Fixing The Cop Problem

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

You’ve no doubt heard the term, “checks and balances.” It’s usually mentioned in the context of government – of the American form of government (well, its theoretical form) in particular. The idea that the legislative branch acts as a check on the powers of the executive, while the judicial balances the legislative – and so on.cops lead

It’s a sound concept that maybe ought to be applied to police work.

Something’s got to be done.

On this point, almost everyone’s agreed. Because it’s obvious that cops are increasingly out of control.


But not surprisingly.

Because there are few – if any – checks and balances on cops. Much less in the way of legal constraints – or consequences. Even in cases of egregious, indefensible conduct. Hence, they are in a very real sense encouraged to engage in egregious, indefensible conduct.hut-hutting heroes

Those wearing state-issued uniforms enjoy something called qualified immunity – an obnoxious doctrine that sets them apart as a special class under the law. A protected class.

Which inevitably becomes an entitled class. Armed to the teeth – and turned loose on us.

Is it surprising that excesses occur?

Cops have every incentive to behave badly. Are rewarded for being irresponsible.

And so they do – and are.

Expecting this not to happen is kind of like not expecting stray cats to show up in ever greater numbers if you keep on putting bowls of cat food out on the porch every night. cartman

We’re often told (by Clovers) that government is a necessary evil because if left to their own devices, most people would otherwise run amok. Beat others up, kill them – take their stuff. It is only the prospect of consequences for reckless and criminal actions that keeps most people in check.

If true, why does the same principle apply less to cops?

Especially to cops?

Who, after all, are given life and death authority over other people. The bar ought to be higher – not lower. A prizefighter who uses his fists and skills to beat up a guy on the street faces much more serious legal consequences than a cop who does the same thing. Even though it amounts to the same thing.

A worse thing, actually.
law pic

Unlike Mike Tyson, who is just one Mike Tyson, a berserking cop has the weight of an entire system backing him up. And while no one in his right mind wants to go toe-to-toe with Mike Tyson, at least you can try to kick him in the nuts or poke him in the eye or something like that – and then get the hell out of there. But if you’re facing off against a berserking cop, any self-defense – even an attempt to ward off his kicks and punches to the head – constitutes “resisting” and opens you up to summary execution at worst, multiple felony charges at best.

This is an odd idea. If you are the victim of an assault – an unwarranted attack – why should you be denied your right to defend yourself simply because your attacker happens to be wearing a special outfit?

Mind: This is not to suggest open season on cops. It is to reject the current idea that it’s open season on us. That just as they have every right to fear for their safety – and take steps to ensure it – so have we.

No more – and no less.officer safety pic

If you or I face 20 years to life for pulling a gun on someone and pulling the trigger in a situation that did not involve a clearcut case of self-defense, in which we had no other viable option (such as backing away) then surely a cop who is guilty of the same offense deserves at least equal treatment.

Can anyone explain why this ought not to be the case?

It would certainly give trigger happy cops pause. How is that not a desirable thing? Shouldn’t cops – “heroes,” as they’re so often styled – be under at least as much pressure as we are to not shoot other people? Willing to give their fellow citizens at least the same benefit of the doubt that ordinary citizens are legally obligated to extend to one another?

If anything, consequences for reckless/criminal conduct ought to be more serious for cops. They are, after all, “trained professionals” – as we’re constantly told. They ought to be more rather than less familiar with the laws they are given authority to enforce. Should they not, accordingly, be treated more severely when they step beyond the law under color of the law? Or at least, shouldn’t that be the expectation? hero cop on camera

As things are, cops are given legal license to behave aggressively, even homicidally. And so they do.

An ordinary citizen who acquires a concealed handgun permit is held to a much higher standard than an armed cop. Merely to reveal that one is armed (perhaps to encourage a potential assailant to back off and thereby defuse what might otherwise have been a violent encounter) can result in a felony “brandishing” charge. But a cop can draw – and point – his gun at you over a traffic stop. If he feels his “safety” was threatened – a standard so low you might as well say just because – he can shoot you and kill you and probably the worst that will happen is a few weeks of paid vacation until the Judge Dredd-esque summary execution is deemed “justified.”

This is unacceptable.

Intolerable. justice scales

Legally protected – and so, entitled – classes of people is a notion that cannot be reconciled with the doctrine that the law apply equally to everyone. And if it does not apply equally – then it is merely the law of the jungle (the rule of the stronger, or might makes right) which is not morally binding on its victims.

Cops have contempt for the law because it largely does not apply to them. Hence the all-too-familiar sight of a cop driving his car well in excess of the posted speed limit – usually, not “buckled up” for safety – just because he can. Citizens have no legal authority to effect an arrest – even for egregious “speeding” (such as driving 80 or 90 MPH in a posted 60 MPH zone) that would result in any of us being issued a several hundred dollar fine, and quite possibly arrested on the spot and carted off to jail.

Ordinary people are not permitted to blow away someone’s puppy because they “felt threatened” – or even to step onto private property without permission. They have no power to randomly halt and rifle people’s pockets, kick down doors – often the wrong doors – and get away with it.

Cops do this and worse as a matter of routine.hypocrite cop

And this is why the people, increasingly, feel contempt for cops. They are enforcers of laws that do not apply to them. Hypocrites – and bullies.

A feedback loop has been created – and if it’s not interrupted by sanity, it will only end one way: With lawless cops attempting to subdue a population that increasingly despises them, using any means necessary.

We are almost there. But it’s not too late to step back from the abyss.

Throw qualified immunity for anyone in the woods. Uniformed or not, if you murder someone, it’s murder. Not six weeks’ paid leave. Cops – like anyone else – should be encouraged to think twice before doing something of questionable legality – knowing that they could be sued into penury if they play fast and loose. Why not? The same pressure is on us – and we’re not armed and given authority over our fellow men.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Well, it used to.

And until it does again, we shouldn’t expect things to change for the better.

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 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more 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, so we know where to mail the thing!)EPautoslogo

Share Button


  1. […] | Because there are few – if any – checks and balances on cops. Much less in the way of legal constraints – or consequences. Even in cases of egregious, indefensible conduct. Hence, they are in a very real sense encouraged to engage in egregious, indefensible conduct. […]

  2. I’ve got a question for Eric…

    Eric, what do you think is the “libertarian” (or, if you don’t feel comfortable speaking that generally, what is your) opinion on Operation Rescue protestors who block the doors to abortion clinics, and the police who arrested them (thus allowing women to go into the clinic and abort their children.)

    In my mind, its a blatant abuse of power and just one more reason Christians shouldn’t be police, but from what I remember you aren’t pro-life, so I’m curious how you deal with this one.

    • Hi David,

      First, I loathe political speech – and “pro life” (like “gun lobby” and “progressive”) is a demagogic term.

      Who isn’t in favor of life rather death?

      Now, to try to answer to your question.

      One way to look at it is that self-defense is always legitimate because it is based on your ownership of yourself.

      But do you have a moral right to come to the defense of others? It could be argued that “stepping in” – no matter how decently intended – is an assertion of ownership over another person. Unless they have specifically asked to be helped.

      Can a blastocyst ask for help? Is it capable of that? Who owns the blastocyst?

      Ultimately, it seems to me the issue comes down to the endless argument over the definition of human being.

      Is it a just-fertilized ovum? Or is it a fully developed child just born? Or somewhere in between?

      Is life in a purely biological sense (a living cell, or mass of them) equivalent to a conscious, aware fully formed person?

      Functionally/structurally – the answer is pretty clearly no.

      Therefore, self-defense is not involved and what these Operation Rescue folks are doing is aggressive, violent and morally unjustified.

      They of course think – believe – they are defending “life.” That a human being in every way that matters is created at the very moment of conception and that to terminate a pregnancy for any reason at any time is morally the same thing as murdering a fully formed person walking down the street.

      But their position is based on religious faith – and (the way I see it) justifying aggression on the basis of faith is an extremely dangerous thing. Especially because the faithful often equate their faith with facts.

      • Dear Eric,

        Well said indeed.

        We’ve been here many times before of course.

        But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Repetition allows one to sort out one’s thoughts and express them ever more succinctly and clearly with each encounter.

        That is the case here.

  3. Ah, found it.

    Bevin Chu mava • 16 days ago

    Dear mava,
    Think of it this way.
    Ron Paul has run or held office for 30 years. If by doing so he had strengthened the “myth of authority” and bolstered belief in the indispensability of the state, then running and holding office would definitely have been a very bad thing.

    But the opposite happened.

    Ron Paul created a massive upsurge in the number of millennials who now say they are Ron Paul fans and (get this) “anarchists”! Not just “libertarians”, but “anarchists”!

    In short, by running and holding office Ron Paul created a massive upsurge in the number of young anarchists who reject the myth of authority and think the way you and I do.

    Think of it this way. The statists have robbed us and used our money to buy a bully pulpit. They then stand behind this bully pulpit and preach the “myth of authority”, telling us we are obligated to obey and pay them.

    So what’s wrong with shoving them aside, seizing the bully pulpit, paid for with money extorted from us, and using it to tell people that we were sovereign individuals who never had any obligation to pay or obey them in the first place?

    After all, the bully pulpit is our property. The statists are using our property, paid for by us, to program us. What’s wrong with taking it back and using it to de-program us? That is hardly a violation of the NAP.




    Share ›

    mava Bevin Chu • 15 days ago

    It hardly justifies now you using some of the property forcibly taken from other people, because some bad people did that to you. I am sorry dear friend, but theft is wrong, no matter the purpose.


    Share ›
    Bevin Chu mava • 9 days ago

    Dear mava,
    Here’s another way to think of it.
    The machinery of the state, including the statist institution of election campaigns, is like a gun, paid for with money extorted from the people.
    The state is already using this gun, by pointing it at the people.
    So is it really wrong to grab the gun, wrest it from the hands of the state, and turn it on the state?
    Is it really wrong to run for office, use the election campaign as a bully pulpit to deprogram people and shatter the myth of authority?
    That to me, is what Ron Paul did, and what Jeff Berwick apparently intends to do.
    IF, and this is a big IF, the person wrests the gun away from the state and turns it on the state, if he does not join the state and point the gun at the people. then I think it qualifies as self-defense, and is not a violation of the NAP.
    What do you think?
    Make sense?



    Share ›
    Lewie Paine Bevin Chu • 9 days ago

    You make an interesting point in how quickly the ‘RP millennials’ moved past Libertarianism to embrace Anarchism. The few I have spoken with seem to intuitively understand that the political process is a hopeless means to affect change in a system based on aggression. To me, this notably differentiates them from a lot of life-long Libertarians who still believe ‘the system can be reformed.’ These ‘old-schoolers’ just can’t understand that trying to make the NAP a reality via any political process is self-contradictory simply because government and non-aggression are incompatible. Not so with these younger people. They recognize no external authority and act accordingly. Gives me hope.
    P.S. Aggressively resisting the state does not violate the NAP as the state has no Rights.


    Share ›

    • PtB, sounds good to me and I’ll be everybody’s sugar daddy in giving out guns. I refuse to be rightly accused of shooting an unarmed person. I intend to give away the same gun every time.

        • I’ll start culling when I get my HK Compact .45 and my .45 BDA back. You might get the idea I’m a .45 kinda guy but my fav has always been a 38 Super but none of those three ever jammed. Neither did any of my Hi Power’s but I quick collecting them once I started loading my own 38 Super. I custom built that gun and the HK and BDA were custom built from the factory.

          • 8SM,

            Since you are in TX, you might check out a company in Georgetown called STI. The prices have gone up, but my STI Trojan is a fine 1911 single stack in .40 S&W.


