up plenty bikes. Too bad none of them were 4 cylinder cruisers. I never realized foreign manufacturers made so many V-Twin bikes. There is also a plethora of used Harley’s, some even less than $20K although many $5-10K more than that and practically brand new. I guess making good money and being able to ride aren’t always matches.

        Still lookin though. I got one insight. At least the local economy is good….or has been. Harley, bullshit model, very limited numbers, sacrifice at $25,500……still lookin.

        • Eightsouthman,

          At $25k, I will be the only person sacrificing. At that price, I would rather get a car or truck. I would have a difficult time spending more than $10k OTD for a new MC. (I would prefer not to spend more than $6k OTD)

        • Eightsouthman, keep looking. There are some good deals to be had out there. I bought my ’05 Z-1000 with 3K miles on it for the princely sum of $2200. Granted, she’s not the most comfortable mare in the stable but performance and handling are superb. One of my coworkers bought his Harley something-something “classic” at about the same time for $23,000. I immediately asked him if he’d like to race. Ha!

          Shortly thereafter he hit a deer. We’ve had 3 dear strikes on “hogs” here where I work in the last 5 years. To paraphrase Dom, there you are riding what amounts to a tractor motor with your most comfortable easy chair strapped on it. This thing ways nearly half a ton and is just a stable as a rock. You’re kicked back, relaxed, taking in the sights just like watching tee-vee in your living room. Then all of a sudden out pops Bambi’s grand daddy and you are faced with the handling of a farm truck combined with the stopping distance of freight train. And it doesn’t matter that you’re on a 900+ pound “juggernaut” complete with fairing and windshield, you will still go just as far head first down the road, after removing the windshield with your body, as you would on a 400 lb. bike after you collide.

          What you won’t be able to do is out maneuver or stop before hitting your “prey.” I have already avoided a couple of deer collisions on my Z and my KLR; in one case by out accelerating a little doe that insisted on intercepting me. Had I been on a “hog” we’d have had an intimate moment swapping blood and tissue on the same piece of pavement. But by knocking it down a cog and nailing the throttle on my Z, the suicidal little white tail safely passed well behind me. Speed in this case did not kill; it saved both of us some serious injuries. Stick with a lighter, powerful and more maneuverable bike, you won’t be sorry.

  29. Hollywood movie makers aren’t likely to miss anything profitable, and a documentary or fictionalized movie based on actual accounts of police abuse would fill theaters coast to coast for over a month. So why have we not heard of such a movie? Wall Street. Wall Street controls the movie industry, same as it controls the prison industry. All those great liberals and those who come from a background of religious persecution, will not create a movie showing police as they are, because they are owned by tyrants, and are tyrants themselves. I propose a coalition for persons who have received funds in judgments against police or city governments. We must organize. If we don’t—we’re dead. A movie is a great idea, but before making one, determine if a lawsuit against movie theater chains would be necessary first in order to compel them to feature it! Legislative action in urgent in all 50 States and in DC.

  30. Michael Brown was a Thug who committed a felony robbery and then minutes later attempt murder and VERY deservedly died in that attempt.

    • Hi Mike,

      Brown was a thug, certainly. But – as I tried to get into in my article – it’s not as simple as “Thug who got what he deserved.” The rage being expressed is both irrational (Brown was a “good boy” who “didn’t do anything” and was executed by a racist cop) and rational (cops are out of control; they resort to violence – often extreme violence – as a first rather than last resort).

      • Dumb questions
        is the theft of cigars a felony not a misdemeanor
        if so is it due to dollar value
        Or due to using intimidation and violence
        of course felony is a tortured construct now
        just curious is all

        • Hi Tor,

          I dunno! I’m not a lawyer – and laws vary by state.

          I suspect the theft itself was just a misdemeanor, but he also appeared to have committed assault and battery in the commission thereof, which might have been felonious.

          • felony, shmelony – the call had not gone out over the radio when the armed, mounted (in patrol car) LEO accosted the unarmed teenager – for walking in the street. That is definitely a public safety hazard.

      • I’m not sure this is the case we should make our stand on, Eric. Mind you, if new info comes out that tells us Brown was innocent, sure. But as of now, this is the type of case conservatives can have a field day with and are easily able to be spun in favor of the police. There are so many cases that are way harder to do that with.

          • @getch- AMEN! I actually saw that video, it was unjustified EVEN IF the law he had been enforcing was just (it wasn’t.) Heaven knows its a rarety that I even somewhat defend the cops. I’m not even saying Darren Wilson was definitely justified, but it sort of seems like he was. That’s really the only case I can think of where I thought an accusation of police abuse was likely false. Of course, its the questionable ones that make police look good and pit American civilians against each other that are given media attention for a reason…

  31. That black poofter cop scared he would be assaulted by a soap bubble really got to me. Does he ever wash?

    He should know not to place himself in the trajectory of ballistic soap bubbles. Maybe that’s what he was “protecting” the public from.

    Arresting people for selling lemonade “without a permit” is nothing new. It’s got more to do with local councils flexing their imagined authority, under the guise of “public safety”.

    Was a young kid in this country a while ago that used to charge a dollar to clean householders’ rubbish bins. That was quickly stomped on once the story was aired in the paper and the grubby council found out.

    I remember the story of a young girl wanting to sell lemonade on the nature strip but the “permit” was to cost $500.

    Those disgusting bottom-feeders that proclaim they have the authority (besides audacity) to treat other humans as cattle deserve nothing less than to be dragged out of their offices and into the town square for a public flogging and a stay in the stocks. Finalised with hanging for the recalcitrant.

    Without public outrage, backlash and (initially) peaceful disobedience they’ll not only continue doing this, but it’ll steadily grow worse until they resurrect Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.

    I’ve ensured I’m ready for them at every turn – lights, camera, action. Where are you?

      • Thanks Bevin.

        Though unpopular to discuss, it might likewise be true no one is obligated to obey our foundling NAP compliant gang that calls its code the “Collection of Moral and Voluntary Governing Principles.”

        I believe we will be judged by our past, our present, and what our prospective future in an ad hoc evolutionary biological manner by countless individuals.

        Only each of them individually will know whether what we are proposing constitutes something worth emulating and spreading.

        I apologize for the times when I bring individuals and personalities into this. I ask that you take this as a sign of my inadequacies of conduct and self-control.

        No one likes an Internet Drama Queen, but each of us are what we are, and though we may not like the way we come across, we nonetheless endeavor to make the effort to philsophically advocate anyway.

        I only hope my idiosyncracies don’t cause others to assume it also implies my ideas are not worth considering and are instead worthy of only summary rejection or indifferent dismissive derision.

