Theocracy Advances in Utah… And Soon Near You, Too

FILE - In this Feb. 23, 2017, file photo, Rep. Norm Thurston, R-Provo, looks on as he stands on he floor of the Utah House of Representatives at the Utah State Capitol, in Salt Lake City. Utah's hospitality industry is urging Gov. Gary Herbert to veto a bill giving Utah the strictest DUI threshold in the country, lowering the blood alcohol limit to .05 percent, down from .08 percent. Thurston, says he doesn't think it will hurt tourism but it would make people think twice about drinking and driving. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)
Print Friendly

The slippery slope argument gets mocked a lot – but here’s another case that proves the point:

Utah has just done what thinking brains knew was inevitably coming. The state government has nearly halved the legal threshold defining what risibly continues to be called “drunk” driving (see here) from the iffy .08 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) to the downright ridiculous .05 BAC.

This is a level that many people reach after as few as two – or fewer – drinks. One is enough, in some cases, to risk a “bust.”

Thus, Utah’s fatwa – and that is the right word, as this business comes out of religion – Mormonism – which would outlaw all drinking, period, if it had the power to do so – is a hop-skip away from outlawing any drinking prior to driving. Because with a threshold that low and Breathalyzer machines so notoriously inaccurate, the margin for error is much too close for comfort. To have even a single beer or glass of wine with dinner is to risk being arrested and caged for “drunk” driving.

Some, of course, will agree that any alcohol consumption prior to driving is “dangerous” and that prohibition, period, is a good thing.

But that is a far hop from “drunk” driving – a hysterical, over-the-top characterization. It is also a mere opinion – a moralizing and meretricious one – not supported by any facts.   

The legislation’s author, a Mormon Republican and graduate of the Mormon college, Brigham Young University, is a guy named Norm Thurston. He piously assures us that “the public safety impact of this is so compelling that it’s worth doing.”

Lies. Pious lies. But nonetheless.

There is no evidence at all that people are “drunk” or even meaningfully impaired at the .05 BAC level. It is an outrageous, religious effort to mask religious proscription as a public safety issue.

But it is also nothing new, really.

It is critical to understand that it isn’t necessary – in Utah or anywhere else in the Homeland – to establish that a person’s driving is impaired by alcohol to convict him of “drunk” driving. Even under the soon-to-be-old .08 BAC standard. It is enough to establish that the accused has a BAC of .08 – or .05 or whatever arbitrary number is selected. For those under the age of 21 – not legal age to drink but old enough to be held fully legally accountable for any crime they commit – it is zero BAC. Any trace of alcohol – and you are guilty of “drunk” driving.

One’s actual driving, in all cases, being 100 percent legally irrelevant.

The arresting cop might admit under cross-examination, that the accused’s handling of his car was faultless. No wandering or weaving; no erratic anything. That he had no reason to suspect him of not being in full possession of his faculties or question whether he was in complete control of his vehicle.

It doesn’t matter.

The victim – whoops, “drunk” driver – simply had the bad luck to roll up on a Fourth Amendment Free Zone. That is, a random/dragnet checkpoint at which every driver must submit to a search/interrogation and testing, absent any individualized suspicion or other probable cause.

The cop can then demand – under a loathsome piece of totalitarian doublespeak called implied consent – that the driver submit to a breath test upon command. To self-incriminate. He must prove his innocence, rather than the cop (and later, the prosecutor) having to prove guilt.

And he must comply – or else (in most states) face immediate arrest and forfeiture of his driver’s license as the punishment for declining to consent to provide evidence that can and will be used against him in court.

Before .08, it was generally necessary to have some evidence of impairment before – key thing! – a cop had the legal authority – probable cause – to pull a specific individual over. The fact of erratic driving having been established, the next step was to establish why.

Note the horse before cart arrangement.

Since .08 became the national standard – and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments got thrown in the Woods – the cart has been placed foursquare in front of the horse.

Now comes Utah to take away the horse and maybe soon the cart, too.

Point-oh-eight as a universal standard was hugely questionable on scientific grounds. People vary in both their abilities behind the wheel and their ability to process alcohol. It is a fact that some people with a zero-point-zero BAC are far less able as drivers than other people with point-zero-five or even point-zero-eight.

It is hugely politically incorrect to even broach this topic. But the fact remains.

Which is why .08 had to be implemented using random checkpoints without any pretense of individualized suspicion. To stop using a person’s actual driving as the measure of their impairment.

The object of the exercise has become convicting as many people as possible of “drunk” driving – notwithstanding that they aren’t “drunk” (except perhaps by hard-core Baptist and Mormon standards, for whom a whiff of cough syrup is sufficient) and their driving can’t be faulted.

So, erect random checkpoints and “bust” people not on account of their driving but only because they happen to have “x” BAC – the number deliberately dumbed-down and under-posted, very much as speed limits are and for exactly the same reasons.

Which are, of course, to give the government the flimsiest of reasons to “bust” as many victims as possible in order to both extract as much money as possible and to instill in them a servile fear of The Law. Turn everyone into a “drunk” driver. Just as almost everyone who is driving is also a “speeder.” 

The Utah decree doubles down on this and be advised – it’s not just Utah.

Or soon won’t be.

Some history: It was Utah that first enacted the .08 BAC standard. They did it because of the Mormon aversion to drink – period. But other states – and the Feds – soon realized what a cash (and control) cow the .08 standard could be potentially be for them and – shazam! – the whole country adopted .08 as the universal standard.

Can it be doubted that the same forces of ka-ching! (and clink) are as operative as ever? That “mothers” (read: very well-paid full-time agitators who work hand in hand with the government and insurance mafia) will demand the new .05 standard?

For “safety” and “the children”?

Actually, for the money and the power. It has always been thus, but it’s getting worse. A farce, except one with teeth.

If you like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who send in $20 or more to support the site. 

Share Button


  1. Nunzio, “…Greek (which the New Testament was written in) is a very precise language…”

    Questions arise. But was not the bible originally written in Hebrew? As such then does the original Hebrew text also “…contain internal numerical patterns which even computers can not generate today”? If the human mind can identify and understand these numerical patterns then what is so esoteric about them? Like seeing the patterns of haiku.

    “Christianity as truly revealed in it’s source texts.”

    Which original texts? Who decided which texts were to be included and which would not be included? Based on what? Again, we do not know who wrote, edited, and complied these texts yet we are supposed to believe they are the inerrant word of a god.

    “Men can make up anything they want and call it the Bible- but concordances are readily available so that even the simplest reader can see what the real source text (the only one which has been accepted throughout history as comprising the Scriptures)”

    Why does the word of an inerrant god require another book to explain its meaning? Is the bible just “Cliff Notes” for The Word of God?

    Accepted by whom? Who made the decision as to what is acceptable and what is not and based on what?

    “You don’t see them doing this to Muslims…”

    Islam on its face is obviously the rantings of a madman who thought a god was talking to him. But we at least know who that madman is who wrote the koran. Could it not be argued that there is more “credibility” for the koran precisely because it has not been changed into different versions? It seems to me that a god’s “word” cannot be nor should be changed. (FTR let me be clear here: I do not think islam is anything other than an abhorrent philosophy.)