          • GC, thanks. STI makes about the most solid AR I ever held. Tack drivers too and fine handguards and dang cheap too.

            A .40 is about the same as a 38 Super I guess you know. I’m not sure I hadn’t rather load my own and have another Super. I removed the curved mainspring housing on a Combat Commander and installed a straight one, took some rounds off the mainspring and changed the feed ramp up some and polished it out along with the slide assembly upper and lower and worked the trigger assembly so it had a short, smooth pull with a very nice break-over. I changed the hammer to the old style round with hole and knurling.

            That gun was dead on too with the original civilian sights. It was close enough to shoot two coyotes at 100 yds offhand.

            I haven’t had any dealings with an STI 1911 type but if they’re anything like their AR it’s got to be a fine gun. Single stack works for me. Thanks for the tip.

  4. This video is excellently simple, showing how the special interests buy votes in Congress, and then collect billions of dollars worth of favors in return. Meanwhile, WE VOTERS HAVE NO INFLUENCE. None. Our government does not represent us, and they don’t care what we want. The statistics are right here in this six minute video:

    • Good info Bevin. I am convinced that the S will hit the fan, but the gunvermin may still be able to kick the can down the road for some time yet. At some point they will no longer be able to pay Socialist Insecurity and Med-I-Don’t-Care, and I don’t see how they will keep the sheeple in line when there is no more pasture.

      • Dear Phil,

        I hope you are right. I think you are.

        I agree about the Sheeple. They buy into the myth of authority because of the free shit.

        No more free shit?

        Then look to more urban riots, a la Baltimore.

        • Actually, I believe there are parallel issues in play.
          Even for those of us aware of the chess game in progress, there is an array of such games – multiple enemies facing each one of us, individually.
          That is, they are a team, essentially playnig a 3D chess game, where we must then divide our attention across multiple fields of play, in mutliple domensions – and even the smartest are only vaguely aware that there’s more than one game going on.
          Cars are one arena, and we see black boxes, fuel efficiency mandates, “safety” enhancements, etc, etc, etc.
          How much more is going on we never get to notice, even if we’re looking? We only have two eyes a piece…

          #1: The plan is to depopulate the earth. Global warming, Climate change, Prophylactics in school, pushing for homo- and transsexuality at kindergarten age…
          #2: The people truly in charge have multiple locations to flee to. They aren’t affected by riots in Baltimore… Nor even nukes in DC. They’re on the grid, but they OWN the grid…. And the surveillance apparatus, and the laws, and the enforcers, etc, etc, etc. Not just the myth of authority, they’re the power behind the throne… They can come and go as they want (first cartoon), but the rest of us are subject to their laws – and to monitoring to make SURE we toe the line.
          #3: Disarming the public. Multiple means: additional Felony offenses, “registration” (coupled with various legal means to remove the weapons from your home – in some places, they can “kick down” your door for a mandatory “safety check.” Gun MUST be properly secured. They knock, usually… but 3 AM isn’t out of the question), making the process of (legally) obtaining the weapons costly, slow, time-consuming, and soon – adding “controls” to the weapons, to make “smart guns” – which won’t EVER fire at a police officer. Even if he’s raping your infant son, YOU will be guilty of a crime for “brandishing,” while the pig is just “teaching some discipline” (“STOP RESISTING!!!”).
          #4: Population control through economics. Deserves its own category. Limiting the ability of those who ARE productive, to afford to procreate – care and feeding of the child is too costly. But those who are on the dole, who cares? They don’t, so nothing is going to happen. Besides, they have nothing to steal, so they’ll be ignored. Objective is negative population growth. Of course, since you can’t get the stupid to stop breeding through economic means…
          #5: Violence, war, famine. Gang killings. Accidental deaths. also, “accidental” deaths (targeted assasination of anyone who speaks out.). Recruiting for foreign wars (of aggression, especially). Shortages of food and water (inciting further violence.) Further stressing the cop/civilian divide, more of a “war” mentality there, faster reaction with lethal force as matter of course, while “training” the cops for “de-escalation.” (Subject is dead, we have de-escalated the situation. Let’s put some horns on him and make a “hunting” photo…)
          #6: Overregulation, and medial despotism. I can’t tell people what constitutes a “healthy diet.” I’m not licensed. You might not trust me – I’m fat – but I used to be able to tell you how you SHOULD eat to be healthy. (Note, not skinny. Just healthy. E.G., I don’t get sick. Ever.) I group this with medical despotism, I.E. socialized medicine and Obamacare, but it goes far deeper – it’s control of how you can make your living. E.G., malpractice insurance is a “cost of doing business” for doctors, nurses, physician’s assistants, etc. Even VETS. But it goes beyond that: Barbers, aestheticians, electricians, plumbers, carpenters, nail technicians, pharmacists, probably even ditch diggers have to pay Ceasar before they can ply their trade. Must be licensed. Controlled. And the trade unions are bad enough (Cab drivers come to mind, vis-a-vis Uber) – they’re corrupt as hell to begin with, we know it, but an Uber can circumvent the BS. But it can’t circumvent Uncle Sonofabitch.
          This also goes back to economic warfare, devaluing the currency, moving to a credit-accounting (debt-based) economy.

          Why aren’t we shooting these SOBs yet? it’s not like it’s Hidden.

          And this is still only the tip of the iceberg…
          The “far future” stuff involves robotic police (2016, is the claim; Alpha is in progress in Saudi Arabia, and IIRC MIT labs are working on highly-adaptable robots – that was on Yahoo, I think, yesterday. they disabled the robot’s legs, told it to move, to test the adaptive A.I. It flipped over and crawled with its arms, legs up in the air. Just put THOSE two together, and the Earth of Elysium is a f*cking paradise, despite automated police brutality on the antagonist.)

          Then there are the implantation of medical devices, soon to include intracell computers to regulate things like insulin…. Think that through: it can dispense medications and hormones, or anti-hormones, all on its own… “Adjusts” the cell’s behaviors, for “optimal” processing. Who needs MKUltra? (E.G., “The Ipcress File,” “Telefon”; but now, ANYONE could be induced into a psychotic episode remotely, via chemical imablances CREATED in their mind or body.)

          And how do we stop ANY ONE of these? (Note Terminator 2, trying to stop Judgement Day by killing the lead scientist; another will just step in. You change the weave of the cloth, but not the tapestry.)

          We have been inundated for quite some time with films showing the psychopaths in control. I mean, since the 60s if not before. It’s a turn-off to all of us – but the psychopath sees only the POWER to be gained. He sees others as a means to achieve his ends. Tools for his use, to be expended when convenient.

          We’ve been brainwashed, in essence, so that the BEST of us shun “leadership” (generally manipulation of others to achieve a goal, now). That leaves the positions open to the psychopaths, who flock to whatever level they can achieve – and use others as tools, instead of either learning how to do the task, or actually LEADING by doing a job. They “manage” instead… (

          We’ve been sidelined. We ARE “leaders” in how we think and what we do. But we are leaders without followers (most people are psychophants, followers, or psychopaths; independence or liberty scares them). Leaders without followers are just someone taking a walk….

          We need to screw with whatever plans we can, whenever we can, however we can. Introduce chaos and entropy. And if we can hit hard targets, even better.
          E.G., commercial drones are already set up with geo-fencing. Can’t get a drone near the White House, for example. Want to bet you can’t get near Al Gore’s mansions, either…?

          Feels futile, but I’ll keep making the points… Maybe we’ll educate a few (I post on facebook, so I’m not ONLY preaching to the choir), failing that…? We’re just pissing in the wind anyway, most people PREFER to be asleep. (Seriously, it’s “The Power of Habit”.) If we can’t wake them, we need to change the course of the river, and wash out the stables that way. If some of the horse get washed away – oh, well, they’re horses, they can be replaced. Cold hard truth. Clover doesn’t matter, he grows back in every civilization. Even after the Dark Ages, Clover existed all across Europe…)

                  • I wish. I could use blueberry hill regularly. Think Marc Emery. Blueberry contains mostly CBD’s and CBN’s. Mix it with some other varieties and you get one of the most soothing analgesics known, at least known to me. It will relieve burning extremities such as spine injury, Parkinson’s, MS and lupus bring on. And Blueberry Hill could take my mind off it for a while too.

                    • oooorgle
                      I knew in the 60’s interstellar travel was in my future. Now I know why and where.

                      I occasionally speak with young 35-45 people. They say “Damn, her/his dad has the best shit like we ain’t never had……mutherfucker!”. And that is a direct quote. I never said they knew English but they know when their ass been kicked.

                    • Oooorgle – a fun post. But you know if it were true, the DEA would be planning an expedition, agents armed w/glyphosphate.

          • Dear Jean,

            The key to bypassing all the moves and countermoves of the PTB is a TRANSFORMATION IN CONSCIOUSNESS.

            The PTB are able to perpetrate their scam for one reason and one reason only.

            We the Sheeple believe that submission to their system is obligatory, that their “system” is “necessary” and even “proper”.

            The moment a critical mass — not even a majority — stops buying into their con job, the game ends, forever.

            The key is not doing something “out there”. The key is shifting the way we perceive the world.

            • They are universally poisoning young minds faster than we can wake them up.
              I mean to state, they have exported the nonsense to India. Phillipines. Tokyo, Japan. Chile, and Brazil. Spain. Etc.

              If we don’t end the threat the hard way – they will soon destroy us.

              It’s “invasion of the mind snatchers”…. Kind of hard to get things right after that.
              And we have a story now and again of someone who WAS an authority worshipper, and it went bad for them…
              And some remain authority worshippers, just think they met a “bad apple”…. Or, even, they have such Stockholm Syndrome they make excuses for the attacker.

              We’re brainwashed daily, all day, every day. Indoctrinated since childhood. Barney and Teletubbies, for example. Sesame Street has become left-wing propaganda (Not that that’s NEW for WPBS, but it’s become more blatant.)
              Based on TV, you’d think 50% or more of the population is gay, lesbian, or transgender…

              Need to shred them all. Can’t wait for “critical mass” or an “enlightenment.” It would’ve happened by now, a singularity of sorts.

              If the mind is LOCKED DOWN – like in the Matrix, some minds should REMAIN asleep. Permanently. Scrooge comes to mind – only a miracle changed his heart. But it’s no different with the HR person whose first loyalty is to the company. Nor with the lawyers and cops, as their first loyalty is to the State, second is to getting paid, and somewhere down the line you MIGHT become important…. Maybe.

              If we were to simply “Weed out” the cops and DAs and judges who are KNOWN to be corrupt? Our problems would vanish overnight. (Likely replaced by new problems, but what else is new?)
              And what is obscene to our generation, will be “normal” for the next generation… and five generations down the road, you’ve got cops stationed in every home, universal real-time surveillance, and drones on standby to dispense “justice.”

              We can’t allow it to continue. There will BE no “big event” or watershed moment.
              Time to start the insurgency… & hope we don’t kill each other. 😛

              • jean, I have to admit the outlook is bleak. I just watched Rock Radio and realized what a good show it was in pointing out the folly and sheer evil of govt. I almost said bureaucrats but then what else is it? I remember as a youngster the govt. actually tried to stomp out rock and roll and boogey woogey, blues and jazz. My cousin got a bootleg copy of Whole Lotta Shakin by Little Richard. We had to listen on the downlow, when no parents were around.

              • Dear Jean,

                No one opposes “action”.

                Action, i.e., the use of force in self defense, is fully justified morally even now.

                I’m talking about what happens after one takes action.