        For those who watch TWD, it might come down to your regard or disregard for Eugene. Is it possible to take what he says that’s good, and separate out what is false. Or are you better off not listening to him at all. Are you better off instead removing him from your phyle entirely because of his unreliability and self-serving narcissism and deception?

        Scumbag Eugene of the Walking Dead

        Oh Yeah. Check out this Kool Aid I’m offering you!

          • What is the origin of the phrase ‘Karma is a bitch’ ?

            – Fahad Hashmi, Overrated bookworm says:

            It is another way of saying “What goes around comes around”.

            The idea of Karma is that good intentions and good deeds bring a good future, and bad intentions and bad deeds bring a bad future. Usually when someone says this phrase, they believe that a bad thing that happened to someone is deserved because of their past bad actions.

            To correctly understand Karma, one would have to frame it within reincarnation. According to that belief, you pay for what you have done in one life in the next life. A person who abuses their authority in one life could come back as a drug abuser in the next life. However, many who use the phrase mean it more in terms of recompense in this life, and thus the related phrase quoted at the beginning.

            The bitch part is not aimed at Karma, the concept, but at the resulting punishment, where it refers to the unpleasantness of being punished for something you did. It is a taunt aimed at a person who is supposedly asking for the situation he is in due to his previous actions. So the person saying it, considers the one he says it to or about deserves to be punished because of something they did.

            For example, someone so busy pointing and laughing at a person who had an accident, that he walks straight into a lamp post and breaks his nose. His friend who did not find the accident they saw funny, could say “Ain’t Karma a bitch?”.

            – most of my life, I’ve managed to generate a small morality-inversion machine. Not unlike the Jedi and their mindtricks. Doing this has made my life freer. It has enable others in my life to live freer.

            Unlike the Jedi, I’m not against anything. Like say the Sith Lord. It’s more of a knack I’ve acquired by careful study of the men in my extended family. Something that was just known of, but never spoke of.

            As to the long term effects of, it remains to be seen.

            The Doctor, in Doctor Who does not adhere to Judeo-Christian values during his travels of his own accord. He is sometimes encouraged to adhere to them by his Companion. This is quite similar to the way I often practice Judeo Christian Values.

            The Time Traveler in the 1960 HG Wells Film “The Time Machine” does not . He sees it as his ‘Judeo-Christian duty to destroy the machinery that feeds the Eloi and the Morlocks.

            Be Careful With That Axe, Eugene
            – – –

            Judeo-Christianity is Foundation of our Tyranny

            Judeo-Christianity is not reason; it’s not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it’s a dangerous servant and a fearful master…

            If there are two words in the English language that we need to understand, they are the words “religious power.”

            Judeo-Christianity is concentrated religious power. Western Government by definition, by nature, by history and by practical existence is religious power. Western Government would not and could not exist without religious power. When governments lose their religious power, they collapse.

            Every act of government and its politicians is motivated by its religious power. Government religious power is awesome, and it is a hush-hush subject.

            Government’s promotion of “order, safety, security, health, morals and general welfare” is the essence of its “religious policy.” The term “public policy” is a very innocent and disarming term which in reality is the very opposite of the public impression.

            “Public policy” is actually the state religious power in action. It is the manifestation of police power the implementation of government force.

            It is to be expected we have a police state. Do not be deceived by former mentions of the “limitations of the federal and state constitutions…” State Religious power is not limited and does not come about by due process but by usurpation and wrongful seizure of your mind and body through deception.

            If you study the documents more closely, you will see that the interest of the holy state in all matters prevails over you, the individual.

            When politicians and bureaucrats talk about democracy and public policy, they speak with a forked tongue. They want you to believe that these terms refer to personal liberty. They do not, and the politician knows that they do not. They know that they refer to the religious power and enforcement of state authority over the individual. They are code words for holy government force.

            State religious power is physical force. If you fail to file and pay your income tax, you will be quiet rudely introduced to the rites and ruling clerisy and their immense religious power of the government commonwealth.

            It is no longer even necessary to “break the law” to see the religious power of the ayatollahs of government. Now your assets can be seized simply because the state does not like the way you are depositing your own funds into your own bank accounts. The IRS is now seizing the bank accounts of businesses and individuals because they regularly made deposits of less than $10,000, which is a perfectly legal practice.

            Under U.S. civil asset forfeiture laws, IRS agents can seize property they suspect of being tied to a crime even if no charges are filed, and the agency can keep a share of the property whether a crime is proven or not.

            State religious power goes far beyond the definition given in any Law Dictionary. We must also speak of the subtle and hidden power of government to persuade the public mind.

            Government persuasion is the indoctrination of the individual through his church, his public school, his fraternities and the media to sacrifice his person, his individuality and his property for the “greater good” of the group. Group is translated as government authority.

            Once we yield our minds to government force under the pretense of “the greater good” or “the national interest,” or the “Judeo-Christian tradition”, there is no need to concern ourselves with our rights, for we have surrendered them to the holy state.

            Police power is sovereignty of the state over mind, body and soul. To believe otherwise is to live by illusion.

            During our public (non)education indoctrination, we learned about the abolition of slavery in America. But none of the details of private property rights being eviscerated at the same time.

            We learned nothing about the nationalization of slavery with police power in the statutes of government itself. Statutory freedom shackled with mental marriage to 317 million other captives is a study in the pathology of the public mind.

            This means that we are guaranteed certain freedoms by way of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights on one hand and brainwashed into servitude on the other.

            Such a thought process creates what might be termed a “double-minded” person. By definition, double-mindedness is the mental state of believing or attempting to believe two opposing thoughts at the same time.

            This simple and brief teaching of this is even found in the New Testament itself. In James 1:8 of the Christian Bible, The mention of the double-minded man is most telling. http://biblehub.com/james/1-8.htm

            “The Double-Minded Man is Unstable In All His Ways.”

            The teaching is limited to this one sentence. There is no description or further discourse as to what exactly a double-minded man is, but it is made clear such a man is unstable. The above definition of double-mindedness is our definition.

            Double-mindedness is a recognizable psychological phenomenon and it is used to neutralize human thought and action. It is very subtle because it almost defies description. Herein lies its power to deceive and control human emotions.

            There is both collective and individual double-mindedness. Almost all politicians are aware of this phenomenon and use it to deceive the tax cattle they keep at their disposal to milk and to make into steaks, during times of war.

            An example of collective double-mindedness found in the electoral process. Every American who voted would tell you, if asked, that he or she believed in life, liberty and property.

            Yet regardless of how he or she voted, he or she voted for a political cabal that is progressively undermining basic liberty and transferring property to the state without payment.