    “They attack the enemy they know is real!”

    I have conflicting thoughts on this. One, perhaps Christianity has recently come under fire from the West because the West has more experience with it than it has had with other religions. Could it be that Reason attacks Christianity first and more often because Christianity is considered the weakest of the Abrahamic religions? (I personally think Judaism, the basis for the other two, is the weakest.)

    But there can also be no denying that Christianity is under attack by many, if not most, not from Reason but from a mindless hatred of it above all other religions. This gives me pause. If the vast majority of idiots hate something – not just disagree with but truly hate something – in this case Christianity, then I am gravitated to come to the defense of that thing. Especially when the same idiots who hate Christianity are also some of the same idiots demanding that islam should not be hated. Of course these people are beyond idiotic and do not represent Reason at all. Indeed, these idiots are also against Reason itself. Hence their idiocy.

    What I am trying to say here is that “First they came for the Christians and I did nothing because I was not one. But then they came for those of Reason…”

  2. Katy Perry’s internalized theocracy. This is typical of the majority of humanity.

    Neil D Tyson tries to have a conversation with Katy Perry. A religious euphoria prevents her from even hearing what he is saying.

    She is an eternal primitive child who will always be dependent on men of science and industry, but completely unaware of this truth.

    She is the consummate blue pilled submissive mindslave.

    • Dear Tor,

      Once in a while, a different celebrity is pushed under the “bad spotlight”, where a string of bizarre, humiliating and career-hurting things happen to them under intense media scrutiny. Over the past years, I have covered the breakdowns of once soaring celebrities such as Britney Spears, Kanye West, Shia Leboeuf, Amanda Bynes, and others. None of them fully recovered from these traumatic events. All of the them now appear completely “out of it”.

      If media analysts such as Vigilant Citizen are correct, Perry, like the other “celebrities” mentioned, are Illuminati “beta slaves”. The 1% of the 1% who own the MSM, build them up then tear them down at whim, as a way to flaunt their power.

      • Hi, Bevin!

        At the very height of their fame, these celebs all appear to be insane. At some point, they either cross the line into total “can’t hide it anymore” insanity, and must then be jetisoned; or they get out of hand and do something “unapproved”, and are merely shown to be what they in-fact really are- crazy, depraved low-lifes.

      • Somewhere recently she was talking about being bullied and considering suicide.

        When they heard that, someone said If Katy Perry is considering suicide, what hope is their for the rest of us?

        Maybe that’s what they want. Build someone up as being the perfect person and having the perfect life. And then showing how even they are completely miserable.

        Bad hombres, those illuminati.

  3. Nunzio, my contention about quoting the bible concerns the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority. I do not recognize it as having authority. Maybe some wisdom in there but no authority.

    Western civilization is indeed called Christendom for a reason and it has served Humanity well, more or less, whether the bible is true or not. But Christianity has run its course because its “Authority” no longer holds up to Reason. Due to man’s increased ability to reason over the centuries Reason, I believe, will soon pick up the Guide On for humanity. If, that is, the Abrahamic religions do not blow us all to hell first.

    “…would anyone to whom Paul was writing, who lived under that Roman government at that very time, have accepted such nonsense if Roamns 13 really meant what many say it does?”

    Then why did god write it if he did not mean it?

    Respect, SB

    • Why use wrong and inaccurate language? Great question Skunk. There is a market for this we could serve. Each believer should be helped to retranslate his bible where necessary using the correct accurate words. And not be allowed to change them later. For his and all our sakes.

      Same goes for all govt. All laws, regs, field guides should be written to say exactly what they mean and how they’re to be executed today. Then any official caught deviating from the true laws must be punished for violating them. We should champion and facilitate this.

      These reforms would certainly help things improve.

    • Hi, Skunk,

      Not suire if I had addressed this yet or not…. but…

      You wrote:
      “Western civilization is indeed called Christendom for a reason”

      Yes, but it is only nominally so, as appeals to the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been used for the last 1700 years or so by ecclesiastical and political institutions to justify their supposed authority; and since, just as with most Americans considering themselves “free”, such “Christianity” is only the creed of the apathetic who have never cared enough to bother to investigate the actual premises of what they believe; why they believe it; and if in fact the institutions which claim to administer it are indeed true to it’s precepts or were in-fact granted any such authority by the documents they claim as their source of legitimacy and authority- just as is the case with our government and the Constitution which it claims to administer and which it claims gives them the authority to do what they do.

      To an outsider looking in, this can be easily missed, as one would assume that anything/anyone which claims to be Christian and makes an appeal to the Christian Scriptures, is Christian, and then blame Christianity for the failures of culture which calls itself Christian ; just as someone in another country looking at America thinks that the right to bear arms is ineffective, because they think that we are all free to walk around freely with guns, and then see that crime and tyranny flourish.

      By-the-way, the questions which you and Eric and the others here pose are great! So often I have found that many atheists and agnostics are just hostile toward Christianity [I would say religion in general- but it is often only Christianity! 😀 ) without having any specific reasons to be, or even coherent standard which precludes them from accepting the possibility of it’s legitimacy, but yet allows them to accept other worldviews merely on blind faith- something which no Christian worth his salt would ever even advocate that they do with their own faith! It is all too easy for both sides to make assumptions against the other- but naturally, with such high-thinking people as one finds here, it should be no surprise that we all give these issues a lot of thought.

      • Nunzio, I agree with you and G.k. Chesterton who said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it is that Christianity has yet to be tried.

        But I think for the most part historically Christianity has been just another method of control by “authority”. And that is not, IMO, what Christianity is allegedly about.

        So the 2000 year old question remains, What exactly is Christianity? A Christian is simply one who believes the story of Jesus to be true. But believing in that story should not translate into justification of a collective authority. All authority is simply busy bodiness.

        My enemy is any and every busybody no matter what philosophy they try to justify their “authoritah” on.

        And I fully agree with you that many if not most atheists have not thought things through and are simply hostile to religion especially Christianity. What I find interesting is how these non-classical atheists (as I call them) reject any religious authority (rightly, so IMO) yet embrace the “authority” of man via governments. I reject all “authority”as being false except for the authority of The Natural Law which is self-evident and universal for everyone.

        Also agree with you about the quality of thought here at EPA. I usually read more than post here because so many posters express what I think better than I can. And I have found it is a waste of time to debate religion. But I am enjoying the conversation with you and others here exactly because of the civil and thoughtful views expressed.

  4. So what does Harm No One And Do As You Please look like in the wild?

    Maybe you and your buddies want to get surgically altered to look lives elves. And then build a home in a tree, fuck each other all night long and make cookies all day long for a living.

    No one has the right to say that’s not Uncommonly Good” or that “a little elfin magic doesn’t go a long way”.

    There are so many ways of living, and as long as they are peaceful, know one should tell them different.

  5. Quotes from Paul, the Authoritarian Aggressor

    And I want women to be modest in their appearance. They should wear decent and appropriate clothing and not draw attention to themselves by the way they fix their hair or by wearing gold or pearls or expensive clothes. For women who claim to be devoted to God should make themselves attractive by the good things they do. [Those that disobey this fatwa will be locked up.]