                Unless peoples’ minds have been transformed, do you know what the aftermath of “action” will be?

                A “new” government will replace the “old” government. The only difference will be new slavemasters.

                It will be Obomber’s “change you can believe in”.

                I’ve read your arguments over the years. I know your point of departure. I’m not saying it’s wrong to resist. It’s morally justified, 100%.

                I’m merely saying that unless people realize that government is not “necessary” nothing will change even if you “take action”.

              • Hey! Lay off Scrooge! It’s that no account low life Bob Cratchit and his communistic brethren that are to blame in that world.
                If Cratchit was worth more, likely employers would be lining up to steal him from Scrooge. If he were more industrious he’d get more training to demand a higher rate. What does he do? He makes the pity play on all by using his dying son. TSK, TSK, TSK. I commend Scrooge for even allowing this worthless scion of bleeding heart socialism to be employed in his business.

                However, I bow to a noted professor of law, Butler Shaffer who has penned a much better defense of Scrooge that I could ever offer. Here is the link!


                And another link for defense of Scrooge!


                Ladies and Gentlemen of the people, I rest my case!

                • I’m not arguing Scrooge’s value WRT economics, rather, I’m talking about how set in his ways he was, and he was just a convenient name.
                  A stone is more receptive to change than most people.

                  BTW, there’s another excellent defense of Scrooge, that if you haven’t seen it – you should.
                  It’s arguing via the converse.

                  Black Adder’s Christmas Carol. Stodgy British humor, but in the end, it makes the case quite well.
                  Same three ghosts. You’ll have to see the ending, though…

    • Bevin, probably one of the better articles published in SHTFplan but I was struck(senseless….oh yeah, just moreso)by the line about “with the only exceptions being oath keepers” I nearly crapped….(ok, I shirted a bit).

      Let me give you an example of the exemplary members of oath keepers. Since I stayed away from work and watched the entire horrible Waco debacle unfold into the worst murdering I’d seen since the old films of Nazi Germany, I’m always reminded of Oath Keepers and the people who’ll wrap themselves in that bullshit term. Sheriff Smith…in Smith County Texas, a former member of the BATFE that rained lead and other lethalities on innocent people including babies, children, women and adolescents not to mention people of legal age with no desire to fight anyone except to stay alive(and hollered calf rope when they got their butt handed to em at first). But the day after sheriff Smith(gag, retch)joined Oath Keepers the Smith county drug task force rained hell once again on over 70 people in a drug raid that netted a little bit of nothing but great press till a bit of truth overshadowed it. People like sheriff Smith don’t deserve to breathe the same air as the rest of us. Than again, I suppose he didn’t cause millions of people to die by proclaiming a lie as truth like little Georgy Bush and his minions.

      But he’s trying a few dozen at a time, and it doesn’t cost him a dime. You’ll know it’s him when he rolls through your town. He’s gonna roll around in style, gonna drive everybody wild, cause he’s the biggest piece of shit there is around.

      I calls em as I sees em. I’ll be the first or the last on the list when it all goes down.

      • Dear 8sm,

        Yeah. Agree with you about the “Oath Keepers” bit.

        I suppose the existence of the concept is better than nothing. At least it shows some awareness of right and wrong.

        But put my faith in them?

        No way.

        The likelihood that most LEOs will cave in and follow orders from “on high” is overwhelming.

        • Morning, Bevin!

          Didn’t all these cops take an oath to enforce/protect the Constitution… which includes the Bill of Rights?

          Do any of them respect the 4th Amendment?

          Or the others ones?

          • Dear Eric,

            Didn’t see this reply until now. Sorry.

            Ain’t that the truth?

            I agree. If constitutional rule was actually honored in practice, even hardcore anarchists like us could probably tolerate it.

            Like you’ve said on many an occasion, many of us would be content to turn the clock back to the JFK era.

            But anyone who isn’t blind can see that NOBODY pays the slightest attention to the “Basic Law” of the nation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

            Those nine thugs in black robes who supposedly champion our rights sure as hell don’t.

          • Conclusion?

            Like it or not, the nation is being forced to an all or nothing showdown.

            Limited government is no longer on the table.

            It’s totalitarianism/total slavery or anarchism/total freedom.

  5. I think I figured out where the ‘checks and balances’ come into play. They want you to just keep writing checks until your balance is depleted.

    • Insurance is legalized gambling. Now the IM (insurance mafia) has made it mandatory we all gamble to lose. What a racket! If I did that without state sanction I’d be in one of the prisons a victim of the state for practicing a victimless crime. After all, I’d tell everyone there is a good chance you will lose! Unlike the IM, the bastards!

  6. EP: “Something’s got to be done.”

    Some towns have found The Answer: privatize police departments for lower costs and fewer or no lawsuits – make them like mall security – polite and helpful.

    “Texas Town Experiences 61% Drop in Crime After Firing Their Police Department
    Read more at”

  7. Here are “police” practices that deserve to be exposed:

    #1. During a traffic stop, the police officer will touch the back of your car. The reason for this “touch” is that, quite often, the police officer will have a small quantity of narcotics (marijuana or cocaine) on him (in his hand) that he will rub on the car in order to help “justify a search”. When the dog is brought in, it will react to “cues” from its handler as well as the drug residue on the vehicle and help “justify a search”. This tactic is mostly used against young people. Drugs can also be “planted” on a “suspect”.
    The “touch” used to be a way for police officers to “prove” that they had an interaction with a citizen, but no more . . .

    #2. Most (if not all) cops possess a “throwdown” weapon. This “helper” is obtained from a criminal who is then “let go” without his weapon and is always used to justify a questionable police situation and to “sanitize” a “crime scene to absolve police on the scene of criminal police behavior. In fact, during training, police cadets are discreetly “encouraged” to obtain such a weapon.

    #3. If you are in the back of a police car, LIE DOWN on the seat. Police use the concept of “screening” to abuse their unwilling “passenger”. This involves, driving at high rates of speed, violent turns and other antics to get the passenger to “hit the screen” separating the front from the back with his face. Hence the act of “screening”.

    #4. If you are being handcuffed, quite often the police officer will wrench you arm behind you, forcing you to “turn around”. Stepping on the instep achieves the same result. The officer will then add a charge of “assault” to whatever other charges they concoct against you (just for being forced to turn around). They “pile on” charges, hoping you will plead guilty to at least one.

    Remember–NEVER CONSENT TO SEARCH . . . You must be polite, but firm in your refusal. You can state that “you NEVER consent to searches” as well as using these “magic” words–“am I free to go?” The police officer MUST answer your question . . . If you are being detained and an illegal search takes place, you have legal recourse.

    Remember–police are not your friends . . .

    That being said, not all “law enforcement” is criminal, but the “thin blue line” that they so jealously guard (and “look the other way” when rogue cops abuse their authority) does much to taint ALL “law enforcement” with having ulterior motives.

      • {Administrative Observation}:

        “oooorgle” —> you have posted 50 of 66 total comments here (75%). That is extremely excessive for this blog or any other normal blog IMO.

        Sure it’s a slow holiday weekend, but please consider quality over quantity; comment-tsunami by a single poster tends to drown out other legitimate commenters. And some uncharitable people might even consider it troll-like behavior.

        • I disagree. oooorgle should continue to post. His content has added value to this thread, not drawn away. His quantity of comment has been high because of his responses to me.

        • DelRay, I didn’t know trolling and content were synonymous or just not your preferred content? Did you even read anything? Do you have an opinion about the discussion?

  8. There is much angst and consternation against prosecutors and grand juries who refuse to bring charges against police officers, even when incontrovertible evidence is presented. Even with incontrovertible audio and video evidence, prosecutors are loath to prosecute rogue law enforcement personnel.
    Let’s examine the reasons why it is so difficult to prosecute thug cops:
    Most prosecutors are former police officers or have extensive dealings with police departments and have ongoing relationships with police departments in their respective jurisdictions. They are friendly with the judges in their jurisdictions, as well. This, along with “absolute immunity” makes it easy for them to “cover up” police abuses and behavior. Prosecutors cannot be sued for malfeasance…it takes a judge (who prosecutors are friendly with) to bring charges on a rogue prosecutor (which almost never happens).
    In addition, prosecutors guide the actions of grand juries. Prosecutors are not required to introduce any evidence to grand juries, (can and do) easily “whitewash” the actions of rogue cops. On the other hand, prosecutors can (and often do) go after honest citizens who seek justice outside official channels…prosecutors have ultimate power and are not afraid to use it…their immunity sees to that.
    Another aspect to a grand jury’s inability to prosecute bad cops is the fear of retribution…cops drive around all day, have nothing but time, have access to various databases, and can easily get the names and addresses of grand jurors…this, in itself can be a powerful deterrent against grand jurors who “want to do the right thing” and prosecute bad cops. There are many cases of cops parking in front of grand jurors’ residences, following them around, and threaten to issue citations to them, in order to “convince” them to “make the right decision”…the “thin blue line” at its worst…
    The whole system has to change.
    Eliminate absolute and qualified immunity for all public officials. The fear of personal lawsuits would be a powerful deterrent against abuses of the public.
    Any funds disbursed to civilians as a result of official misconduct must be taken from the police pension funds–NOT from the taxpayers.
    Grand juries must be superior to the prosecutor; ALL evidence must be presented to grand jurors. Failure to do so must be considered a felony and subject prosecutors to prosecution themselves.
    No police agency can be allowed to investigate itself. Internal affairs departments must be restricted to minor in-house investigations of behavior between cops. All investigations must be handled by outside agencies, preferably at the state level.
    Civilian police review boards must be free of police influence. Members of civilian review boards must have NO ties to police departments. Relatives of police would be prohibited from serving…Recently, the “supreme court” threw police another “bone”. The court ruled that police are not responsible for their actions if they are “ignorant of the law”…now, let’s get this straight–honest citizens cannot use “ignorance of the law” as an excuse, but cops can??

    • There is a bill pending right now in the Tx. lege to address the sorry state of hand-picked grand juries when it comes to the politically connected, e.g., mainly the LEO crowd although the prosecutors office often benefits greatly by it too since rarely are their own crimes garner more than mention if that. For Texans here(or anyone else, same thing happens in all states)who wish to learn more or want to wade into the subject, is a good website for staying abreast of the issues.

      I’m a libertarian but also a realist. I will continue to vote on anything I think I can make better. I see voting for a Ron Paul type as a means of ratcheting down the tyranny. And no, it won’t stop it, it won’t destroy the system but a needle in my back is much preferable to a sword. I don’t like either but my life is certainly easier and more productive with a grassburr in my sock instead of my hands cuffed behind my back. I’ve had plenty experience with both.

      BTW, I have a new handcuff key, a tiny one. I recommend it be part of everyone’s wardrobe.

      • Only common law grand juries are legitimate: DUTY OF THE “COMMON LAW” GRAND JURY – If anyone’s unalienable rights have been violated, or removed, without a legal sentence of their peers, from their lands, home, liberties or lawful right, we [the twenty-five] shall straightway restore them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five Grand Jurors, the sureties of the peace. MAGNA CARTA, JUNE 15, A.D. 1215, 52.

  9. Along with revoking “immunity”, any funds disbursed to aggrieved civilians as a result of official misconduct should come out of their pension funds. A few instances of this, and you would see their behavior change in a hurry.

    • Or directly out of their own bank accounts and personal assets. Let just one cop lose his house, his cars, his kids’ college savings accounts, and any investments he has as the result of a wrongful death suit judgment and, in a sane world, such a precedent will serve as the kabosh on any further widespread acts of gratuitous porcine violence.