            The only reason that people could be seduced into destroying their own liberty is because, over time, they have unknowingly adopted the morality of the state.

            Their double-mindedness has numbed their senses so that they do not know that political oratory is an appeal for sanction of their own plunder. The electorate never know the real issues and none were ever stated.

            Democracy is deeply flawed. But we are light-years from even that. Democracy means voting on the real issues. Not selecting which dog or pony is to win a make-believe dog and pony show.

            The individual or group is double-minded when it clings to a philosophy that denies and is contradictory to reality, regardless of its name or label.

            Political parties are never intended to be different in substance, only in name and oratory.

            Columbus ended up coming to America, because the Muslims were blocking all the trade to Asia and he was seeking a new route. Yet Muslims and Christians are all part of the same immense Judeo-Christian con.

            The very con that has swallowed half the population of the world. The con that threatens all of humanity with an long brutish new dark age. One with only superficial differences, and where in fact every one is just the same. Everyone is a captive actor in a worldspanning play of homage to one world Judeo-Christian Dictatorship.

            The double-minded man forever seeks liberty under party labels. Keep in mind, the Libertarian Party is just another label. There are two illusions here. The first is that political parties appear different simply because they have different names. The second great illusion is that political parties lead to political freedom. The opposite is true. Collective plunder does not lead to human liberty, but to human conformity.

            When Americans had freedom, there was no lockstep application of Judeo-Christianity. It is this sickly sweet conformity that is our true enemy. Not the violators of the cynical dogma that for over 2,000 years has been known as Judeo-Christianity.

            • Tor(Prolific) Liberal,

              Where do you get the time and energy to post this and your other posts? Even when I disagree, which is unusual, I stand in awe of your stamina. Impressive indeed.

        • Dear Tor,

          I’ve been watching TWD “religiously,” so to speak.

          The revelation that Eugene’s promise of a cure was a complete fabrication certainly took the wind out of Abraham’s sails.

          What a bummer.

  32. Ku Klux Klan Raises funds for police WHO killed the young MIKE BROWN

    Left a comment at the YT vid.

    An Enemy of the State
    1 second ago

    The thugs in white hoods are going to be going “Duh… ” when the thugs in blue uniforms come after them.
    It’s not like white LEOs haven’t gone after white racists before. Ever heard of Ruby Ridge?

    • The media shapes the events for the state. At Ruby Ridge and Waco they were crazy people. Kooks. ‘the other’. The media creates the desired image and it is always to divide. To get people fighting with each other or just to isolate groups so they can be crushed.

  33. Dear Eric,

    Well said indeed.

    I’m incredulous at the white racists online who make excuses for the costumed goons merely because many blacks, such as Trayvon Martin, are “uncostumed” goons.

    These redneck peckerwoods are stupid enough to think “The cops are on our side” because they themselves are white.

    They don’t realize that “We are all niggers now” because of the War on Drugs. “We are all ragheads now” because of the War on Terror.

    “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
    — Thomas Paine

    • Bevin, I’d personally hesitate to call anyone “racist” in these types of cases unless racism is specifically proven.

      Do I like Darren Wilson? No. He is a thug by trade. Michael Brown was also a thug.

      But narrowing down to the specific encounter between Wilson and Brown, I’m not yet convinced that Wilson was actually in the wrong.

      Too murky, too much conflicting info, but most of what I’ve heard seems to indicate that Wilson acted acceptably.

      I hate writing that, I really do, because I know it puts me against most other libertarians, and in the same camp as people who I think are total morons, but it is what it is.

      I’m willing to be convinced that I’m wrong.

      • I was applying the term to those online who demonstrated that they were racists by their written statements.

        No one else.

        You’ll find plenty of them even without looking.

        Trust me.

        • I referred to one such group above. You might have missed it while scrolling up and down.

          It was the KKK, whose “racism is specifically proven.”

          I don’t throw the term “racist” around casually, the way Al Sharpton does.

        • @Bevin- I apologize, I completely misread your statement. Sorry. I misread and thought you were saying that the people who think Trayvon Martin is a thug are racists, but I now realize you weren’t saying that.

          I forget the relevant facts now, but I remember thinking at the time that there wasn’t enough evidence to justify convicting Zimmerman. I’m not convinced there’s enough to convict Darren Wilson either, though I still think it should have gone to court. And I’m glad he’s not a cop anymore. Then again, I’m glad when any cop decides not to be a cop anymore.

          • Dear David,

            No problem really.

            What I was wrote was:
            “… the white racists online who make excuses for the costumed goons… ”

            There are “white racists online who make excuses for the costumed goons.” Such individuals do exist.

            That is not the same as saying that “anyone who makes excuses for the costumed goons is a white racist.”

            Anyway, no problem.

          • Hi David,

            The underlying problem is that people are being fucked with almost constantly now, for no legitimate reason. The random “safety” stops. The blue suited goons at the airport. Everywhere you go, there’s some asshole in a uniform – and we’re expected to genuflect before their authoritah.

            People are fed up. I am among them.

            Brown appears to have been a petty thug, but I am certain Wilson behaved like the typical modern asshole cop, too. That is, he was looking for an excuse.

            You are way too young to remember a different world. Let me hip you to how it was back in the halcyon days of circa 1985:

            As a teenager, I argued with cops. And did not get “proned” (or Tazered or shot or even have a gun unholstered in my direction). Cops – generally – conducted themselves with restraint; they did not demand immediate submission to degrading orders (such as lying on the ground, bending over the hood of cop car) and they did not have the legal authority to stick their hands in your pants (much less a finger up your ass). They could not stop you at random; they had to have a specific reason. They could not force you to wear a seatbelt. Could not arrest you if you were sleeping off an evening of drinking in the backseat of your car…

            You’re too young to remember the East German Stasi.

            That’s what American cops have become.

            And it’s why they’re hated, just as the Stasi were.

            • Eric, I’m with you on not being able to stand the police. I’m SLIGHTLY biased the other way by the fact that the one cop I know in person is a man I have never seen act in an authoritarian heavy-handed manner, but I nonetheless realize that its part of the job these days. I don’t know enough about the East German Stasi, and the particular details of them, to know if we’re quite at that level or not. I’m honestly sympathetic to the people who just flat out say “ostracize them” though I’m not really there yet. While I suspect there are some cops who would kill you merely for arguing with them, I doubt that’s the norm (note that this does NOT mean there isn’t a problem. If even 1% of cops would kill you for arguing with them, that’s a MASSIVE problem.)

              if you want to say Wilson was guilty because he was a cop… OK… you won’t win many people over to agree with you, certainly not anyone who isn’t an ancap (or perhaps a theonomist, interestingly enough they are the only not-radically left wing group that has as much of an issue with police as we do) but I understand.