    We walk by faith, not by sight. Ignore reason, logic, your own mind. You are impotent. Find instead the one true Witch Doctor. Obey the Witch Doctor’s appointed Attila the Hun. Live only by faith and by force.

    Long has the Western World been ruled by a combination of faith and force—by a conspiracy of priests and tyrants.

    The priests kept men under control by persuading them that the world was irrational, that their minds were impotent, and that the self-seeking pursuit of happiness was sinful.

    The tyrants kept men under control by the exertion of physical force. The Witch Doctor and Attila, used and needed one another.

    The Witch Doctor supplied Attila with a coherent view of the world and human destiny, in addition to performing as opiate of the masses.

    Attila supplied the Witch Doctor with power and the material means of survival. Each hated, feared and envied the other. Together they kept mankind in a state of material poverty and moral degradation.

    But hark, they’ve depopulated the earth by failing to understand the Black Plague.

    Suddenly onto this scene of decadent idiocy strides the modern businessman and the modern scientist. The Renaissance blasts the rule of the Witch Doctor sky-high, setting the earth free of his power.

    The industrial revolution, completing the task of the Renaissance, blasts Attila off his throne. The Founding Fathers of America create the first society in history whose leaders were neither Attilas nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers.

    The social system which the Founding Fathers established was capitalism—not perfect, totally unregulated capitalism, but the nearest approach to that ideal the world had ever known. Capital being private property that produces wealth and value beyond it’s owners’ needs.

    Capitalism, unlike the previous system, was based on the principle that every man existed for his own sake. It rewarded all men in proportion to their abilities and efforts, thus outperforming older societies based on the looting of Attila and the mooching of the Witch Doctor.

    Private Capital and Lightly Restricted trade achieved unprecedented material prosperity, for when men are free to trade, with reason and reality as their only arbiter, when no man may use physical force to extort the consent of another, it is the best product and the best judgment that wins in every field of human endeavor, and raises the standard of living—and of thought—ever higher for all those who take part in mankind’s productive activity.

    Alas, the free businessman and the free intellectual who initialy replaced Attila and the Witch Doctor had a falling out.

    They were both then divided and conquered by predatory intellectuals.

    The businessman did his part by achieving material prosperity, but the predatory intellectual, dragged society back into the former Dark Ages.

    The predatory intellectuals sneered at the businessmen for their lack of aesthetic taste and bourgeois manners. Worst of all, the mind predator turned his back on the real world and insisted on preaching a various philosophies, all of whcih denigrated man’s mind, damned honest healthy self-seeking, and exalted altruistic self-sacrifice in the style of the Witch Doctor of old.

    The businessman was made to feel guilty and came to fear and despise the intellect. The intellectual, who was really seeking a new Attila, found one in Socialism, which .ed necessarily to Nazism and Soviet Communism, and now to superstate EU and the worldwide American Homeland Military Complex.

    Today, the United States sinks further and further, without a firm, coherent integrating philosophy, back into the Dark Ages.

    Modern philosophers teach us that man’s mind is impotent; psychologists tell us that man is a helpless automaton. Our art and literature asks us to identify with murderers, dipsomaniacs, drunks, drug addicts, neurotics and psychotics.

    In politics, our intellectuals tell us that “America, the greatest, noblest, freest country on earth, is politically and morally inferior to NATO and the United Nations. And that our wealth should be given away to the savages of Asia and Africa, with apologies for the fact that we have produced it while they haven’t. America languishes under the ultimate moral and financial bankruptcy. Now a taker of value, rather than a producer of value.

    The remedy is to embrace the simple law that you should initiate no harm against any peaceful man, and that you should then do whatever you please. Those who make the best choices will ascend naturally under emergent order as explained by Austrian Economics. Soon, America will again be a producer of value, and not a destroyer.

    The world is rational and knowable, the only way to live is to conquer nature through the exercise of your mind; Each man exists for his own sake, and hence that the only moral form of human cooperation is the exchange of goods and services on the free market.

    Anyone who does not make a living as a Producer is either an Attila (who seizes goods and services from others by force), a Witch Doctor (who persuades others that they owe him a living), or more often, a blue-pilled cuck who aimlessly fluctuates between the two roles.

    Anyone who preaches the moral value of unselfishness or self-transcendence is either a fool or a con-man. Any use of governmental power or religious authority to redistribute income, provide social security or unemployment compensation, construct and operate schools, or do anything which is not absolutely necessary to keep a “free economy” clear of force and fraud, must be involved in some form of legalized robbery.

    Patience and forbearance is needed to live in the flawed dark age we currently inhabit. It may not yet be possible to disentangle yourself from all the collectivism and dependence on violence and altruism.

    Aspire to the NAP as best you can, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You only live once, and not even the NAP is worth throwing yourself on the funeral pyre under some misguided notion of virtue signaling.

    Continue your daily dose of red-pills, keep going further and further down your rabbit hole of truth, and defend yourself in your prepper fox holes of independence from authoritarian gibs and evil fiat currency debts, and enjoy life as best you can in an unfree and authoritarian world.

    • “Authoritarian”? Nowhere did Paul nor any other Biblical Christian ever force anyone to participate or come under the jurisdiction of any authority. For those who “joined the club” though, it would be pretty foolish to have people who want to participate in God’s economy )Which is purely voluntary at this time) and then not enlighten them as to the conduct required for such. \

      And by-the-way, it doesn’t help your position any, after speaking of book publishers with “blood on their hands” to quote from new “translations” of obscure manuscripts which were never accepted by Christians; and which were translated by non-believing NWO globalists for the purpose of destroying true Christianity- which is what these modern translations are.

      • So Paul is innocent because of the name change. Aren’t he and Saul of Tarsus one and the same person?

        This isn’t a discussion that’ll likely to resolve to a clear resolution.

        I’m talking only to you as an internet user ID. Not as who you truly are in real life.

        In real life, my family attends Evangelical Lutheran mass, they’re main reason for belief is the hopes that there is a heaven and their loved ones will be there. My father also shared this what I would call an unlikely delusion.

        At the same time we’re part of a old world culture that has never had it’s own nation in it’s entire history

        It’s your mode of reason in this one topic I’m not particularly fond of. Not any particular point of fact you might be correct about and I might be mistaken about.

        What discussion can be had, if everything not found in scripture is part of a grand globalist new world order scheme and not even considered by you a priori.

        Think of all the Gods you already don’t believe in. I’m asking you to consider not believing so blindly in just one more God more.

        If you like your faith, you can keep your faith.

        If you’re going to choose the blue pill and stay under the God delusion, what business is that of mine?

        Why is it though the device you’re using to participate here wasn’t invented and produced under God’s economy?

        Is Jesus Inc. finally putting out computing hardware and I haven’t heard this good news?

        It’s almost as if God’s economy is a parasite to actual businessmen and scientists who engage in productive enterprise and invention.

        A NAP Christianity is a possibility.

        Maybe you’ll be the first to imagine what that might look like. And help it could be made manifest today to the benefit actual humans living in the here and now. And not on some abstract Kantian plane of noumenal perfection that’s never been real.

        I’m praying for you to abandon your aggressive beliefs that have detrimentally stifled humanity for centuries.