      But of course we don’t live in a sane world. We live in a world in which cops are the only overtly state-sanctioned criminal gang, the one that provides enforcement muscle for the ruling class. Even if a significant number of power figures within the ruling class were to be suddenly stricken with a conscience and attempted to limit porcine immunity (this will of course never happen; I’m just serving up a rhetorical example), said porcine gangsters would “convince” them of the error of their ways.

  10. You’d rather have moral principle. Me too. Speak to almost anyone and they’ll say the same thing. Too often though, and I’m not accusing you nor anyone else, “moral” is subverted by “mores”. There is a morass of immoral law that purports to uphold morality when in fact, it only upholds mores of the defining moment among a powerful enough following.

    • Religious law (I.E., Morality) is the source of this same problem.
      Morals are derived from “the divine.”
      Ultimately, the purpose is only to subvert man’s freedom. While it is necessary to some extent, when there is power to be gained the immoral – the moral majority will ALWAYS be at a loss, or on the losing end.

      Grant no quarter to the immoral.
      And it’s so easy, these days – the uniform is obvious, as are the locations. (E.G., nuke D.C., no loss. Nuke Wall Street, no loss. [sorry, Marten, you CHOSE to be there. Guilt by association, and I knew you beforehand…] Burn out the state pig barracks, no loss. Why? Because the good ones, who turn in the bad ones, get drummed out. Fired, or terminated. So there are NO good ones left.)

      It sucks, but the Founders knew this, and stated bluntly that our constitution and even form of governemtn would ONLY govern a moral people. It wouldn’t serve any other society.
      We are SO FAR from moral, Satan’s looking down at us in wonder…

      So we’re guilty of the crime regardless; might as well get the “fun” of comitting it.

    • Good stuff, oooorgle!

      Larken’s videos are almost always excellent. In this one, he uses the cop’s own words to highlight his unthinking/unconscious/reflexive premise that “authority” must be obeyed and to resist “authority” is by definition criminal.

      It is a textbook example of a mind conditioned from childhood to accept the Myth of Authority – and with it, the legitimacy of aggression.

  11. “For those who would disagree, perhaps we are entering a time that even if we aren’t ready to love and trust our neighbors isn’t it time to reduce the power of the police state? Isn’t there some law you think is wrong? Some rule you think should be repealed or reversed?”-oooorgle

    How would “we”–or better yet–you go about this?

      • Heres a quote: “A big reason people want an ‘authority’ around is so each individual doesn’t have to feel that it’s HIS personal responsibility to decide what to do about various problems. But it is. That’s why, when people ask ‘in a free society, how would this be handled?’ I usually respond, ‘Well, how would YOU handle it?’ For someone to ‘take control’ WITHOUT a ruling class around to co-opt would be infinitely less likely than nasty people taking control of the state–which happens 100% of the time.” – Larken Rose

        • Why the “we” in your statement then. How would YOU go about reducing the police state? How would YOU go about repealing or reversing a law?

          • Was I talking to myself when I typed that, no… It would take more than just me. Do I believe the burden to make the world a better place everyone’s personal responsibility, yes. However, for those who rather feel it is their personal responsibility to tell others what to do, they must carry a lot of weight. Does that behavior not derive from fear? They certainly are not going to just not participate in the initiation of force when it is the only thing they know. Hell, even you seem to get sucked in just a bit. But, the paradigms are changing.

            Here is a quote form one of my favorite bands. How about consistency in just this.
            “I’ll call you on your shit. Please call me on mine. Yeah, then we can grow together and make this shit-hole planet better in time.”

            • I surely don’t mind being called on my shit. My two closest buddies and I call each other on their shit all the time. That’s why we’re close.

              Back tracking a bit……Do you consider the mere act of voting to be an act of aggression? How so?

              • YES. I consider aggression to be simply another name for government and as I said earlier, anytime I cast a vote, unless I allow those uninvolved to opt out, my vote is a sham. We both know imposing the results is aggression or theft and that makes me the problem. The very act implies that there can be a rightful ruling class, which the rest of us have an obligation to obey. The fact that 1 million can get together and hallucinate rights none of them have individually, is a truly enigmatic idea.

                I often ask people if they can articulate to me one instance in the entire known history of humanity where the “initiation of force” was the correct or moral course of action.

                • A person in power must perform an aggressive act, not just have the power to do so. Does it follow that the mere act of carrying a gun is aggression? It is the ability to kill, but it must be acted upon before it is aggression.

                  You, Larken and Eric have all instigated aggression on people by using federal reserve notes in transactions. Why will you participate in that? If you or Larken are willing to a participate in a jury trial, you have aggressed on those selected for the jury. They couldn’t safely “opt out”.

                  Voting isn’t the initiation of force. The force comes–or doesn’t–after the vote.

                  • I don’t care what hallucination someone has in their own life as long as they keep the aggression to themselves. It is when that psychosis convinces them they need to interfere with other peaceful people that they become the problem. Apparently you think when you vote it has absolutely no effect on anything anywhere at any time.. Ridiculous!

                    If I am forced into a room with other people, I am aggressive against them because they can’t leave, even though I had nothing to do with them being brought there? Your logic is inconsistent, again.

                    You really seem to suffering cognitive dissonance when it comes to your vote. You are pretending to create a right you don’t have and never had to begin with and then insanely delegating that power to criminals. The fact you do not comprehend this doesn’t make it untrue.

                    • When Larken argued a loophole in the tax code, he wasn’t being consistent. If the only moral way to act with a slave master–the judge and jury–in that instance is to “articulate how he(judge)is acting like a criminal”, Larken didn’t do the moral thing. He argued a loophole. Then when that didn’t work, he negotiated a lighter sentence because he agreed to file amended tax returns.

                      I’m not arguing that voting is moral. I’m not indicting Larken Rose. I’m only pointing out that when a slavemaster–illegitimate as he may be, but your slave master just the same–allows us to get our balls off the chopping block by voting, or negotiating a lesser punishment, purity goes out the window. Illegitimate and as criminal as he is, he will kill you, or let you choose–by house rules–some lesser amount of slavery.

                      Purity goes out the window, not because it’s right, but because it can extend survival. To be 100% pure, you’d have to confine yourself to an island inhabited by no one else and totally sustain yourself. Since you aren’t doing that, you practice aggression to some degree. There is no way not to in this country as presently constituted.

                      I don’t mind Larken, but philosophically, Hoppe is better in my opinion. Larken would argue that Hoppe is wrong, but when he had the ultimate chance to do the moral thing in front of his “slave master”, he chose house rules for negotiation, rather than what was moral. Who can blame him? He can now tell people great things and share some eye opening information with many people. None of which he could have done with a 10 year prison sentence.

                      The interesting thing is that, the “aggressor”, Ron Paul has done more for the liberty movement than Larken Rose and all of the other liberty movement anarchist/libertarian pundits and institutes combined. I’d venture a guess that more people found out about Larken Rose, because of Ron Paul than any other means.

                    • Ever sit through Larkin Rose’s presentation on the income tax? He’s the first one I’ve seen to actually walk through the whole thing, the whole process, from day one until it morphed into the beast, the perception, it is today. No loophole, just the history of changes and language. Somewhere within the Alex Jones videos there is someone who does the same with regards to driving being a right. Neither changes a damn thing because americans aren’t interested in history or how they are being scammed, what is, is the perception they are taught.

                      What is an election in this country? What is it that the majority think it to be? It’s voting themselves benefits one way or another. It’s being on the winning team, being a fan of winner, that sort of thing. Sometimes it’s the ‘lesser of two evils’. It’s not self defense or any other high and mighty cause. And like the income tax and the right to drive it’s what it is based on mass perception.

                      Our intellectual arguments about what they are, are simply that, intellectual arguments.

                    • BrentP,

                      That’s an excellent point of observation. We have what we have and the consequences are based on what the masses perceive them to be.

                    • Dear ancap,

                      I would argue that once criminal elements such as “The Government” resort to force, which is from Day One, then their victims are entitled to use whatever means available to minimize the harm inflicted upon them, without having aspersions cast on their character.

                      Remember, “The Government” is morally no different in any way from a mugger who has the drop on you.

                      ANY means you use to walk away from the encounter with the least harm inflicted upon you, is perfectly okay.

                      Is honesty a virtue? Of course it is! But is one a contemptible liar if one lies to the mugger about how much money one has on one’s person?

                      If courage a virtue? Of course it is! But is one a contemptible coward if one fails to get up in the armed mugger’s face, unarmed?

                      Once another person resorts to force, they are already in the wrong. One no longer has any obligation whatsoever to “display integrity” with them. Any means one can use to defeat such an aggressor is justified.

                    • Bevin, I just learned today the county is going to double my land taxes. Why? Because of hunters everyone says. Hell, I have no “hunters” and land prices are not rising. So how do they justify it? Because they’re immoral bureaucrats, the kind clover likes, who take what they want at the end of a gun.

                      We’re about to find out the will of the people since this shit has been tried before, all by people who own no land or if their spouses do, find a way to exempt them.

                      It’s about to be a big shitty when I post a letter in this county for all to see describing the few who take our money and how they determine how much they take.

                      I’m going to describe in detail, since I have been through the process of how bureaucrats and the “govt.” take our money and exactly the process they go through to take it.

                      I look into my crystal ball and see me once again being the “criminal”.

                      Goddamnit, if we’d just never let Yankees dwell in this state…………

                    • Dear 8sm,

                      The day will come when mankind looks back on the 21st century and shakes its head, wondering how human beings could have been so stupid as to voluntarily enslave themselves, and then sing

                      “And I’m proud to be an [ fill in the blank ] where at least I know I’m free”.

                      Having undergone conversion to anarchism and emerged out the other end, I look back and wonder how I could ever have believed the premises of “limited government”.

                      Some stranger you don’t know from Adam, comes to you and says “You owe me money. Double what you have been paying. Fork it over, or else!”

                      As Larken Rose correctly notes, the problem is not the “big nasty gang over there”. The problem is We the Sheeple falsely believe that we are obligated to obey and pay!

                      The late great Swiss psychologist Carl Jung said, “The trouble with the unconscious is that it is unconscious.”

                      In other words, if one doesn’t know a thing, then one doesn’t know that one doesn’t know that thing.

                      Jung was talking about one’s inner emotional and spiritual dimensions. But his observation applies to political systems as well.

                      As the great German philosopher Goethe noted,

                      “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
                      — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

                  • I’ve never seen Larken Rose argue a “loophole”. I have seen him argue facts. Perhaps you can provide the instance? Not your version either, he documents everything he does, find it.. Dare ya!

                    “If the only moral way to act with a slave master–the judge and jury–in that instance is to “articulate how he(judge)is acting like a criminal”

                    The only way? LOL! Not, so why don’t you sit and think about it.

                    “I’m not arguing that voting is moral.”

                    Yes, you are.

                    “illegitimate as he may be, but your slave master just the same”

                    You are the only one identifying them as such. They are your master, obviously, by your own admission, you made this very clear over and over and over. They are not slave-masters, they are criminals.

                    “you practice aggression to some degree.”

                    Feel free to point it out and when you find it, it will be involuntary and as removed from larger harm as it can possibly be, just like Larkens case and unlike your position on voting which advocates everything government is and does.

                    “Ron Paul has done more for the liberty movement than Larken Rose and all of the other liberty movement anarchist/libertarian pundits and institutes combined.”

                    You make a statement like this that applies only to you yet you act as though everyone thinks the same thing. The exact opposite is true in my life and by your examples and advocations, Ron Paul didn’t teach you much.