              On the other hand, if we’re going to assess this incident as a singular incident, I’m not really convinced Wilson is guilty. That doesn’t mean I like him, or that I disagree with you about the problems with the police.

              Really, though, this case is murky enough that I don’t really want to touch it with a twenty-foot pole. There are HUNDREDS of cases that I’ve read about where I’d call for the cop’s head before I’d tangle with this one…

              • Hi David,

                Guy down the road from me is a state cop. He has motorcycles; he’s been over to our place and I have been over to his. Seems like an ok guy… on the “neighbor” level. But I am certain he’d not refuse to participate in a no-knock raid on my place, if so ordered. I have no doubt that he spends pretty much every day issuing tickets for “speeding” and other victimless crimes. Meanwhile, I have seen him ride his bike at much above the PSL on several occasions. Which of course I have no issue with… except that he probably has issued scores of tickets to others for doing the same damned thing. Now, he might give me a “break” – because he knows me.

                But isn’t that kind of fucked up, too?

                • @Eric- Yeah, I’m with you. Again, I don’t like or support the police. That many don’t really know what they are doing mitigates their guilt in my mind. Mitigates. Not abolishes, but its not irrelevant either.

                  I’m confident the guy I know wouldn’t do something HE knew was wrong. But… he’s not a libertarian. If he were, I’d be MUCH more inclined to hold him more responsible on this issue. He’s not.

                • And they are expected to “enforce the law,” but shouldn’t that include the Constitution, the so-called supreme law of the land?
                  An acquaintance raises rabbits, as do my wife and I. In her case, in Colorado.
                  A couple of years ago she refused to sell a rabbit to someone. So the ‘victim’ called animal control. Some places have uniformed animal control officers. CO does not, so when the AC folk went to her farm, they took 7 sheriff’s deputies with them. NONE of said deputies were aware that they needed a warrant to even set foot on the property w/o permission, let alone open her closed barn. I don’t have all the details, so I won’t go into those I do know. But the end game was ALL of her animals were stolen (they called it confiscation) and MOST of them ended up dead because the AC folk did not know how to properly care for them.

      • Hi David,

        Brown is far from innocent, as most reasonable people agree. But I think the reason Wilson’s actions have aroused such anger has something to do with the over-escalation that likely occurred – and which has become a pattern.

        People here know what I mean.

        The barking of orders and demand for immediate, abject submission – followed immediately with force.

        It appears Wilson did not know Brown had stolen cigars, but had “pulled him over” for walking in the street. Now, granted, that is an asshole move (walking in the street) but I suspect Wilson didn’t politely ask Brown to please move out of the way of traffic. I’d be willing to be bet he arrogantly barked orders at him and when Brown balked, went all Officer 82nd Airborne on him. Then Brown refused to submit – or resisted being arrested. There was a fight. Brown may or may not have attempted to get Wilson’s gun. But it seems evident that, at some point, Brown tried to get away. Was retreating.

        Now, I’m not allowed (legally) to shoot a man who is retreating from me. Because the mortal threat is dissipated. Why is there a different standard for cops?

        Wilson raised his weapon – it seems – and ordered Brown to stop, or simply shot him. Not because his life was in danger, but because he was determined to enforce the law.

        And this is why people (me included) are upset.

        We’re sick of the ultra-violent over-escalation and trigger-itchiness.

        I honestly believe many cops want to shoot people and are looking for an excuse to do so.

        • @Eric- You’re speculating a lot here, which is my point.

          I have most of the same biases as you do, towards libertarianism, less (if any) police power and government control. I’m also biased against the enforcers.

          But, if we want to be honest reporters of the truth, let’s do it.

          We don’t know that Wilson “barked orders and demanded immediate compliance.” We don’t.

          I happen to think that if someone tries to kill you and then starts running away, you should be “allowed” to shoot them in the back. I know you currently aren’t, and I probably wouldn’t take the opportunity anyways (probably not even in a society where cops are unlikely to do anything worthwhile to make me whole after I am criminally violated, definitely not in a functioning anarcho-capitalist society where my private PDA would do what it needed to do to protect me and to make me whole as a customer) but I still think you’re the victim in that case, and shouldn’t be criminally charged. Again, I understand current law doesn’t allow for this.

          From all the reports I have heard Wilson did notice the stolen cigarettes and that Brown matched the description of the person who stole them. I don’t know exactly when, probably not when the initial stop was made (I don’t really think blocking off the street is a victimless crime either, its pretty minor in the grand scheme of things but there are still victims) At that point, Wilson is justified in making an arrest. If Brown first tries to attack him and then runs, what exactly is Wilson supposed to do? Just shooting him in the back would seem excessive to me, but still “justified” by the standards I would use for civilians (ie. I don’t think it should be criminal to shoot someone who tried to attack you as he is running away.) Now, if Wilson told the man, a criminal who committed an actual crime and then attacked Wilson while he was enforcing a JUST law, to “stop” and he doesn’t… well… I’m not convinced Wilson should just let him go.

          Mind you, I don’t really “approve” of Wilson. We both agree that there were two thugs in this story. I understand why you are upset. Whatever our opinions of this case ,there are CLEAR CUT cases where officers CLEARLY abused their “authority” that we can jump on. I wouldn’t pick this one. In fact, I’d defend a guy who killed an officer who was trying to arrest him for a drug “crime”, as unpopular as that stance would be, before I’d dive into this mess and try to defend Michael Brown.

          Here’s the bottom line for me:

          1. We need a reasonable standard to hold officers to when it comes to ethics. In an ideal world, I don’t like the statist model of providing police, but the individual officer isn’t really responsible for how police are provided. And even if they were, its an issue that’s just too abstract and “far from home” to get the average person to understand. I’ve tried to get “normal people” to understand it, and they typically can’t. Even some smart people can’t wrap their heads about it. Heck, I myself have a tricky time with certain elements. Its certainly over the head of your average (somewhat stupid) cop.

          2. We can, however, hold the cops to the ethical standard of the NAP. That is to say, they cannot justly act contrary to the NAP, which includes enforcing laws that are inconsistent with the NAP.

          3. This also means that when a cop enforces a law that IS consistent with the NAP, he is justified IN THAT INSTANCE (see #1) despite the fact that other aspects of his job are almost certainly illegitimate.

          4. Now, from the perspective of Darren Wilson, perhaps we can quibble over whether standing in the street is a crime, but theft certainly is. Based on the above, Wilson would be justified in making an arrest (he has the right) after he realized he had probably cause that Brown was a thief. That we don’t agree with other things the police do, other parts of Wilson’s job, and so forth are irrelevant to this isolated action. Wilson has a right to arrest Brown, and thus a right to use whatever level of force necessary to ensure that Brown was arrested.