        Both the official narrative of Christian Institutions, and the Globalists narratives of Secular Institutions are evil and anti-life.

        • Tor,

          [Not to be curt, but I’ll try and keep the length of this within reason- we can always expand….]

          Name change? No, mind change. Paul was formerly Saul. I used to be a Constitutionalist, now I am a free-market anarchist. I didn’t just change my label; I came to understand more; to see what I was missing.

          I have no such hope of seeing loved ones in heaven. My loved ones have not embraced the fullness of what it is to “believe”, though they may nominally be Christian- and the Biblical hope of salvation is establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

          Not everything not found in Scripture is part of some conspiracy; but there is a substantial part of humanity, both religious [even “Christian”] and secular which would like to deny God, simply because a carnal orientation is the path of least resistance. It is far easier to pursue whatever our flesh desires, than to learn to rule over it. We have entire industries- like mega-churches and televangelists, which existr to convince people that they can have both. And for the atheist, we have the theoretical “sciences” to assure them non-eternal matter and energy can exist without a creator.

          The gods I already don’t believe in? I’m not aware of any- but rather, just inventions of men- most of whom don’t even claim to be a creator or originator, nor a moral authority- much less one which produces health, longevity, prosperity and peace. I am not aware of one other who has an enduring ancient revelation which states things which can not only withstand the scrutiny of current knowledge, but which has contained things for several thousand years which have just within the past century have been discovered as being scientific fact by men; much less one which foretold things which are just now coming to pass on a worldwide scale as prophesied. If you know of any other claimed god with such a revelation, please do tell! 😀

          Ummm…the computer sort of was invented in God’s economy. If it were not for the Christian principles upon which the USA was initially founded, and the freedom, prosperity resulting from what aspects of private property and free-market principles derived from Biblical ideals which were practiced here to at least some degree by a good portion of the population in the past, which resulted in the largest free-market economy the world has seen in thousands of years, we could not have had things like the automobile and the computer.

          Jesus IS the NAP! He never harmed a soul nor forced anyone to do anything, and He was murdered because the Jews hated Hisw guts because He would not restore the kingdom to Israel nor rule on this earth as a king, yet. (Ultimately He will, because He is entitled to, since everything in this world belongs to Him- ibeing the very creator of the world and all physical life).. Many of His followers were also persecuted and murdered by the political and religious powers of this world; they are hatred for not participating in wars or politics or any of the other aggressions of this world.

          Aggressive beliefs? Such as??? “Love your neighbor as yourself”? “Bless those who curse you”? “Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves”? “My kingdom is not of this world, else would My servants fight”? Hmmm…I think you’re mistaking me for Gail.

          Quite the contrary: I am a Libertarian/Anarchist BECAUSE of Christ. My savior is the ultimate enemy of the state. The Bible is the source of property rights- “Thou shalt not steal” (And doing so by elected representative does not make it kosher…)- It is because of the Bible’s prohibition against kidnapping (including that by armed government goons) and system of justice which does not include caging men; and the fact that we are NOT authorized to kidnap, cage, steal from, nor punish men for things which other men define as “crimes” [which is setting themselves up as another god]; that we have no right to participate in wars unless we are being blatantly attacked [Wars at the behest of God do not apply, as God does not make divine revelation at this time]…. It is for these and many other such reasons, that the only valid position for a Christian in the pre-second-coming world, is to be such as we are- advocates of liberty, so that all may live their consciences before God, and so that none be compelled to infringe upon the God-given rights and sanctity of others, for God never gave men such power over the world at-large. (Although many who call themselves Xtian seem to think He did…]

          No problem, man!- I very much enjoy discussions such as this, and am glad that you raised such questions. What passes for Christianity, and what the Bible truly advocates are often two very different things- I hope that you can appreciate that.

          • Not sure why we are at odds. There is much, maybe all of it, with which I agree.

            If all we disagree about is Calvinism and “evidence”, then I propose to set all that aside and concentrate on what unites us. Can we do that?

            • Hi Antonio,

              You write:

              “…earthly authorities have to be subject to God’s Law…”

              This is an example of the circular reasoning I find baffling. What is “God’s Law,” exactly? No one can say definitively. There are endless differing opinions, endless parsings of the “word.” Each religionist believes he knows – but it is (once again) a matter of that religionist’s faith; that is, his feeling and opinion.

              And so we are at the same impasse.

              Everyone who is sane not only can agree that 2+2 = 4 but must agree. It would be absurd to state that one believes otherwise. To state that he has “faith” it really equals 5.

              But with religious belief – all religious belief – the only things that can be known are that men believe and men have said and men have written. Some of the things these men have believed and written and said are sound and stand up to scrutiny. But are they divine?

              There is no more evidence to back up that assertion than my asserting – for the sake pf discussion – that I have received wisdom from Crom, who dwells in the Earth.

              I state this not to mock anyone’s belief, but only to make the point that anyone’s belief/assertion absent objective fact is no more or less valid than anyone else’s belief/assertion… about anything.

              • Mornin, E

                Here’s some light-hearted Nietzsche Quotes from Mencken’s English translations to brighten up your morning…

                There are days when I am haunted by a feeling that is blacker than the blackest melancholy. I have a contempt for humanity. I despise the people I have been fated to call my contemporaries. I feel suffocated by their filthy breath.

                The majority of men prefer delusion to truth. It soothes. It is easy to grasp.

                The most spiritual men, as the strongest, find their happiness where others would find their destruction: in the labyrinth, in hardness against themselves and others, in experiments. Their joy is self-conquest: asceticism becomes in them nature, need, and instinct. Difficult tasks are a privilege to them; to play with burdens that crush others, a recreation. Knowledge–a form of asceticism. They are the most venerable kind of man: that does not preclude their being the most cheerful and the kindliest.

                Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of humanity. This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found–I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,–I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race.

              • If I was trying to “prove” my religion is true, your comment would be germane.

                My point was to rebut people who try to say that all earthly authorities must be obeyed because God set them up. This is an argument from Scripture, so I respond by appealing to Scripture to show that certain ideas have crept into the Christian worldview that are not supported by Scripture. It was a specific reply to a specific comment. It was not a general attempt to prove Christianity is true.

                Yes, we are at an impasse. God have mercy on all of us.

                • Hi Antonio,

                  If there is a god! 🙂

                  Seriously, though… I am not so arrogant as to believe I know all or that anyone can know all. I am very open to possibilities, but as far as I can tell, that is all we have with regard to god and religion.

                  I grant that it is possible. Because almost anything could be. But it is another thing to claim we know such a being as god exists – or what this deity wants of us.

                  All we can know is that some men claim they know god – and what this god wants.

        • Dear Tor,

          The key point about Switzerland is that no matter how one might feel about the Swiss, they have the decency to leave you the hell alone. Their strict policy of neutrality is a shining example of “live and let live”.

          By contrast, the US senate just approved sanctions against Iran. Out of 100 senators, only Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted no.

          The Swiss are not threatening Russia in Ukraine, or China in the South China Sea. They are not risking WWIII and nuclear apocalypse. I say they’re okay.