                    “I’d venture a guess”
                    You guessing about things lends you no credibility.

                    • Are you capable of objectively and honestly examining your own belief systems to see if you might accidentally be advocating something destructive? I am doubting you are able to.

                      The voting process allows for a psychological comfort zone to exist within the turmoil of the reality of people’s statist enslavement; it can be perversely comforting to be a member of the tribe. But voting isn’t just the simple act of marking a ballot on Election Day. It is a statement of principle. When you vote, you grant to others power you don’t have. Do you claim to have the right to take $2,800 a month from my family and spend it as you please? Would you do so yourself? If so, you’re a thief. If not, you’re a hypocrite. Because, when you vote, you purport to grant this power you do not have to others. When you vote, you are a thief by proxy….

                      additional reading:
                      You Might Be a Statist If…?

                      Why I Refuse to Register (To Vote or Pay Taxes)

                      Signs of Autumn

                      The Truth About Voting

                    • From Wikipedia:
                      Larken Rose, a noted advocate of the 861 argument, used the argument to challenge the IRS, and lost:

                      On November 22, 2005, in Philadelphia, PA, Larken Rose was sentenced to 15 months in prison, followed by one year supervised release and fined $10,000. Rose was convicted by jury in August 2005 to five counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. According to the evidence introduced at trial, Rose willfully failed to file personal federal income tax returns for calendar years 1998 through 2002, despite earning $500,000 during those years. On those amended returns, he reported no tax due and requested a refund for all income taxes paid in those years. At trial, Rose claimed that he failed to file returns and sought refund claims based on his determination that his income received inside the United States was not taxable under Internal Revenue Code Section 861 and regulations. The judge instructed the jury that this Section 861 argument is incorrect as a matter of law.[19]

                      Irwin Schiff devotes an entire article to debunking Rose’s “861” argument here:


                      Because you have never “seen” him argue a loophole doesn’t mean he hasn’t. Is that enough documentation to satisfy your scary “dare ya”?

                      I was quoting you where you stated that:

                      “i would articulate how he is behaving like a criminal; that putting poison in peoples soup is wrong. I would stop him if at all able. There is no other moral way to interact with an individual such as that.”

                      I don’t believe that’s the only moral way to deal with a judge/slavemaster/politician, etc.

                      “They are not slave-masters, they are criminals.”

                      No, all slave masters are criminals, but all criminals aren’t slave masters.

                      If I were attempting to get people to lend me credibility on that statement, I wouldn’t use the words “venture a guess”. Were you attempting credibility when you said “I’ve never seen Larken Rose argue a loop hole”, were you attempting credibility?

                    • You don’t have a clue about what Larken and 861 have in common which is nothing. You obviously have not digested it. You look like a fool to be even speaking of it.

                      and you reply with a wikipedia page, lol!

                      What is 861?

                    • I’ve read Irwin Schiff’s rebuttal to Rose 861 and that must be pretty old. The web page itself looks like it came it out of 1996. What I’ve seen from Rose agrees with Schiff, there is no law. Even the gross income point Rose in more recent instances agrees with Schiff the way I read it. Unless I completely missed Rose’s point as he goes through the law from the beginning and how it was changed to mask the fact there is no law.

                      It would appear that Rose’s arguments have matured over time.

                    • Just watched the Larken Rose rebuttal of 861. I think Larken misses the boat on the issue. The people that convicted him were afraid the .GOV would be after them. It wasn’t they didn’t care. It was they were afraid. After all .GOV chose them for the trial. .GOV knows who they are where they live and it is an IRS case. COWARD is the word.
                      Larken should have demanded a change of venue to a southern jurisdiction. Memphis would have been a fine one. On more than one occasion people have been acquitted of IRS wrong doing in criminal cases. Alas, this didn’t happen. So Larken got F’d. The south still resents the f’n federal goons.

                      Thank the heavens.

                      One other thing I want to point out. The goons in all confrontations will change the rules of the game to suit them so they can make an example of you. First rule of business. Don’t let them. Franklin Sanders and Vernie Kuglan didn’t. Their defense with the tax code plainly on the defense table was, “Show me where, in the statute law from the latest published book from the IRS, where I legally owe taxes.

                      Fucks the prosecution all the time.

                      Using the 861 crap is stupid. When the prosecution called Franklin and Vernie tax protestors they replied, “I’m not a tax protestor, I merely want you to show me the law where it states that I, as a person, legally owe a tax”.

                      The prosecution couldn’t. The jurors interviewed after the trials stated the Feds didn’t prove their case.

                      Mind you, this didn’t stop the IRS from ordering the banks to freeze their assets. Back door tactics you see, If you can’t win one way you fuck people another way. My advise do not hold assets in any US institution.

                      David Ward

                    • David, no, the people on the jury don’t think that way. Anyone with the ability to comprehend the situation enough to be scared of retribution from the government would not have made it through the selection process. If one or two slipped in that’s all it was, one or two.

                      I’ve been in enough “debates” with regular americans to know they think much like Rose says they do. Doesn’t matter the topic. They repeat what authority says. What their grade school teachers told them. They do so in the most ridiculing and insulting way they can. I often respond by telling them that I got the same lessons in school too and there might be a good reason I don’t believe it any longer. That shuts up some of them.

                      It is every topic. Social conformity and laziness is the glue that holds all the illusions together. People for no other reason than to enforce conformity will come into a discussion firing both barrels. The message is always conformity and the people around us are the real enforcers. That’s the basis of tattle tale societies. It’s a manipulation of that trait.

                      This planet is just manipulating people’s emotions on every level from the personal all the way up to the nation state and beyond.

                    • Brent I watched a couple of movies over the weekend. It pretty much showed what happens when society norms break down. The movies were science fiction about major environmental events. In effect what happens in all the movies is what will happen to any society where it breaks down. The gun rules. The gangs rule. If someone does not like you then you die.
                      In your world if someone slows you down on the road or does what in your mind is not correct then retaliation happens no matter if it is justifiable or not. Pretty much the same as your biking video where you complained so much and stood on your horn, which is illegal by the way, when in effect it was you that was wrong.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      With you, everything comes down to violence. That you project your violent personality onto others is very revealing.

                    • Yes Eric it is all about violence. Of course the latest protests as they call them, something you would approve of, caused businesses to lose100s of thousands of dollars with the looting, damage and also deaths of police. Something you would be proud of. Eric you are the certified sick person here.Clover

                    • Larken did use a section of IRS code in his defense. Section 861. I’m not arguing that he doesn’t explain the IRS from the beginning. I’m not arguing that the IRS isn’t a fraud. But he did use an IRS code–house rules, surprise they change the rules as they go–section for argument. He did amend tax returns to receive a lighter sentence. That’s not a condemnation. Who wouldn’t lessen the damage done to them given the opportunity to do so, when the only other option is a cage?

                      On voting, where we first started, before it turned into Larken, taxes, and 861:

                      I don’t generally vote. I will go in and vote against school bonds every time. I would go vote on a referendum that lessens the damage done to people who use “unapproved” plants, or any other referendum that rolls back any of the damage that government may do to people. Not the preferred method, but what’s the alternative when you live under a state that holds elections? If a school district wins a bond election, they extract more money form everyone in the district. If they lose, the damage is lessened because they don’t get to extract additional money from people in the district. The criminals will impose their order whether you vote or not. The morality of voting or not voting are contingent on the circumstances and what the consequences of voting or not voting may be. A person can easily not vote to consent to the state and the way things are going. It’s likely that more people who abstain from voting don’t do it for any principled reason as an anarchist would, but rather because they feel that the state and it’s violence is representing their best interests. Giving them food stamps, subsidized housing, any other welfare, and protecting them from “terrorists”.

                      I end with Lysander Spooner because he says it far better than I can. I attempt to learn, but I’m the first to admit I’m not the smartest or most knowledgeable. To me Spooners arguments make sense:

                      “In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

                      “Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.”

                    • Clover you’re such a troll.

                      It’s amazing how you equate a horn with violence. BTW, audible signal is allowed by law. It says I’m passing you, give way to the right and don’t move left. I’ve told you that before.

                      (625 ILCS 5/11-703) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-703)
                      (b) Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal and shall not increase the speed of his vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

                    • Hey Clover, How many miles have you done bicycling in traffic? How many vehicularly? Zero? I thought so.

                      On bike trails it is customary to to yell ‘On Your Left’ a few people use a horn. It’s what you do so people don’t veer in front of you.

                      With a gap that small if anyone moves I’m going to be seriously hurt. I don’t care if you or anyone else is offended by what is standard practice and explicitly called out in the Illinois vehicle code. Two short beeps is perfectly fine for everyone but trolls anyway.

                      Of course had the driver either not passed me or not come to a dead stop on a green signal the situation would have never come about.

                    • So Lonestar, you admit the cars were stopped. So if you are driving your bike at 15 mph or whatever and you stand on your horn when you are right next to the cars then tell me how they can physically run into you? Brent it is not even possible. Clover
                      Brent I know all about bike paths and warning someone that you are going to pass but do you wait until you are right next them and scream at them that you are passing like what happened when you used your horn in the video? Brent you are not even a good liar. Maybe Eric can give you some lessens when he learns how to lie better.
                      Is that some kind of training that libertarians get? Liars training 101?

                    • Clover, how much experience do you have biking in traffic? None. When a driver does something stupid like stopping on a green signal there’s a damn good choice of a sudden direction change.

                      I intended to sound the horn earlier but fumbled for the button. But again, you concern yourself with two beeps and other nonsense. You’re like the common american idiot. It’s not the stupid thing they did that’s wrong, it’s the person who points it out.

                      Now go crawl under flooded underpass.,

                    • Brent it was obvious that the light just turned green and the car turning left had to wait 10 seconds for the cars coming from the other direction to clear. I know it would have killed you to stop. You say that you should have tried the horn earlier but fumbled and did not get to it until next to the car. Tell me again why the need to continue using the horn when you were across from the stopped car? Again Brent if you are passing by a stopped car at 10 to 15 mph it is physically impossible for him to run into you. If you fumble with your horn then why the hell do you drive past a car with inches to spare? Brent you are all about aggressive poor driving.Clover

                    • It’s Clover the Dancing Troll!

                      You should be put inside a tent and people should pay 25 cents each to watch you dance Clover.

                      Right turning traffic has right of way over left turning traffic of which there was none in motion. Moron.

                      Physically impossible? How long have you been biking in traffic Clover? How many miles have you done in the saddle? I can tell you for a fact that morons driving forget about the bicyclist they just passed and then do stupid things even after they’ve stopped.

                      I think you should buy a bicycle and go ride in traffic Clover. You’ll quickly be dead if you practice what you preach.

                    • “physically impossible” – yeah right. I knew a bicyclist a few years ago who had his neck broken when a parked car opened its door in front of him. Or rather, the Clover in the car opened the door.

                    • Yes Brent physically impossible. Your bike at 10 mph can pass by a stopped car in less than a second. Are you telling me that someone is going to turn their wheel and floor it to be able to hit you while there is a car there also? Brent you must have fallen off your bike one too many times.Clover

                    • Clover, how much vehicular bicycling have you done? Ah, right, zero.

                      One that happened with memory was a residential T intersection. The stem of the T is east west and the cross top is north south. I am north bound signaling a left turn west bound. A woman is in her car stopped on the stem pointing east intending to turn north. I commit to the turn the woman starts moving her car right into me. I barely dodge being hit by her.