          Do I know that Wilson limited himself to the necessary amount of force? No, I don’t. Do I know Wilson was justified? No, I don’t. But, is there enough information here for me to say Wilson was NOT justified? No, there isn’t, or at least, I don’t have access to enough of it, and you’re speculating enough that it seems you don’t know for sure either. And really, that just makes us look bad, and lowers our credibility somewhat for the umpteen million cases where the cops are clearly not justified.

          Were Brown’s “crime” a victimless one, I’d be totally on your side here. Were it clear that Brown was shot despite being compliant, I’d also be on your side. But if Brown committed a real crime AND tried to physically resist the officer, I think it would take a bit of doing to prove that Wilson committed murder.

  34. The lamestream media still try to portray these interactions as racist, but I think some of the sheeple are finally realizing that the costumed thugs are equal opportunity abusers. This “grand” jury decision to let occifer Wilson off scot free should let everyone know that costumed thugs now have carte blanche to shoot anyone with impunity and never face any consequences. “Heroes” indeed, LOL.

  35. “Darren Wilson may be a decent man, out of uniform.”

    I have to disagree. Anyone who is decent, will be so outside of a costume or in it.

    In today’s era, can a decent person be a cop? I could possibly be convinced with a good argument, but until I hear one, I remain convinced that it cannot be done.

    • @ancap- Its easy, actually. You just have to 1. Not be libertarian, 2. be genuinely convinced that cops are defending our safety and/or freedom. There are a lot of deluded people, lots of them are cops.

      Do I like them? No. Do I think its morally justified? No. Do I think its possible for a decent person to get sucked in? Yes, and I think I know one.

      • David,

        I think it comes down to what we view as “decent”. I have an uncle who is a probation officer. At family gatherings, where I can’t avoid him but still try, he is constantly justifying tasering young kids because “we don’t know if they had a weapon or not”, and other lame, pathetic little man arguments.

        He is neither decent, or very bright. A thoughtful individual doesn’t put themselves at the service of a murderous cult. Decent people are thoughtful. Thoughtful people are decent. Cops are neither.

        I haven’t heard a good argument otherwise, so that’s my conclusion and I’m sticking to it…….until I’m persuaded otherwise.

        • RE: “Do I think its possible for a decent person to get sucked in?”

          Once they do, they are no longer, “decent people”.

          Or, maybe, because they were, “sucked in” [which is a lame term. Maybe, “dove on their own, head first into those waters” is a better picture?] they were never “decent” to begin with?

          Think about that.

          Also, @ancap51 . Thanks for that input. And, YEESH!, I thought my empire whoreshipping relatives were bad?

          “he is constantly justifying tasering young kids because…”

          Whoa. I don’t know what’s worse: Those who do the tasering, or those who support it.

          50/50 responsible? .. and they’re all 51/50?

          I don’t know How you do it. Hats off to you for patience and … I’m Not sure I could do it. But, I’m glad you hang in there, maybe, just maybe, you’ll rub off? Not likely I imagine. But still… There’s always the chance the younger generation is watching from the sidelines. “The Fourth Turning”, and all that.

          Is there a scene from the film, ‘Planet of the Apes’ to fit this quote?:
          “he is constantly justifying tasering young kids because…”

          • Yeah, if the cop I knew was like ancap’s impression of his uncle, I wouldn’t associate with him at all. I probably couldn’t even knowingly attend the same church without trying to get him excommunicated. Then again, that may be because I have never met such a person, and thus, if I were to meet such a person it would be AFTER I was already an ancap. I knew the guy I do know before I became a libertarian.

            I think that just as a decent person who is a civilian can be brainwashed into thinking cops are good people who protect them and put their lives on the line and so forth, a decent person can be convinced that that’s the truth and thus decide to become a “hero” (cop) themselves.

            Do I believe all the crappy rhetoric about the ninety-nine percent and so forth? No. I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of cops had bad intentions. Certainly a significant minority. But… all of them? I don’t think so. Some are only unwittingly evil on the job and quite decent, well-meaning people otherwise.

            Not every cop is ancap’s uncle…

            • “Not every cop is ancap’s uncle”

              True, my uncle isn’t a cop either. He’s a wannabe cop. He hangs out with cops. Has lunch with cops, busts probation violators with cops. To be fair to him he doesn’t only justify the tasering of young kids. He justifies everything in by the god of “officer safety”. He justifies everything cops do…….basically, if you see it on copblock, he’s got an excuse for why it happened. He always sides with the pork. It’s “you don’t know the situation”, “how were the cops supposed to know if the kid had a weapon”, for all they knew he had a knife in his pocket”, etc., etc.


              I don’t have another person–closely–in my family tree that you could say has respect for cops. Luckily, he’s not usually at gatherings since he’s not blood relation. He’s basically a Thanksgiving/Christmas attendee.

              Uncle feels ganged up on I’m sure. The rest of my family, generally agrees with me. Not because I demand it, but because I’ve read so many libertarian pieces, they don’t have a good argument for my libertarian views. They aren’t hardcore statists either…..they are constitutional conservatives. When I talk anarchy, I can persuade them on much of it, but minarchy is hard to break people free of. Besides, I kind of feel the same way as Tom Woods about it. I’m not as cordial as Tom though. Admittedly, I sometimes look for a fight. But it’s tough to spend time arguing with people that you agree with 90% of things on…………if only the argument in this country/sector were anarchy vs. minarchy. It’d be a virtual heaven on earth compared to what we currently have.

              I still hold to my view that decent people are thoughtful and thoughtful people are decent. Cops–wannabe cops–are neither.

              • @Ancap- There are a couple of critically important points here that I would like to hit on.

                First of all, the minarchist issue is a key point. Minarchists are more likely to justify the police especially since most minarchists think the police STRUCTURE is at least necessary, even if there could be “reform” or such.

                Second of all, I’d say there are (broadly defined) two different types of cop supporters. Mind you, you could definitely break these down into subcategories, but the idea works.

                First you have the guys that (as you say) “if its on cop block, he has an excuse why it happened.” The people that will justify almost anything before the god of “officer safety.” I understand this is a really broad category, but I tend to think everyone in this category is either evil (first assumption) or just ULTRA stupid (yes, it can be both.)