  6. Nunzio, I agree with your take on many atheists not believing without actually thinking about why they do not believe in gods. To me those are not classical atheists but atheists by default. And most of them I think are just anti-Christianity. I went to a few so-called “Free Thinker Society” meetings years ago and all they did was bash Christians all night. Waste of time.

    To me all philosophies are based on faith because none of us really know no matter how much we think we do. Religion is simply a philosophy based on a god or gods. The Left may not believe in gods but they are zealots of the highest order when it comes to their “gods” especially their holiest of gods – “equality”.

    • Have you read “The Most Dangerous Superstition”? It shows how both govt. & religion are irrational belief systems.

      • Dear voluntaryist,

        It is true that Larken Rose did not originate the enormously important ideas he espouses. Men such as 16th century French political philosopher Etienne de La Boetie and 6th century BC Chinese philosopher Laozi and the Daoists did.

        His book “The Most Dangerous Superstition” is essentially a simplified version of La Boetie’s magnum opus, “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude”. It is essentially “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude for Dummies”.

        That is not meant to take away from the fact that he is a highly eloquent, highly effective champion of natural rights and individual liberty, who has performed an invaluable service.

        I constantly cite his videos in my arguments, especially this one:

        • I discovered “Discourse…” in the ’70s. It was both a joy to read and troublesome knowing that he had the answer that long ago but it did not generally spread. And it was so simple as to be eloquent.
          Then I remembered reading Lao Zi in the late ’60s as a philosophy major. He had it figured out also, thousands of years ago.
          And Ayn Rand was wrong when she gave Western thinkers all the credit for progress in philosophy while dissing all of the East as mystics.
          I began to converse with Larken when his focus was all tax resistance. He matured politically into the best spokesperson for liberty. I have supported him financially and am waiting excitedly for “The Mirror”.

          • It occurred to me while reading my post that maybe Etienne’s political contribution was the inspiration for the French Revolution and TJ’s DOI.
            “Ideas are the motor of the world”? (A.R.)
            But one more step needs to follow from: rule is made possible by self enslavement and sovereign individuals, not states, should be our goal. That would be: Our goal is best achieved by non-aggression. The means of non-violence will produce the goal of peaceful coexistence.

            • Aggression is kind of a two-sided thing: We don’t to use aggression offensively; to force others to do what we want- as then we become what we are claiming to destroy- but on the other hand, it is necessary when others would use it against us, to have us do what they want.

              THEY have no compunctions about using it on us to achieve their will- and we are not pacifists. Ultimately, the only way to resist aggression and control is to have a balance of power.

              If we sit on our hands and wait for the world to come around to our way of thinking, we will forever be slaves of the aggressors.

              • Education on the NAP is self defense. It is ineffective to be silent or a loner. Now, with the ‘net, we can speak out to the whole world.
                I won’t rest until the power is distributed to each individual. That’s a “balance” that is dependent on mass enlightenment, but may come slowly, over centuries, or quicker with technology.

                • The idea of “education” being the solution to virtually everything , is ridiculous. Just like when a government goon wastes or abuses someone, and it is said that he needs to be retrained, or was not sufficiently trained.

                  Such assumes that all people are reasonable, and seek to do good, and value freedom- both that of their own, and of their neighbors.

                  In the real world, such is rarely the case- witness for example, the 60+ million people who voted for Hillary Clinton- or the 120 million who voted, period.

                  Education works when people are seeking to do something, and are just being prevented from doing it for lack of knowledge.

                  Most people understand the concept of freedom. Most of those people don’t want freedom, because they would rather get some perceived benefits at the expense of their neighbor and/or use the collective power of the state to enforce their values and worldview on others.

                  Yes, it is great to preach the virtues of liberty whenever and wherever possible- but such is not going to do much to change anything.

                  And speaking of “education”, have you noticed that the places with the greatest numbers of highly educated people- Boston, New York, San Francisco; Arlington; Silicon Valley; NC’s Research Triangle”, Vienna; London; Brussels, etc. are always the least free, most repressive places on earth, and heartily embrace leftism?

                  The educated tend to see themselves as philosopher kings- as if they know better, and should decide and dictate the conditions under which all will live- “for their own good”, of course 😀

                  All I want is to be left alone. To someone who doesn’t respect the sovereignty of every man to so exist, no amount of education- even Libertarian education- is going to change his mind, because he will simply reject all information that does not confirm and bolster his motives; character; and beliefs.

                  And that is where most political fail- in that they try a change man’s nature- but in so doing, require power and jurisdiction over virtually every facet of one’s life- and thus must of necessity be authoritarian and detrimental to liberty.

                  We don’t want to be like that. We just want to be left alone- whether by geographical isolation, or by an equalization of power, so as to pose sufficient threat/trouble to those who would harass us so as to not make it worth it to them.

                  Whatever anyone else wants to be- be it a communist or whatnot, I want them to be free to do what they want, just so long as they leave me alone.

                  • Amen Nunzio.

                    I have spent much of my life self-educating. Never do I truly rest, even in sleep, I am a whirring logical engine.

                    But now it is all fading away like Flowers For Algernon.

                    What I will be left with is my motives, character, and belief. Which are so far good enough that the people in my life love and need me.

                    That is all I attain to. Nothing higher.

                    I must admit, however, being known as the guy that will know the answer or can fine it, be it whatever obscure query, does give me a kind of unique power among those in my life.

                    But truly, I don’t see this as making me superior. On the contrary, being “Number 5 Is Alive” means needing a constant stream of input.

                    Really all I’m doing for freedom is going Reeeeeeee No Disasemble!

                    It’s a good start, tho.

                    • Very well-said, Tor!

                      At some point, and it is usually quite early-on, we all establish our core motivations and beliefs- and any education we pursue, beyond the purely mechanical, is just expansion upon that which already embrace (It is interesting though, that the state propagandists link their philosophies, theories and rhetoric to the acquisition of the physical/mechanical now- as in: A neighbor of mine who was embarking on a new career in HVAC, went to college for 2 years to “learn his trade”- whereas formerly, one might go to a several-month trade school course or just learn as an apprentice on the job- But now, they have one go to college, and along with the pertinent mechanical/physical knowledge, they can slip in a barrage of liberalism- to the point where my very conservative neighbor actually had started thinking that “Obama isn’t too bad” for a while. Just proof that when one allows themself to be immersed in an environment where they will be exposed to a steady stream of propaganda, they will at least to some degree embrace that propaganda. If this is the way it is for a grown man, imagine how much more effective it is on children; and when that environment continues on in offices and institutions with co-workers who have also been so indoctrinated!)

                      Maybe we are a shade or two superior to those who are stagnant. In my 50’s, I am growing in knowledge and thought; expanding my understanding; pursuing things to their logical conclusions; growing in personality, perception and understanding.

                      Meanwhile, I look at someone like my older sister. She has not gained anything, nor bettered herself in any way in the last 40 years. I call it a “peasant mentality”- as people like that merely live to exist. They spend their effort just acquiring the basics required to survive at the lowest level (and she can’t really even do that…) and any time beyond that is spent just consuming mindless mass entertainment.

                      They can not even successfully run their own lives, and yet they are concerned with the politics which dictate what others must do, and how their wealth must be used.