                      I’ve had countless clovers change direction and pull out in front of me. Some of you morons pass me and then start moving right before completing the pass. One never knows what you idiots will do because bicyclists are largely invisible to you and once you pass we cease to exist in your minds. Passing a driver that has already passed is always unpredictable. It often generates road rage.

                      But hey, enough of teaching you how bike in traffic. Here’s something more your style. I am sure you can make up several narratives about it:


                    • Phillip the Bruce, dooring is another thing. When people start doing weird things they might get out of their car too. I’ve see that happen and only once when I was passing by.

                    • I tell you what Brent maybe the world would be better off with all people taking more driving courses with you being the first in line. Brent the world does not revolve around you and your poor driving. Yes people make mistakes and it is obvious that you make them worse by aggressive driving. Brent I have taken advanced courses in driving have you? You sure do not show that you have. I would bet that half the time someone passes you that you step it up and get on their tail. You are all about aggressive and road rage driving. You really showed it in the video where you complained about the driver that passed you. I showed you that you were wrong and you said that oh well, everyone does it. Then I brought up the horn issue and you said that you wanted to do it correctly but were not able to. Really? In almost every video you have show me, you make mistakes or improper poor driving.Clover

                    • AS usual Clover drops all pretenses of the subject and become highly abusive.

                      Clover, did any of these advanced driving courses tell you not to pull out in front of traffic and force others to brake to avoid hitting you? Did any of them tell you to wait for a gap? I’m sure an advanced driving course would would teach you some basics, and since you’ve argued countless times that there is no reason to wait for a gap, you’re lying.

                      You always lie. You’re an abusive troll. Why don’t you find an interstate and at 30mph merge in front of a semi that’s doing 70mph? Better yet, go pull out in front of a train. You’ll learn something you should have figured out well before an advanced driving course.

                      “You really showed it in the video where you complained about the driver that passed you. ”

                      What video is that Clover? How about none. I complain about asshats like you that have to be in front and then impede travel. Like you pulling out into traffic and then not accelerating.

                    • Hi Brent,

                      If Clover has taken “an advanced driving course” then I can fly by flapping by my arms.

                    • Brent I do not merge at 30 mph on the interstate and if I am on the interstate with a merging lane ahead I try to move over or adjust my speed to allow a safe merge of vehicles ahead. That is the kind of thing you learn in driving courses. Something you refuse to do because you are a poor driver. You and Mith.. keep talking about the laws and if there is not a law against your particular poor driving at the time then you go right ahead and keep doing it. Brent if people like you would drive better then maybe the others you complain about would too. Clover

                      Then it comes back to Eric. In his 5 minute video complaining about the line of clovers driving because they slowed him down, he passed a couple of cars and turned his camera back to show the poor clover cars. The thing that he left out was that he was affecting other drivers worse than the ones he was complaining about. He made others adjust for him and delayed others. Is that OK because he was a libertarian driving aggressively? He wanted others to pull off the road for affecting others. Shouldn’t someone like himself pull off also since he was negatively affecting others?
                      Why is it Brent that Libertarians complain about others so much when in fact they may be even worse?

                    • Clover, you have continually argued that the other person has to adjust for you because you can’t be bothered to wait for a gap or properly accelerate. That’s what you argue. From a principle standpoint it doesn’t matter what speed you merge at because you believe in forcing other people to adjust to you. But you won’t merge at 30mph in front of a 70mph truck because you know it will get you killed. You won’t pull out in front of trucks and trains because you know it will get you killed. But you pull in front of, merge slowly into, anyone you think can anyone you think can adjust for you. Because that’s who and what you are.

                      It’s pretty clear you get your jollies by angering people. I have no doubt that you drive to do so. You enjoy both the power trip and making other people miserable. It’s what trolls do. Your road going behavior is likely no different that what you display here.

                    • Brent I know how to drive. I have taken advanced driving courses. Have you? I have never merged at 30 mph onto an interstate unless there was traffic congestion causing other cars to drive that speed. Tell me Brent what satisfaction you get in telling lies? No where did I ever say I drive as poorly as you say I do and it never happens. Again I am the one without any accidents that has taken in traffic advanced drivers training. Can you say either of those? Clover
                      We have seen your poor driving Brent. You presented videos of it. You are proud of driving poorly.

                    • Clover,

                      When you claim to have taken “advanced driving courses,” what – exactly – do you mean?

                      I’m willing to bet you $10 (which I’d actually pay, unlike you, in the event I lose the bet) that these “courses” consisted of DMV-esque lecturing about “defensive” driving, testing your knowledge of government driver’s ed cant and so on.

                      I don’t believe you’ve ever taken a high-speed/vehicle control/driving dynamics course (e.g., Bondurant, Skip Barber). It’s just not something a person with your personality would be interested in.

                      Prove me wrong, Clover – and I’ll put $10 in the mail to you the next day.

                    • Clover, I didn’t say you merged at 30mph I said you should test your principles by doing so, in front of a truck. Your principles being no effort on your part, no waiting for a gap, and making other people avoid you.

                      The only advanced driving course you took was blood on the highway films. It’s evident from what you babble. You defend countless lazy, sloppy, and inconsiderate driving behaviors. You champion driving slowly and getting in people’s way. You like irritating people and project that on the people you are trying to irritate. You just make sure they aren’t big enough to just kill you. Which is why you won’t troll a train or a truck.

                    • Yes Eric part of the real world classes that I took were defensive driving classes and no they were not government sponsored. Eric you are a stupid shit. Tell me in real world driving when ” high-speed/vehicle control/driving dynamics course” is ever needed or recommended? Did such a course ever deal with pedestrians, cross walks, bicycles or intersections and the other dozens of things that happen in day to day driving? If they did not cover those things then your classes sucked didn’t they! Tell me Eric what your classes help you do during normal driving? Clover
                      Eric the classes that I took taught you how to stay away from emergency situations. They never happen if you drive correctly. Your type of driving creates emergency situations. Eric do you have a clue which is better training with those facts?

                    • Clover,

                      One learns among other things how to maintain control of a vehicle during emergency situations – such as the sudden appearance of a pedestrian in the road, or another car swerving in front of you – which makes one less likely to lose control and have an accident in those situations.

                      I suppose that makes me a “stupid shit.”

                    • Yes Eric it sounds like that course you took may do you some good. When you drive 70 mph around that 35 mph curve and a pedestrian or entering car is ahead you then you better know how to get out of the situation. You just caused the emergency situation so you better be able to get out of it. So when the pedestrian shows up on the road ahead and a car is in the other lane then what does your superior drivers training tell you to do? In my case it would not have happened because I would just take my foot off the gas and there would be no emergency situation. That is why the speed sign was there to begin with but your superior driving just created the emergency situation that I would not have had in the first place.Clover

                    • Now Eric you are somewhat right. If I as a superior skier am flying down the hill at 60 mph which no one else could ever do and I come flying over the ridge and there is a skier right in front of me. No way in hell would I be able to miss him. So with my superior skills I would have just created the emergency situation that just killed another person. Eric I do not fly over blind hills on skis unless the course is blocked off or there is a spotter.Clover

                      Eric superior driving includes your brain. That means to slow down around a corner or hill because no one would be able to avoid an accident if for some reason there is something unexpected on the other side. You use your brain to adjust for an on ramp on the interstate and adjust for oncoming cars. You use your brain to look for possible pedestrians or bicycles. Eric superior driving is to limit emergency situations. It is not to create them. If your drivers training is what causes emergency situations then your training is poor.

                    • Sorry to say, Clover is CORRECT about more knowledge = greater liability.
                      Broken clock is right twice a day, through no effort of its own.

                      Example: Dated a nurse for a while. She wouldn’t pull over to help someone at the side of the road. She was NOT protected under “good samaritan” laws. She had a “duty of care” because she was educated. She couldn’t even get out of the car if I stopped – she’d be liable by her very presence.

                      Funny how that doesn’t translate to cops and guns, or cops and “intelligence gathering” for a no-knock raid.

                      But it ALSO doesn’t translate to driving. A wheelman has no more liability than a Livery driver (off duty) than a trucker than a formula 1 racer. Or a Clover.

                      And I’d actually say, two things: 1, stop wasting breath on Clover. 2, let’s NOT give idiots any suggestions. First, they’d MANDATE the training, then attach higher liability to it. Second, they’d price insurance higher again, to reflect the “added risks.” Third, like gun safety classes, it won’t solve the problem: Mr Clover Magoo will still drive the same way, and demand everyoen else do the SAME EXACT THING and be SATISFIED to be stuck behind him/her/it. Even if he’s going 25 in a 55 limited-access road in the left lane.

                      Don’t feed the Troll, just put the IP out, and we can geo-locate and “fertilize” the grass with clover….

                    • Jean it is nice to see that you are a libertarian. Why is it that I never see a car driving 25 mph in a 55 mph zone but libertarians seem to? Why is that? Oh you must be looking at Eric’s video where he complains about only driving 4 mph over the max speed recommended for the curve. Clover

                      Why is that libertarians need to lie? Does it boost your ego? Does it make you better than you actually are?

                    • Clover,
                      I am NOT a Libertarian, we merely align on basic principles.
                      That would be like calling me a pacifist: I’ll beat you senseless for being so stupid.

                      It’s a public service, not a DA in the WORLD would prosecute.

                      And beyond that, you’re not worth my time. Just need to confirm things for public record.
                      Libertarians are too moral, I’m not part of that. I get my hands dirty and get results.

                    • So, Lonestar… I see you have the ring… do you believe in telling lies like libertarians do? 25 mph in a 55 mph zone? When was that?Clover

                      Libertarians believe in doing whatever they feel like no matter how dangerous it is for others. Is that what you believe? Do you believe that self is the only thing that matters? Do wish that everyone else were dead or pull off the road for you like libertarians?

              • Hi Ancap,

                The problem with voting as it is currently constituted (and probably inherently) is you’re giving carte blanche proxy power to commit aggression against others. And thereby legitimizing it. Even the lesser of two evils is still evil. And so, the system continues to churn.

                I agree with oooorgle.

                All forms of aggression should be rejected as a matter of principle.

                That said, I understand that one ought not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If (in theory) we could vote for a candidate who would repeal (not replace) Obamacare but continued to fund (via extorted tax dollars) the “defense” industry, it might be tempting to support him over his opponent who urged funding both (and more and worse).

                It is a paradox, I realize.

                • eric, even in a pure anarchist society there would eventually have to be some vote of some sort to determine the fate of psychopaths, even if said person was simply a thief.

                  A demented person would essentially be free to continue murdering others at will if that person could continually keep doing so without being killed themselves.

                  At some point, a group of people must, by dint of vote, be appointed to stop that person.

                  Of course in a true anarchist society few people would be unarmed so psychopaths wouldn’t be plentiful but as long as there are humans, there will be demented ones.

                  If no one decides to personally take the responsibility on themselves and track that person down and stop them in some way, then they’ll keep on killing. Even if someone does take on that responsibility there will always be a gray area, and under the Just Us system that gray area will most likely get an innocent killed or incarcerated.

                  Therefore a conundrum exists. There is no such thing as perfection as we all know. I know a couple of people, two to be exact(two separate incidences), who tracked down a killer and killed them but they were taking a huge risk in our society in doing that. The known killers needed to be stopped and very few people can afford a secret, private jail so a .45 is substituted for incarceration and everyone who knows about it is relieved, even the psychopath(just guessing on that one).

                  There will always be a chance of abuse but the price of not doing anything is often untenable.