                The second group of people is some variant of (and yes, there are different shades and nuances to this) of “yes, those abuses are terrible, but there are good cops to.” These types of arguments come either to an utilitarian view of law enforcement*, an unlibertarian ideal legal code, or both. Some of those types of people will become cops themselves as well. Again, there are a lot of variants within this group, so they aren’t all the same, but what they have in common is that they don’t so much think the blatant abuses are justified (they will still likely justify some things that libertarians won’t, but they won’t justify, say, beating someone to death over jaywalking or putting people in choke holds for selling untaxed cigarettes and the like) as they just recognize that not all cops do those things, without realizing that all cops DO do some things that are unjustified.

                Really, I just think that first group of people is pretty much beyond hope whether they are cops or not. I think somebody who justifies all the blatant abuses but ISN’T a cop is far worse than a cop who isn’t libertarian (and thus, doesn’t realize that all of his day to day behavior is wrong) but yet recongizes that there are abuses and at least tries to respect people as well as he knows how.

                • Hi David,

                  Cops are bad because they have to be. At least, under the current system. The most decent man in the world is transformed – just like Superman – by dint of the costume he wears and the powers he wields.

                  This is easy to prove.

                  Someone like me (and you and probably all the regulars here) are people who should – in a sane/moral world – be utterly free of any worry of ever having to deal with a cop except on a purely consensual/mutually friendly level. As in, “Hi there, Joe. How are things with the wife and kids? Good to see you; tell them I said hello.” Period.

                  And yet, people like me and you and millions of others live our lives in a state of constant wariness that some asshole in a costume is going to hassle us over a manufactured “offense” that involved no harm (actual or even plausibly potential) to anyone else. We hand over our money, accept all sorts of obnoxious interferences, do things we’d prefer not to do, not do things we’d like to do… all because of the duress we’re forced to live under because of costumed creeps out there, who have become the living, walking “boots stamping on a human face, forever” Orwell described.

                  I harm none. I do not steal. I do not attack people. I mind my own business. And yet, they will not fucking leave me alone.

                  So, count me among the cop revilers.

                  • @Eric- Again, I don’t like them either. The nuance is primarily coming from the fact that I do believe, to SOME extent, intentions matter.

                    Who’s worse:

                    1. A civilian who isn’t a cop but worships the ground they walk on to the point where he will even defend open, undeniable atrocities like the beating to death of Kelly Thomas because “you don’t know all the information” and “the cops need to protect themselves and so forth.”


                    2. A cop who isn’t ideologically libertarian and to some degree believes in the legitimacy of “the law.” He believes he’s keeping people safe on the road when he pulls over speeders, and he is genuinely afraid that drug users are going to destroy the country. He cares for his family well. He recognizes that there is abuse, he tries to treat people with respect (not realizing that pulling people over in the first place is disrespectful), and when he sees something that he knows is an abuse, he reports it knowing that he might get in trouble with the “thin blue line” but he’s willing to risk it because its the right thing to do. He would never resort to lethal force unless someone tried to kill or substantially physically harm him first.

                    To me, the first guy is worse. The second guy is what I would call a decent person despite the uniform. Despite, not because of. Ideally, he’ll eventually learn the truth and quit.

                    The first guy, on the other hand, knows the truth and is OK with it. That, to me, is far worse.

        • @ancap- yeah, your uncle seems like an awful person, which many cops are.

          The one guy I know in person who’s a cop is a police captain who works a desk job. He’s one of the most conscientious Christians I know. He does think I’m an “extreme libertarian” (which would explain why he can be a cop in good conscience, he doesn’t realize that the apparatus of the State is entirely unjustified and that society can function without it) but he’s aware that there are abuses. At one point when I mentioned that I gave a speech on privatizing police, he immediately joked that they’d probably be less corrupt. I’ve heard second hand that he’s gotten into some hot water with the police at times because he’s reported misconduct. When I’ve argued that drug prohibition should be abolished, he acknowledged that I might be right.

          The problem is that the average person does not realize that its a murderous cult, and they certainly can’t comprehend how we could survive without them. Its brainwashing. We know the average civilian is brainwashed, and I think the average cop is too. Some are worse than others. None of them are “good.” They should all quit. But some of them are decent outside of the job.

          Which really is the point I’m getting at. If my one experience with a cop I knew personally was your uncle, I’d probably agree with you. Even with the guy I know, there’s no way I can justify his career. I would tell him that if he asked me (he never has, but when I was asked about Ferguson by him I said I thought this case was being played up by the media because its a “police abuse case” that makes the police look a lot better than most of the other ones. I flat out said “they’re trying to make the police look better” and he didn’t get mad at me.) I’ve had some not so friendly arguments with my own parents (who are not cops) about this topic, how in the world anyone can justify such a career? They, like most people, don’t get it. Off the job, he’s a man who’s active in our church, that loves his wife and kids, and who I can count the times I’ve heard him discuss his career on one hand. Of the times I can remember, almost all of them were discussing his attempts to evangelize other police officers. Only once do I remember him discussing an arrest, though I forget the particulars.

          I think his career is immoral and that like most of this country he’s been somewhat brainwashed by the system he’s in. but outside of the job, when its really “him” acting rather than the role of a state agent, as far as there can be such a thing, I think he’s a good person.

          There, I said it. Let the lynchings from the ultra-hardcore begin… lol…

          • If you were to look at some of the very earliest posts I’ve made on this website, you’d notice that I still had a lot of statist assumptions. Was I a horrible person?

            Lots of people who are statists haven’t thought about the issue half as much as I have. Its hard but I try to forgive them, because they don’t really understand, anymore than I did at the time.

            • No David, I wouldn’t call you a horrible person back at that time. We aren’t discussing that though. We are discussing “decent”. I would consider you to be a decent person back then, simply because you were being thoughtful, which kind of goes with what I said about thoughtfulness–a couple times.

              All of us at some point had some amount of statist assumptions. We were born without them. Society and “schooling” beat statism into us, those of us that are thoughtful have “unlearned” or are attempting to unlearn statism. As long as we are on the road toward a free society we aren’t horrible, even if statism causes us to stumble along the way.

              • If civilians can wake up over time, can’t some people who are in the police force do that to?

                Again, I’m not a fan of the police, and I don’t go for the “some cops are good” rhetoric. But I definitely think the worst of our civilian population is worse than the best (least bad) of our cop population.

                • Yes, absolutely.

                  But their guilt is greater. You and I never worked as enforcers … no small thing. To worship thugs is despicable.

                  But to be a thug far, far worse.

                  • eric, that brings to mind LEAP. Some of those people really seem to feel guilty….and some say so, about their former performance. I doubt I’d want to hang with any of them but now and again, one of them says something that makes me think they may have actually re-thought their entire career, not just the drug prohibition part. Any maybe not. I’m certainly no mind reader.