                      Conversely, I was selling something on Craigslist a few years ago, and this guy shows up to buy it. He was in his 60’s and had never set foot in a school. I enjoyed talking to him more than I’ve enjoyed talking to anybody in a long time- He wasn’t a brilliant man- but his understanding and motivations weren’t warped by the agendas of tyrants- so he was in-fact closer to being a Libertarian than anyone I’ve met around here- just because he had a basic respect for the right of others to exist unmolested, and he practiced the Golden Rule.

                      A thoughtful well-meaning person, though illiterate and unaware of many facts, is superior to a highly educated person who is so arrogant so as to think it their right to forcibly impose their values on others.

                      And you are so right: Our first priority should be to secure as much freedom for ourselves and ours as we possibly can. We can’t change the world or the majority of other people- but we can make drastic differences in our own lives, and over that which we have dominion- to see that we do not become tools of the system, nor victims of it’s tyrants. How could we preach the benefits of liberty and how one can work toward such a goal, if we can not even practice the ideals which we advocate in our own lives?

                      When I lived in NYC, I desired to be free, and managed to stay somewhat freer than most around me- but ultimately, I was a captive, and could do little for my own freedom, let alone that of others- I was just a person with thoughts of liberty- but really, i was just another cow in the herd.

                      Now that I live in Bumphuct Egypt 🙂 and have unregulated land; and privacy; and am able to live largely self-sufficiently apart from the system; and not be under the constant surveillance of der komissar, I have some right to tell others how great it is, and how it can be done; and though we may never change the world and the hearts and motives of the majority of people, the more people who abandon the system and live free themselves, the better off we will all be; and we will all have some tangible benefits NOW, as opposed to hoping for the establishment of a Libertarian society; and as others see the example of our lives, the more likely they will be to follow suit, seeing that it can work and produce tangible benefits (if they have any inclination toward liberty at all) and the more clout we will have, which might hopefully prevent us from being persecuted/legislated out of existence .

                • Dear Nunzio,

                  I’m guessing voluntaryist meant education in a different sense than “higher education” within the statist mainstream.

                  Obviously “higher education” in any of the “elite” Ivy League universities is merely going to finish the job of indoctrination begun by government primary and secondary schools.

                  It’s going to produce the Neocon and Neolib welfare/warfare statists that infest Washington think tanks, both “left” and “right”.

                  As the Jesuits say, “Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man.”

                  The remedy is education, real education, not government “edumacation”.

                  The purpose of public education is not to facilitate understanding. It is to instill obedience.

                  • Hi, Bevin,

                    Very true, and I fully agree with what you said, and also realized that that was what Voluntaryist was referring to.

                    But the trouble is: How do get people to reject the state’s indoctrination and/or their own motives, and accept the real education? Or how does one counter the tens of thousands of hours of public school/university; media; gov’t program (etc.) “education”, without first destroying the sources of false education, and without forcibly subjecting people to our education- in which case, it becomes merely propaganda to those who do not value it.

                    And since our education would be intended to make people think, rather than to coerce people into blind obedience, there would be no guarantee that any significant number of people would act upon the ideals which we promote, unless they were already predisposed to such ideals?

                    If we had the opportunity to preach liberty to everyone in the world for a set amount of time, to most, it would just be another strange concept, no different in their eyes than the message of a Jehovah’s Witness at their door, or a Hare Krishna at the airport, or a Neo-Nazi on a stage.

                    One can trick people; manipulate people; indoctrinate people; coerce and program people- but one can not make believers of people in mind and heart- no matter how good and factual your information, unless they are willing to accept it- and the scary thing is, today we have a vast array of huge organizations, from the UN to national and state and local governments; to large and powerful institutions and corporations, and even individuals, like george Soros and Mark Zuckerberg all using nefarious tactics to capture the minds and hearts of the world’s population, to make them good citizens/useful idiots/slaves, who will reject outright anything which remotely smacks of truth and sanity and logic.

                    my point?: Education, except when it is aimed at those who are already predisposed to liberty, is utterly pointless/impossible.

                    • “How do you get people to reject…indoctrination?”
                      That is extremely difficult and what the Socratic method attempted to do. He was just successful enough to get himself killed by TPTB. Now, we have a new “Socrates”, Larken Rose and his “Candles in the Dark” seminar. See his explanation of it on YouTube.

                    • Learning the truth is easy.

                      Unlearning error is one of the hardest things one can do.

                      We’re not dealing with truth or error though, except as it applies to those who accept the premise of individula freedom and the sovereignty of every man- much in the same way that proclaiming the truths of the Bible means nothing to an atheist until and if they accept the premise that there is a God.

                      Our truth has no validity to a communist, socialist, or any authroitarian-collectivist, nor person who does not think it is wrong to use violence to force others to do his will/the will of others….just as a bank robber does not care about property rights, except as they pertain to himself.

                      You can educate the bank robber all you want, but even if he intellectually agrees with you, it will not stop him from thinking that his wants/needs/causes are superior to rights of others to legitimately possess the property that is theirs.

                      So too, you can sit the average Dumbocrap or Repugnantcan down in front of Larken Rose videos (as great as they are) for 10 hours straight, and he may even agree in principle….but will still say, as he walks away: “Yeah, but we need cops…and who will build the roads???!!” [At this point, I think it should be legal to kill those who keep saying that! 😀 )

                  • Howdy Bevin!

                    You like the Swiss? How about Oakland, CA?

                    Ying Ma didn’t care for it. She and her family thought moving to America would be like moving to Disneyland.

                    She found out the Ghetto Zombieland was the complete opposite of a Magic Kingdom.

                    Book TV: Ying Ma, “Chinese Girl in the Ghetto”

                    Part 1 of 2/ Chinese Girl in the Ghetto.

                    It’s an interesting reversal, seeing a Chinese Girl talk about the horrors of America, in the way Americans always talk about the horrors of China.

                    • Haha! I know a guy who works in Oakland. No A/C anymore at the company where he works- the NIGGERS keep stealing the A/C components off the roof…the company has gotten tired of replacing them every few months.

                      Everyone should take a good look at Oakland- it is the future of America.

              • Fred Reed had a good column yesterday June 15 about Africans. We’ve been coddling them for decades now, and it just hasn’t made much headway.

                Illinois has the same credit rating as Mexico and Spain now. Maybe we relocate all the unassimilatables in the South of the State from East St. Louis down to Carbondale.

                We do this by financial incentives and the chance to own property and start their own homeland. Also anyone caught initializing violence gets sent there. Let them get each other sorted out.

                We might need an outside nation that still has Aborigines to consult on this. Do we let them choose their own flag, anthem, and communal rules. There are ways to make this work, but we might not know these protocols.

                Give ’em some seeds, a mule, a plow, and 3 acres each, and let them try to make a go of things there the same way all the First Nations people are still trying to do on their Reservations.

                The pretty black girls can stay and join the mix. Just send the males and ugly females, and especially the Islamists and gangbangers.

                Most New World Socialist experiments failed spectacularly. The Great Society has failed as hard as any of them.

                    • Eric, I could not post comments for the last 24 hours. Thought maybe I was barred from here ( but I know better than that). Turns out my computer was wacked. Had to have my IT guy (son) fix it.