                  • Hi Eight,

                    I wonder…

                    Admittedly, it would be more difficult to apprehend/deal with “bad people” without some organized system (i.e., government). But perhaps it would be better… because while we’d each have to be more vigilant about protecting ourselves – and would have to accept that “bad people” were not only out there, but probably freer to do (and get away with) their deeds… at least we’d be free of organized coercion (government) and free to fight back when someone threatened us (which you’re not allowed to do when government’s enforcers threaten you).

                    • eric, let me refine that a bit. I’m not saying a govt. has to be involved but to be fair an arbiter would certainly be needed and that in itself will require some sort of consensus. I’m not sure how to have an arbiter without some sort of vote or at least inform as many as possible and wait for objections. Arbiter(s) would most likely be the best solution and the more the better to a degree.

                      But to create a govt. entity for that purpose would likely lead back to the Just Us system again.

                      Arbiters could be replaced if most felt they weren’t impartial or not making correct decisions.

                      it’s not an easy thing but a cop enforcing laws that mainly benefit one group and a judge who mainly benefits himself and others “more powerful” than himself is not what I’m advocating.

                      I think L. Neil Smith has a good idea of what would work in The Probability Broach and even if one didn’t agree with his view it’s still an entertaining read.

                    • He is certainly worth reading.

                      “The first and most important thing to understand about politics is this: forget Right, Left, Center, socialism, fascism, or democracy. Every government that exists — or ever existed, or ever will exist — is a kleptocracy, meaning ‘rule by thieves’. Competing ideologies merely provide different excuses to separate the Productive Class from what they produce. If the taxpayer/voters won’t willingly fork over to end poverty, then maybe they’ll cough up to fight drugs or terrorism. Conflicting ideologies, as presently constituted, are nothing more than a cover for what’s really going on, like the colors of competing gangs.” L. Neil Smith

                  • I agree eight. That’s why I find Hans Hoppe and Walter Block’s positions on things to be more tenable than a Larken Rose or a Sefan Moleneux(spelling?).

                    • Dear ancap51,

                      I like all four of these guys.

                      I think they differ mainly at the tactical level, not the strategic fundamentals.

                      They’re all hardcore ancaps.

                  • I just want to point a few things out.

                    8SM says there has to be some group to take care of the demented and psychopathic. In my opinion, the demented and psychopathic are and always have been in control of government. It is natural they gravitate to that entity. Why? Because it allows them to literally get away with the very things individuals alone can’t do. Extortion (theft under the threat of death, a term they loving call taxation), fraud (lying about actions that result in loss of property up to and including your life), and murder (just for shits and giggles too!). If government didn’t exist, the demented and psychopathic would invent it so they can cloak their immoral and vile ways with legitimacy.

                    Someone just the other day asked me about good police officers. I had to inform him/her that the term good and police officer are diametrically opposing terms as all police officers are hired killers who knowingly receive stolen goods and make sure that flow of stolen goods continues unabated. This applies to all people that are part of all government entities.

                    I once asked a woman that I knew was part of the county government apparatus why she wanted me dead. She became instantly confused. I then started to lay out the dots from how the money she received came from (in this case, the County Sheriff’s department) thugs with guns. She had never had anyone connect the dots for her. She was a member of one of the largest church denominations in the county. It shocked her once she understood her livelihood depended on the victimization of innocent individuals. This ignorance is what government advocates and depends on for the masses in the indoctrination centers they call schools. If all understood and could connect the dots themselves, it is my belief one of two things would happen immediately. The people would either start leaving in droves or they’d start hanging (with a little tar and feathering before hand) the criminals that call themselves government.

                    Just as an aside, I do not vote. I agree, it is naked aggression. When you vote, you are saying to the people holding the sham election, I agree with you having the powers you hold. Nope. not for me. In addition, registering to vote used to put you on the list for jury duty (now they use driver’s licenses, which really pisses me off! But to thwart the state, I make sure to do two things when summoned by the turds. I wear a t-shirt that states Fully Informed Juror and carry a binder full of FIJA documentation (FIJA logo on the cover). That is usually enough for the government thug in charge to tap me on the shoulder and say you’re excused). A jury duty is a governmental slave institution. Again, nope, not for me. Now mind you, I’m not Christian, Muslim, (funny the spell checker here pointed out Muslim was not capitalized but not the word Christian) or any other organized religion, but I’m called to mind a passage in the Hebrew texts that goes something like this, “Do not sit in judgement of your brother or fellow man, lest you be subject to the same”.

                    Good advice for anyone.

                    David Ward
                    Memphis, Tennessee

                    • Dag Nabbit! I wanted my post just under 8SM’s! That was the reply button I chose. I agree to one poster’s frustration. About the location of the post being incorrect!

                      David Ward

                  • PtB, no argument here BUT voting for those who advocate making the govt. smaller is the only real way I know how to change the system.

                    To wait for an entire nation to subjectively “see the light” and then institute that change without voting is not a thing I can see happening.

                    To anyone with a vision how to effect that change I’ll quote another Texan “I’m all ears”. While I don’t agree with everything Ross promulgated, he was THE only figure to receive national attention who had the foresight and the balls to say what NAFTA really was.

                    If Libertarian candidates were voted for by large numbers of voters and their promises to downsize the govt. came about it would be better than what we now have, an ever-growing governmental presence.

                    I wouldn’t argue what govt. is but less would bring some relief instead of the inevitable growing and stealing we now see.

                    Saying I won’t participate is inviting the jackboots at your door sooner rather than later and hopefully, never. Bad situations can be reversed but not by sitting on our collective hands. I’m a realist. I’d bet few people here have had an object lesson in govt. gone wild as I have. Whatever it takes to ameliorate that ability is a good thing whether it be voting or publicly demonstrating against that power.

                    • I’d like to ask you when your vote actually ever changed anything in the system?

                      If I were to vote, I can pretty much guarantee that my candidate would lose, so my vote would never “change the system” in any way.

                      If you were to vote for somebody promising to reduce the size of the government, and, by some miracle they won, I can pretty much guarantee that no reduction would take place. Remember Reagan?

                    • quad, I occasionally have that Reagan nightmare…..along with all the rest of the prez’s.

                      The Libertarian party’s nominee for prez and practically every office they have a candidate for say one of their main goals is to reduce the size of govt.

                      The last election saw a ten fold increase in Libertarian votes compared to the previous one.

                      I seriously doubt that could happen on the federal level again. It might happen to a degree to influence the outcome of the election and policy thereafter in some sort of way in govt. reduction.

                      I can vote for that or become a lone sniper that’s so competent I can knock off enough key people that the remaining change their minds about certain things that would benefit us all.

                      The last option is not only highly unlikely, I’m simply not up to the task. Once again, I’m back to voting…..and once again, if anyone has a better suggestion, cue Ross Perot.

                      As for your initial question, it’s hard to know if my single vote changed anything but I have seen instances where enough people voted as I did and it made a change.

                      At one time gathering by the thousands and tens of thousands protesting a course of action resulted in a change……but it’s been a while.

                    • 8 – I will have to agree w/Quadcap. I have also written (repeatedly) to ‘my’ congresscritters. They respond w/polite platitudes, then vote the other way.
                      Have you ever noticed how the refer to each other as ‘honorable’? Well, they’re not.

                    • And if, say, Ron Paul had managed to get elected, do you think he would have lived until January 20?

                    • And yet no matter how they oppose my view, they still claim to ‘represent’ me.

                    • Sometimes I vote in order to sabotage the process such as in primaries and caucuses. But mostly during the general election I write-in my own name to oppose those candidates running unopposed. That way they have to have at least one other supporter to break the tie if no one votes for them.

                      It’s not that I think I can’t make a difference. It’s that I don’t think they can or will make a difference except in the negative sense.

                    • Hi Shock Me,

                      I can’t abide it any longer. The gantlet of Team Red and Team Blue drones importuning every person trying to make his way to the actual voting booth; pressing brochures in your hand… blechhh!

                    • Shock Me,
                      Yeah – I know of people who do similar, with different intent.
                      They are Democrats, but regsitered as Republicans to f*ck up the primaries.
                      I believe such a thing should be voter fraud, and punished by death.
                      Democrat/Progressive/Liberals all believe the ends justify the means, as long as the ends THEY want. Since I see this person socially occasionally, I want to crush their larynx. Further, they talk for two people – and the others I don’t see socially, every. (I’d drop this family as well, but they were “in-laws” of a sort.)

                      Eric, re: Team “Piece of sh!t” – yeah, no matter who wins, they do the same actions. Just a question of who will benefit – and it’s never “us”.
                      Scorched earth policy, best option. And their minions deserve a slow roast over a microwave dish….

                    • Dear Phil,

                      “And if, say, Ron Paul had managed to get elected, do you think he would have lived until January 20?”

                      You can be sure some updated versions of the shooters on the grassy knoll would take him out and the PTB would pin the assassination on some updated version of Lee Harvey Oswald.

          • How would I go about reducing the police state?


            I would make all police officers everywhere financially, legally, and criminally personally responsible for all of their actions — just like civilians are.

            I would require all officers to wear video cameras, and require that they are turned on at all times.

            I would require all officers to pay for their own attorneys out of their own pockets – just like us civilians do – and I would require all officers who receive financial judgments against themselves, to pay those costs out of their own pockets – just like us civilians do.

            And I would require that the same laws, and the same justice systems of evidence, arrest, prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment apply to officers – just as they do for us civilians.

            Institute all of these actions, and 99% of the insanity, lawlessness, and murder that officers commit daily against us civilians, would end immediately.

            And hey – I can dream, can’t I?

    • Hi Jarhead,

      It may be that violence ultimately decides the outcome. I hope not. I’d prefer a general moral awakening. A dawning awareness of the ugliness of aggression such that it comes to be viewed by decent people much the same as decent people currently view child abuse.

      If that ever comes to pass, the problem will solve itself.

      • You are talking enlightenment, essentially.
        Most people never seek enlightenment. Fewer still achieve it, even when they try their hardest.
        But most understand violence.

        Doesn’t tell you who’s right, but it determines who’s left.
        As long as the “right” people are left…. Which means, NOT CLOVERS.

        Then we could all MYOB and move on. Clover can’t tell what is his business, and what is someone else’s business.
        I.E., is a psychopath.
        I.E., mentally deficient, or criminally insane.

        Which brings us to the question of, who decides…?
        “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

        Bold indicates: It’s up to us. The thief who consistently escapes punishment, does not undergo a sudden enlightenment and repent. Rather, he is emboldened to pursue greater and greater thefts.
        If we see the same thief, again and again, we realize we must curb the thief’s ability, or their freedom.

        In this case – we are talking murderers and rapists. They demonstrate it again and again.
        The same badges, over and over.

        I think the solution is therefore self-evident.
        Unfortunate, but essential to a free Society.

        They must bleed….

  12. “I was NOT in any way advocating voting, rather the abolition of law.”

    Really? Or the abolition of bad “laws”? Some clarification is necessary on that statement.

    I’m not advocating voting either. I do advocate working with people who are in the political system if you can. While I don’t agree 100% with Ron Paul, I’d vote for him any time, in today’s situation. If we have government, we may as well start disbanding it to some degree.

      • No where have I stated anything like “might makes right”. If it were the Philadelphia convention, I’d pitch illegitimacy of government and attempt to persuade the people that they don’t want a national government. None of us are in that situation.

        Lets say you were born in a country where no one outside of government officials was allowed to own a car, firearm, or land. Then a few members of the dictatorial regime decides to allow you to vote for them and their policy on whether or not it would be okay for anyone to own a car, firearm, or land. The “leaders” or slave masters–whatever you want to call them–are still control freak dickheads in many other areas. And they have the guns and crony policemen to enforce their tyranny. How is it immoral to vote for people based on what they aren’t going to do? Would you refuse to vote because it lends “credence” or gives legitimacy to their regime?