  36. It amazes me how this has been painted to be ‘racism’ instead of ‘statism’.

    Government deliberately divides people. It deliberately creates chaos. This entire event is a lesson in what government does. At every step it acted to further its control and power by manipulating people’s emotions.

    1) Create fear and paranoia among its enforcement class.
    2) Eventually a white cop kills a black man.
    3) Use the media to call it racism and stir people up and divide them. Get them arguing about what happened.
    4) Do not make any preparations for step 5 except to protect government.
    5) Make sure the cop isn’t charged. Announce this in prime time.
    6) Wait for disorder, riots, and other problems.
    7) Be slow to react to 6) and then demonstrate that government is the protector.

    • Brent – yes, the lamestream media has kept repeating that this was a case of a WHITE police officer killing an unarmed BLACK teenager. White and black are irrelevant in this case.
      An armed, on-duty police officer IN HIS CAR shot and killed an unarmed teenager who was on foot. If he feared for his life, why didn’t he just drive away?

      • Further – the teenager’s alleged robbery of a convenience store had NOT gone out over the radio at the time when the LEO accosted him for walking in the street – surely a dangerous crime.

        • @Philip the Bruce- If Wilson stopped Brown for walking in the street, rather than for theft, that would certainly show that he was unjustified, no matter what the other info was.

  37. 28 year old Darren Wilson caught in another man’s home with his 37 year old wife and 4 year old child. This caused a violent confrontation six months before Darren shot an uncooperative Michael in the back. It was only after being shot for fleeing that Michael stormed the cop car.
    — — —

    I think this video exposes the truth of violent cowards like Darren Wilson quite well. We’ve all seen the brave men of law enforcement. But only on TV shows and in movies. Where we’ve also seen dinosaurs and aliens.

    From your own experience, and even including second hand experience of people you know. Is there any actual evidence of the brave men of law enforcement. In my case, that is a definite no.

    I have never seen any bravery, or even know anyone who has seen any kind of bravery. Same goes for dinosaurs and aliens.

    Cops are Cowards. Larken Rose’s latest video after a six month hiatus.

  38. From the daily mail

    It appears that Mr. Wilson was calm and normal after his ordeal. (according to the examining doctor)

    I would like to believe his story, since the thought of a police state out of control is abhorrent to me. (although there is evidence that in many places it is out of control) Unfortunately there are way too many cases of police abusing the public at large without any significant consequences to said individuals. Even if his version is true, it is tainted by association with the big blue crew. He does not get the benefit of the doubt.

    • Mithrandir, “It appears that Mr. Wilson was calm and normal after his ordeal. (according to the examining doctor)” Yeah, psychopaths are calm and normal too, after a altercation, being an old psych nurse, I can attest to that…

  39. [email protected]

    Suspicious man has hands in pockets in subzero weather

    A young boy and mother were crossing an avenue in Santiago, Dominican Republic. A police patrol truck crossed the intersection in red light, and at high speed. The truck hit the boy severing his leg. The policeman accuse them of jaywalking, became angry, and instead of providing assistance, pulled out his gun in fear of the crowd that formed after the incident.

    The mother cried and asked for someone to take her son to a close by hospital and for help. People were afraid of the aggressive policeman until a taxi driver came forward, disregarded the policemen, and used his car to take them to the hospital. At the hospital the boy was saved but he lost his leg. The boy was a baseball player formerly expected to sign with a major league baseball team. The policeman Junior Antonio Zapata Zapata was arrested and is waiting for trial.

    Free your mind, and arrest will follow

      • If you were an adviser to Hershel Greene, how would you have made him really understand your quote? How could you have wisened him up so he had lived to protect his daughter Beth?

        It sounds outrageous, my assertion that obeying Judeo-Christian tenets leads to misery and a death sentence. But then look at Hershel Greene. His moralistic foolishness led to his untimely death. And then he wasn’t there to protect Beth when she really needed him.

        I’m not advocating moral relativism. If you catch a thief in the act, blow his head off. Hold him hostage until his relatives pay ransom. It’s your right. But to say there can be a societywide practice seems a Hayekian fatal conceit. It is possible my own biological observational morality has some serious flaws as well. But I’m confident this is an unsettled area, in need of serious thought.

        Beth sings “The Sorting Glass” – with her father, Hershel there

        Hershel was a wealthy property owner. With a great family and seeming outstanding well rooted values.

        But he was made into total mince meat by Rick & Shane Grimes. And then by the Governor. Totally maniuplated by their authority and sick lying platitudes.

        Everything we think we’ve designed as far as a just society. And our faith in our ability to create a system that protects our property from “thieves” seems to be utterly unfounded whim worship. Instead what ‘crime reporters’ end up being is recruiters to the school for state criminality. Independent criminals become part of a vast syndicate, which causes far more harm than individual thefts and larcenies ever could.

        Here’s the shopkeeper’s store where the Michael Brown cigars originated after being decimated by ‘society’. There’s good reason why property owners in marginal areas don’t call authorities or talk about their problems. Rank and file people, even the good ones like Hershel, are clueless infantile morons.

        • Dear Tor,

          I’m not sure I would lump Rick in there with Shane. the Governor, and Gareth.

          Rick may have been hard-hearted at times, but I don’t recall him ever crossing the line over to savagery. Even when he brutally killed the guy who was about to rape his son, it was still strictly speaking a clear case of self-defense or at least retributive justice.

          I think Herschel was there to illustrate a borderline pacifist perspective, to show that it was an option, but not a viable one for survival in such a world. It would have allowed evil to steamroller over good. That is clearly unacceptable.

          Anyway, the show challenges one’s ethics.

          Speaking of which, I assume you read this.


          “… for some folks who are on the fringe of preparedness, their entire survival plan is based on taking what others have carefully put back. Remember that yahoo who was on Doomsday Preppers, boasting about how he planned to become a marauder after the SHTF?

          “We’re not in it to stockpile. We’re in it to take what you have and there’s nothing you can do to stop us,” Tyler Smith says. “We are your worst nightmare, and we are coming.”

          Smith, 29, is the leader of Spartan Survival. The group has more than 80 dues-paying members. Smith founded the organization in 2005 to train and prepare others on survivalism.

          On Tuesday night, Smith’s story will be told on the National Geographic Channel survivalist TV show “Doomsday Preppers.”

          Rick and his small group are not like that. That is why I consider them the last vestige of civilization based on the NAP.

          • All very true.

            I guess the question I struggle with is: how much NAP deviation/if any can be tolerated. And by whom. What is to be done in reality, less than perfect situations. To me, I have different expectations of people in different levels of existence and distance from base animal needs.