                    • Hi Skunk,

                      Never! I only bar Clovers whose posts are incoherent and insulting and (worst of all) never respond to points made with factual rebuttals. That isn’t you!

                      But this system sometimes randomly puts people in the “moderation” queue – even people who are regulars have been posting for a long time. I have no idea why. I can set a float but I cannot deal with code!

                    • Eric, I know.

                      I have been banned from every major conservative site and I take that as a badge of honor. But to be thought of as a- gulp! – Clover and be banned from EPA would cause me thoughts of suicide!

                      : )

                • Tor, Fred’s column was outstanding and the reason why is because what he said is irrefutable. Blacks and Whites are two totally different peoples.

                  The answer to the problem is simple: blacks must be given their right of self rule. IOW complete separation. Let them create their own government/nation and run it as they see fit.

                • Pretty ones? Meh, it don’t mean that they’re any different on the inside. (Heck, same goes for the pretty white girls, too!).

                  If Uncle would just stop subsidizing the making of babies….problem solved. Birfsrate would go way down, to the point where it would be lower than what is needed to replace all the ones who kill each other off [Blacks is they own worst enemies! Mo’ blacks die at the hands of other blacks than from anything else; even mo’ than what gits shot by cops!] and all the ones who O.D.

                  Just put a wall around Detroit and Baltimore and a few other choice homie-hoods. They wouldn’t want communism if there’s no rich white people to take from- who’d do the work/provide the wealth to redistribute?

                  We can keep the few good ones, like Thomas Sowell, my friend Karla, and Mac [I assume has to be pretty good if he’s like us!]

        • Dear voluntaryist,

          “And Ayn Rand was wrong when she gave Western thinkers all the credit for progress in philosophy while dissing all of the East as mystics.”

          I agree. At one time I was a hardcore Randian. One might say “Randroid” even. In other words, I took to heart even some of her problematic, not really proven views, such as her views on art and music. Not uncoincidentally, I was still a minarchist, and defended minarchism fiercely.

          But as the late great Zen philosopher Alan Watts observed, “A fool who persists in his folly will become wise”. Because I never compromised on my pursuit of 100% philosophical consistency, I was forced to confront the fact that in order to even exist, the state must be an initiator of force, and openly violate the Non-Aggression Principle.

          In time, this compelled me to adopt anarcho-capitalism / free market anarchism / voluntaryism.

          I later made some interesting discoveries about Rand’s simplistic “Western rationalist vs. Eastern mystic” dichotomy.

          To wit:

          History of laissez-faire debate

          During the Han, Tang, Song, and Ming dynasties, Chinese scholar-officials would often debate about the interference the government should have in the economy, such as setting monopolies in lucrative industries and instating price controls. Such debates were often heated with Confucian factions tending to oppose extensive government controls and “Reform” factions favoring such moves.

          During the Han and Tang, emperors sometimes instated government monopolies in times of war, and abolished them later when the fiscal crisis had passed.

          Eventually, in the later Song and Ming dynasties, state monopolies were abolished in every industry and were never reinstated during the length of that dynasty, with the government following laissez-faire policies.

          During the Manchu Qing Dynasty, state monopolies were reinstated, and the government interfered heavily in the economy; many scholars believe this prevented China from developing capitalism.

          In Europe, the laissez-faire movement was first widely promoted by the physiocrats, a movement that originated with Vincent de Gournay, a successful merchant. Gournay adopted the concept, which is the translation of the Chinese Daoist philosophy of wu wei*, from François Quesnay’s writings on China. Gournay held that the government should allow the laws of nature to govern economic activity, with the state only intervening to protect life, liberty, and property.

          * wu wei 無為 = “do nothing”, meaning “govern by doing nothing”

          His ideas were taken up by François Quesnay and Turgot, Baron de l’Aulne. Quesnay had the ear of the King of France, Louis XV, and in 1754 persuaded him to give laissez-faire a try. On September 17, the King abolished all tolls and restraints on the sale and transport of grain, and for more than a decade the experiment was a success…

          The doctrine of laissez-faire became an integral part of nineteenth-century European liberalism. Just as liberals supported freedom of thought in the intellectual sphere, so were they equally prepared to champion the principles of free trade and free competition in the sphere of economics.

          In other words, the entire Western classical liberal value system originated in China, and the “benevolent global hegemonists” who insist that the Anglo-American Empire must force China to adopt Western classical liberal values, are presuming to “teach their grandmothers to suck eggs”.

          How’s that for irony?

          • One of the flaws of Rand’s fan club, was they didn’t much correct her errors, or flesh out her barebones ideas.

            I can’t even find her mentions of China anymore. I think it was something dismissive like all of Asia is the province of Attilas and Witch Doctors, and the far east genotypes adapted to blowing sands are all interchangeable with the other billions of asians and all in the thrall of hopeless slave societies.

            Rand believed it wouldn’t be aggression to conquer such societies. And indeed their former hegemons may have been conquered depending on your frame of reference, but not in the way she predicted.

            Check out all the quaint Chinese knickknacks in Fred Reed’s article. Adorable aren’t those little washee washees? Don’t need more Calgon anymore.

            I don’t know what was the case in Rand’s era, there is a vast difference between then and now. Han Chinese, who are the most common group of humans found on this planet, aren’t exactly living in huts, making pottery and textiles for emporers, and just eating rice anymore.

            Anarchism in China

            • Dear Tor,

              I know what you mean.

              Considering how one in five people on earth are Chinese, the absence of a single person in Galt’s Gulch of Chinese descent struck a sour note for me.

              I hadn’t noticed it at first, but a close friend of mine who was Objectivist oriented and part Chinese mentioned it to me, and I suddenly realized she was right.

              I don’t think I need to add that I am not a SJW snowflake demanding state intervention in the form of “affirmative action”.

              I’m sure everyone knows I merely talking about moral judgments in the “private sector”, or more accurately, civil society.

              Ditto Star Wars. As much as I liked Star Wars, the total absence of a single Chinese or even East Asian character in Lucas’ six Star Wars films was, how shall I put it, disturbing.

              It wasn’t until Rogue One that Donny Yen made an appearance as one of the good guys.

              Again, I am absolutely not advocating SJW “affirmative action”. Any criticisms I have leveled are purely moral judgments that must be addressed through civil society and the free market place.

              • Good Morning Bevin 出,

                Thanks for the names of Chinese NAP advocates.

                Here’s what I’ve heard about Sino Laissez Faire:

                From about 2nd century BC on, Chinese dynasties practiced free market economy while only intervening from time to time in iron and salt enterprises. By and large they kept taxes low.

                The philosophy of Daoism was explicitly laissez-faire in both politics and economics. The Historian Sima Qian, writing around 100BC explained the Theory of the Markets.

                Saying that without the emperor doing anything things will get made. Food will be grown, clothes made and houses built. Moreover when goods are short in one area, the price increases and so goods are imported from a place of plenty. Knowing that food will be short in the winter, some will store grain to sell at a higher price.

                The first Han Emperors were said to be Daoists and used this theory to build up a strong economy until the great Salt and Steel meeting when the officials began to eat away at this system which did not permit high revenues for either government or officials.