        That is the type of situation any of us are in today. You WILL have a sheriff. You WILL have DUI checkpoints. You WILL have licensure. All the non-voting and non-participation in the world won’t take that away or dismantle the control apparatus in any way. If voting has a chance to do that, I’ll vote any day. That’s the reason why I’d vote for a Ron Paul and never a Mitt Romney, Obama, McCain, etc.. I choose to vote for a person based only on what they won’t do, rather than what they will do.

        When the opportunity comes up to take a serious look at abolishing government, I’d take it. Everyone has a right not to vote. But not voting isn’t going to usher in your dream “safely ignoring the law makers. I’m all for abolishing man made laws. I’m not for abolishing natural law. That isn’t possible and would be ridiculous to attempt.

        • Abolishing government is a personal choice, you can’t vote or protest it into existence. Because poison exists in the world, we must add it to our soup?

          • Because a slave master exists in your world and puts poison in your soup, then decides to let you choose if you want the poison in your soup, you’d refuse to answer him because you don’t want to lend him “legitimacy”?

            • No matter how you vote, government wins every election. He has no legitimacy whether i lend to him or not. I certainly will not pretend.

              • Of course he’s not legitimate, but he exists. Would you refuse to answer him if he asks whether or not you would like poison in your soup?

                • i would articulate how he is behaving like a criminal; that putting poison in peoples soup is wrong. I would stop him if at all able. There is no other moral way to interact with an individual such as that.

                  You obviously see these people as being different than the average thief, rapist or murderer, which they are only in degree and scale. Are you telling us how you would behave in this situation? I think so.

                  • Okay, that’s all I wanted to know. Given the opportunity, you’d vote to not have an oppressor poison your soup.

                    Where did I make it obvious that I view a slave master different than an average thief, rapist, or murderer? That’s some major conjecture on your part. I don’t view them differently. An aggressive act is wrong no matter the scale, or whose committing it. Whether they have a costume or not. If they–or their boss/overlords–ask if I would like to be plundered less, or not at all, I’ll gladly take them up on it. Seems you would too.

                    • Oh, one other thing. I doubt many slave masters think they aren’t acting poorly. They don’t care much for morals, hence their tyranny.

                    • No that’s not voting, that is self defense.

                      So why are you accepting poison then? I don’t.

                    • That’s why you ignored my first example and focused on the slave master point, so you could say it isn’t voting, it’s self defense? What would you do in my first scenario then, given the opportunity to vote on having a car, firearm and land ownership where it previously wan’t allowed? Would you refuse to vote?

  13. These days the police receive para- military training from the smallest middle-eastern county that starts with an I.

    That country is very knowledgeable about how to control a high percentage of the population that they wish to suppress. They are quite effective,for now.

    Films about Germany in the 1930s look more familiar all the time. just change the flag. Similar propaganda and love of the police.

  14. I have known LEOs all my life. Some I’ve idolized to this day and a few that I’m dealing with right now are perfect examples of what a lifetime of authority given to the wrong personality type does to the image of all LEOs. It is impossible to know how a job like this will shape a person over time but all too often it seems that the worse the effects of ultimate authority has on a person the more they become an integral part of the law enforcement organization.

    I have family members that I’m fighting with now that are lifetime LEOs who self-righteously believe that no law applies to them. They also studiously follow the rule that says “if there’s no witnesses then it didn’t happen”. This attitude becomes a deadly affair when the life of a helpless, abused woman is at stake and all this personality type cares about is treating her like a commodity to be exploited and then discarded. One finds out just how safe we all are when nursing homes and banks reveal that the legal constraints they live within. If you can’t be there to personally protect you and yours then predators in a state costume will ravage whomever they want whenever they want.

  15. For those who would disagree, perhaps we are entering a time that even if we aren’t ready to love and trust our neighbors isn’t it time to reduce the power of the police state? Isn’t there some law you think is wrong? Some rule you think should be repealed or reversed? This country was built on gangs. This country is still running on gangs. Republicans, democrats, the police department, the FBI, the CIA. Those are gangs…

    “We have historically been a paramilitary organization, and we serve whoever sits in that chair, regardless of race, gender, creed, or political party. I don’t know what we would do if we had to go to battle, and we had to make a determination, based on past practices, whether or not we wanted to go into battle. … I am a soldier in an army. We serve you in that way…. We should not be in a position where we’re going to have to decide how we’re going to police this city.” – Police Chief Rick Hite, Indianapolis Police Chief, during a September 17, 2014 City Council meeting.

    • Excellent point oooorgle. I don’t believe things will be fixed politically. But I part ways with many anarchists over voting in some instances. I hear all the time from some anarchists that you are lending credence to the system by voting, that it’s “morally wrong to vote” and the “only way to change things is by educating people”.

      Bullshit. I understand that voting can be a waste of time. Especially national elections and such. But where I disagree is locally. If you have 2 guys running for sheriff, one of them wants to ramp up the drug war, crack down on drunk driving, patrol more for speed violations, etc., the other guy wants to concentrate on trespassing violations, vandalism of private property and while believing in speeding tickets and the drug war, doesn’t want to ramp them up and wants to let people with small amounts of marijuana go, how are you sending any message by not voting? If not voting ends with the worse guy getting elected by 10 votes, because voting is a fraud, what was gained?

      If there is an opportunity to reverse any trend, repeal one law(or not have them enforced)it’s at least a move in the right direction……a starting point to repealing and trashing more laws and tyranny.

      I have been called an ideologue many times because I don’t compromise principles. That is true. In a debate of morality and principle, I stick to my guns and always attempt ideological purity. When it comes to politics, purity gets killed. If you desire changing things, you have to work incrementally. The police state didn’t start in one day. Communists didn’t gain power over night. It happened incrementally. So it is with freedom and privatization. If we expect to wake up one day–after refusing to vote or “participate” as many say–and expect the masses to say “lets privatize everything right now”, we are dumb fucks.

      I’m all for privatization and voluntary cooperation, but it takes work to get there. The best place to start is to get as many people as possible to realize that something needs cut. Cutting 1 thing is better than adding to the tyranny. If you can get people to work with you because they believe even 1 thing needs to be cut, your’e better off to work with that, then to say screw it, because they believe government is legitimate. Government won’t lose legitimacy in the minds of most people, even if there were 50 million of us in this country who believed that.

      It sucks, but sometimes you have to work with what you have. Refusing to work at all won’t produce a favorable result for liberty.

      • I was NOT in any way advocating voting, rather the abolition of law.

        Political voting is the act of pretending to create a right. I will go as far as saying that if I were to vote in a political election I would be behaving as a criminal. To believe I can create a right I do not have nor ever had to begin with is insane. To believe I can rightfully delegate that fictional right to a group of sociopaths or an individual (regardless if they support things I like or not) so they may exercise said right upon everyone is criminally insane.

        Anytime a vote is taken, unless I allow those not involved to opt out — without penalty — my vote is a sham. Imposing the results is aggression or theft and makes me the problem.

        I realized what the police state is, in one day. I didn’t need nor take years of weaning.

        Legitimate government is a contradiction. I don’t care who was elected, ‘duly appointed,’ or what magic rituals or pieces of parchment someone has. What I acquire through voluntary exchange belongs to me, and if everyone else on the planet decides to take it, it’s still immoral and illegitimate. Personally, I’d rather have moral principles, and NOT advocate mass extortion, even if I ain’t gonna get far advocating actual freedom.

      • It sucks, but sometimes you have to work with what you have.
        We do have guns….
        IF they control all other options (including the ability to meet peacefully, talk about the problems, determine the solutions, and enact the solutions), we should work with what we have, right?

        Refusing to work at all won’t produce a favorable result for liberty.
        Again, they control all the means to produce, communicate, travel.
        The only thing left is to cull their population… 🙁

      • ancap, you gave an example I have come up against, voted for the lesser of two evils and got it. So what’s not been gained? Everything is in degrees, just like liberty or lack thereof. If we can vote for somebody who is a lesser threat than another, where is the loss. I am an ideologue but also a realist. As you say, to think that one day we’ll wake and the masses will changed their minds is simply foolish.

        I wish I had the link to what I think was a recent article in Forbes that had compilation of 3 polling companies, Pew, Rasmussen and Gallup. 6% of the public has a positive view of the US congress. Other figures were just as telling. Somehow, and I’d guess this number simply represents how many clovers they polled, but 26% think this country is headed in the right direction. I’d say 26% of the polled simply didn’t understand the question. The only ones in this country who like the current situation are the politicians.

            • Okay. I found it!


              Here’s part of one exchange:

              Bevin Chu mava • 16 days ago

              Dear mava,
              Think of it this way.
              Ron Paul has run or held office for 30 years. If by doing so he had strengthened the “myth of authority” and bolstered belief in the indispensability of the state, then running and holding office would definitely have been a very bad thing.

              But the opposite happened.

              Ron Paul created a massive upsurge in the number of millennials who now say they are Ron Paul fans and (get this) “anarchists”! Not just “libertarians”, but “anarchists”!

              In short, by running and holding office Ron Paul created a massive upsurge in the number of young anarchists who reject the myth of authority and think the way you and I do.

              Think of it this way. The statists have robbed us and used our money to buy a bully pulpit. They then stand behind this bully pulpit and preach the “myth of authority”, telling us we are obligated to obey and pay them.

              So what’s wrong with shoving them aside, seizing the bully pulpit, paid for with money extorted from us, and using it to tell people that we were sovereign individuals who never had any obligation to pay or obey them in the first place?

              After all, the bully pulpit is our property. The statists are using our property, paid for by us, to program us. What’s wrong with taking it back and using it to de-program us? That is hardly a violation of the NAP.




              Share ›

              mava Bevin Chu • 15 days ago

              It hardly justifies now you using some of the property forcibly taken from other people, because some bad people did that to you. I am sorry dear friend, but theft is wrong, no matter the purpose.


              Share ›
              Bevin Chu mava • 9 days ago

              Dear mava,
              Here’s another way to think of it.
              The machinery of the state, including the statist institution of election campaigns, is like a gun, paid for with money extorted from the people.
              The state is already using this gun, by pointing it at the people.
              So is it really wrong to grab the gun, wrest it from the hands of the state, and turn it on the state?
              Is it really wrong to run for office, use the election campaign as a bully pulpit to deprogram people and shatter the myth of authority?
              That to me, is what Ron Paul did, and what Jeff Berwick apparently intends to do.
              IF, and this is a big IF, the person wrests the gun away from the state and turns it on the state, if he does not join the state and point the gun at the people. then I think it qualifies as self-defense, and is not a violation of the NAP.
              What do you think?
              Make sense?



              Share ›
              Lewie Paine Bevin Chu • 9 days ago

              You make an interesting point in how quickly the ‘RP millennials’ moved past Libertarianism to embrace Anarchism. The few I have spoken with seem to intuitively understand that the political process is a hopeless means to affect change in a system based on aggression. To me, this notably differentiates them from a lot of life-long Libertarians who still believe ‘the system can be reformed.’ These ‘old-schoolers’ just can’t understand that trying to make the NAP a reality via any political process is self-contradictory simply because government and non-aggression are incompatible. Not so with these younger people. They recognize no external authority and act accordingly. Gives me hope.
              P.S. Aggressively resisting the state does not violate the NAP as the state has no Rights.


              Share ›


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here