            Range of “tolerated” morality

            Higher Tolerance
            A starving man or wolf
            A man with a family in the throes of hunger/deprivation
            A struggling emo teen with no friends
            Poor and uneducated person
            Poor person who knows better
            A ruined man once noble now lost and adrift
            Working man
            Professional man
            Property and business owner
            Socialite/Leisure class
            Sated secure billionaire.
            Lower Tolerance

            This is a form of egoism, and there may be contradictions and dissonance.

            It is possible that upon extensive re-examination, it will be found that Judeo-Christianity remains the least worst alternative. Finding a replacement or tweak means going against thousands of years of ‘wisdom.’

            There is truth in Voltaire’s adage, The best is the enemy of the good.

            As to Spartan Survival. Voltaire says:
            Love truth, but pardon error.

            At least we have Glenn Rhee and Maggie Greene

            Lori Grimes OK 2 LOL or wrong to LOL

            • I see what you’re saying, Tor, WRT those who are more knowledgeable and who have more resources being more responsible.

              Two questions:

              1. Why include wolves at all? Animals aren’t bound by moral dictates, including the NAP. A wolf, starving or not who attacks a human isn’t acting “immorally.” Morals don’t apply to wolves, nor do wolves have rights. Same with any other animals.

              2. Where are you putting police officers on the chart?

              • I can’t speak for Tor, but I agree that animals have no rights. They never have had the ability to reason, or act reasonably. Therefore they don’t have rights, because their action is base instinct, not reason.

                Your second question, imo is that cops have to be placed at the low end of any “moral tolerance list”. They have at some point, had the opportunity to think and to reason, but have rejected that opportunity. Until they repent of their wrongs, they cannot be justified. The politicians who lead them are the only beings that could be placed lower than cops.

                • [Without backing up and reading the rest of this thread] RE: “I agree that animals have no rights.”

                  I’m thinking, it’s not a right, per se, it’s more of an act?:

                  Every animal deserves to be treated with mercy from humans. That’s what it means to be human. No?

                  A quick death.
                  The act.
                  Not to be tortured.
                  The act.

                  Kill the animals and eat them,… but give them mercy. … The act.

                  …You know, all those things people expect of others humans. Which sometimes isn’t.

                • Dear ancap,

                  I agree. Animals do not have rights, because rights by definition require the ability to reach agreements and abide by them.

                  One must have the ability to reach an agreement with another sentient beings to treat each other one way as opposed to another.

                  This is not possible with “lions, tigers, and bears.” They will simply eat you, and that will be the end of that.

                  NB: “the ability to reach agreements and abide by them” does not necessarily mean that people will either reach agreements or abide by them. It only means they at least have the ability to do so, if they wish.

                  • RE: “rights by definition require the ability to reach agreements and abide by them. ”

                    Rights, and respect, and mercy, are three different things.

                    Anyway, I wonder if some People might see how that fits into parents owning their children until they claim emancipation?

                    A.k.a.: “rights by definition require the ability to reach agreements and abide by them. “

                    • Dear helot,

                      “Rights, and respect, and mercy, are three different things.”

                      Did I say anything to suggest that I believed otherwise?

                      This is why many traditional hunter gatherer societies thank the animal for enabling the humans who eat them to survive.

                      I think that is proper. No argument.

                  • @Bevin- Sorry to open this can of worms again, but this is why secular libertarianism sucks and is untenable.

                    Infants can’t “enter into agreements with other human beings” either. Does that mean they don’t have rights?

                    Humans have rights BECAUSE THEY ARE MADE IN GOD’S IMAGE. Period.

                    Honestly, I think this is an even more important axiom than the NAP, even from a purely pragmatic perspective, using liberty as a form of utility. God has to exist for libertarianism to make sense.

                    This is also why I don’t really go for theonomist bashing. They are really wrong on some issues, but they do get the basis for rights correct, and they don’t fall for cultural distortions…

                    • Dear David,

                      As the entire human race knows, infants WILL have the ability to enter into agreements in the future.

                      Human beings know that, in advance. Therefore civil societies have long acted accordingly and made special provisions for this. They have one set of standards for childhood, and another when the child reaches maturity.

                      But hell, you know this, right? Do I really need to argue this point with you?

                      Anyway, this is my perspective. If you disagree, I doubt I can sway you.

                    • Hi David,

                      Again, why the need for theology? “Rights” are a simple, logical social necessity if human beings are going to have any logical, principled basis for interacting with one another. I take from you – I have no logical, principled basis for objecting when you take from me. Und so weiter.

                      It is simple quid pro quo. No need for Sky Stalin.

                    • Dear Tor,

                      I didn’t want to express it in those terms, but that pretty much sums it up.

                      “Do what I say, or else, because I’m bigger than you!” is hardly a rational basis for human rights.

                      If anything, it is a pretty good basis for a dictatorship.

                    • PS: It’s no more “tenable” to simply stomp your foot and (ALL CAPS, now) insist that it’s so BECAUSE GOD!

                  • Bevin,

                    I agree. For people to be able to enter agreements and enter into contracts they must have the ability to reason.

                    Children are in a growth stage, whereby they will at some point have the ability to reason. Animals are in no such state. No matter how they are educated or how old they get, they cannot reason. They act only on base instinct. Humans on the other hand have the ability to choose to act or not to act. To do well, or wreak havoc.

                    The question that could be asked is this: what rights do mentally retarded people have? If they have the ability to reason or enter into agreements or contracts, it is severely limited. If they have rights, why. or what gives them rights?

                    • Dear ancap,

                      I agree. I don’t see any real contradiction or inconsistency in this basic premise, which is essentially a paraphrasing of Objectivist concepts of rights.

                      Obviously any theory of human ethics and human morality must be based on normally functioning human beings, not on say, human beings born without a brain, hence unable to reason or even sustain his or her own life.

                      In any event, the NAP would always reign supreme. Someone might be suspected of being mentally deficient does not aggress against others, and does not violate the NAP, he must be left alone in peace.

                      Clover is a perfect example. Despite good reason to suspect that he is mentally deficient, I would never violate the NAP and aggress against him. I would only defend myself against his aggression.

                    • Dear ancap,

                      Basically the very same principle that Eric has been arguing for regarding “drunken driving” would apply.

                      The presumption must be that the human beings one encounters are NOT drunk and unable to control their vehicles safely, unless they give objective evidence to the contrary.

                      So it would be with suspected mentally deficient human beings. As long as they do not run amok and violate the NAP, they must be presumed mentally competent and left alone in peace.

                    • Bevin,

                      I agree, but what separates mentally deficient humans from animals? Animals could be considered mentally deficient.


Please enter your comment!