                After the end of the early Han there was no trace of the Daoist theory of markets, and so China was set on the Confucian, government guided economy which benefitted both government and officials and did not create a class of rich traders who could subvert the system with their wealth.

                As to Rand,

                By the time of the writing Atlas Shrugged (1944-1957), it was said the Chinese nearly starved every winter.

                These were first hand accounts by Westerners living in China who claimed such economic and cultural hardships.

                She seemed to dismiss all of Africa & Asia, the majority of humanity, as being nothing more than savages and mystics.

                I guess she didn’t know about Dutch, English, Portuguese, and Spanish interactions with all these people. Many of whom were filled with equal citizens of extra-territorial states of Western European powers.

                Not to mention all the local accomplishments of East and South Asia. And Mesopotamia. And to a lesser degree Africa and the rest of Asia.

              • Bevin, we all know that in real life, Galt’s Gulch would probably have a higher percentage of Chinks than any other group!

                From my earlier life in NYC, I came to see early-on that it was the Chinese immigrants who were very industrious and intelligent. There was always a stark contrast between their communities, and those of other “minorities”. The Chinese neighborhoods didn’t have rampant crime nor people spending their lives on the street, nor people demanding more welfare- as opposed to those of other minorities who have been here in some cases for several hundred years.

                One of my first jobs when I was young, was working for a Taiwanese couple who owned a small business. It was a very pleasant experience; they were very nice people.

                    • Uh..well…how about the Greeks?

                      How do they separate the men from the boys in Greece?
                      With a crow-bar!

                    • Here ya go, ya Neutral ninny, Chocolate-chomping Matterhorn Monkey, Kraut wanna-be, lederhosened Loser…

                      In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, and they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock.

                      Switzerland has produced nothing but theologians and waiters.

                      Switzerland is a nice country to visit for two hours, two and a half if the weather is good, and no more. Ennui comes in the third hour, and suicidal thoughts attack before the first night.

                      Opie & Anthony – Swiss Cheese Pervert

                      Swiss Mountain Cleaners

                      Sorry,there’s only 8 million Swiss. It’s like trying to find jokes about Virginians. Maybe Nunzio’s can help.

                    • Dear Eric,

                      Tor just cited a great one, from the classic noir film “The Third Man”, starring Orson Welles.

                      Here’s one from the spy novelist Trevanian.

                      “No one really likes Switzerland, except those who prefer cleanliness to life.”
                      ― Trevanian, The Eiger Sanction

                      Note that these are not racist. They are merely cultural commentary.

                    • Good morning, Bevin!

                      I love the movie – Eiger Sanction. It stands up.

                      On the Swiss: They have some good qualities (hey, look at me!) one of them being they tend to take really good care of their homes and so on. The country is immaculate. I have to admit that appeals to me; must be genetic!

                    • I’ve never heard of a Swiss joke!

                      That place scares me. I knew someone who went to visit somebody there once. The person he was gonna visit liked tinkering with wood and stuff, so the guy was gonna bring him a circular saw, which for some reason, the Swiss guy didn’t already own one of. Turns out, he nixed the idea. They have TOOL CONTROL in Swissyland! It is highly discouraged to and heavily taxed to bring in tools for the mundanes, ’cause ya see, if people could readily do things themselves, it would deprive tradesmen of work!

                      I’ve heard people laud Swissyland as a “libertarian-like paradise”…. Ha!

                      They have all the control-freakism of Germany, Belgium and Oo-la-la Frog-land….the people just don’t compalin about it, ’cause that’s the way the Swiss are.

                      Even the gun freedom is a myth. Sure, they have guns….but in exchange for mandatory military service (Ooo, how Libertarian. Not!) and even then, they’re highly regulated to the point where just like in Kalifornee-uh, they’re rendered all but useless, unless a foreign country is invading.

                      Too bad- I’d thrive on the boredom!

                    • Dear Eric,

                      I have to admit that I like Switzerland too.

                      I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a country like Switzerland, with its OCD for neatness, just as I see no reason why there shouldn’t be a country like Mexico, with its “We’ll do it manana” attitudes.

                      Diversity is good. Gives us options.

                      Liberal SJWs talk a good game of “respect for diversity”. But it’s all lip service. Their idea of diversity is minor deviations within the liberal PC orthodoxy.

                  • OOooo! I’m going to have fun tonight listening to those!

                    I’m wondering if the O&A ones are the ones I had heard in the late 90’s- where people were calling into the show and telling the jokes? If so, they were some of the best!

                    Funny thing: The Polocks I’ve met in real life, tended to be rather stereotypical, one-dimensional, and just wanted to go bowling….

                    I’ve know a few online though, who were brilliant!

                  • Phrases that have never been uttered in the history of the world:

                    “Oh no, honey! Some Swiss family just bought the house nextdoor. There goes the neighborhood!”.

                    • Nunzio, you’d probably get a laugh outta your neighbors when me and mine move in.

                      First time my wife and I moved I backed up a flat bed to the porch with grain boards on the front half and we loaded everything we owned into it and then drove the pickup down to the RR dock and loaded it up on back. Reversed that at a new town but it wasn’t a big deal back then some 45 years ago.

                      Now we’d pull up with a couple big rigs and neighbors would bring in the kids and pets and lock their doors.

                      When my Mexican friends and I got everything unloaded including the Ditch Witch and trailer and various pickups we’d probably sound like a cantina till late with the occasional bark bringing little Fifi in heat a couple days later. No doubt we’d get to meet the local gendarmes right away.

                      It would be great gossip for blocks around.

                      Naw, I fear all they’ll move of me to town will be my bullet riddled corpse cause We Ain’t Comin Out!

            • Dear Tor,

              Rand was well informed about certain aspects of history, but woefully ignorant about others. Everything she knew was confined to the West.

              As Nathaniel Branden would later note, she was well informed about philosophy, but woefully ignorant about psychology.

              Her consciousness was always focused outward, never inward. She did not “Know thyself”. This would prove her undoing.

              • She was a gifted polymath, but her personality was extremely off-putting.

                I became interested in her via Mencken.

                Mencken inspired friends of freedom like her. He helped cheer up stylish individualist author Albert Jay Nock, a frequent contributor to Mencken’s magazine the American Mercury, during Nock’s declining years.

                Mencken’s stalwart individualism awed young Ayn Rand who, in 1934, called him “one whom I admire as the greatest representative of a philosophy to which I want to dedicate my whole life.”

                  • His actions were NAP tier, he didn’t even write about the principles explicitly, instead he lived them.

                    He sold his inherited Cigar Factory and used the proceeds to fund something larger than Galt’s Gulch was ever imagined to be.

                    Not stop the motor of America. But add the value of a new motor of creativity and intelligence.

                    Mencken’s world was a beacon of value you could call the Artist, Philosopher, and Intellectual’s Gulch. And it was real, not something to come about in the future.

                    Rand was a great friend to freedom. But absolutely, you may reject her for the deficiency of her prose, or for any other reason you choose.

                    She was he last person to advocate the NAP since Jay Nock in 1923.

                    And the second to the last famous person to mention it besides Murray Rothbard in 1963.

                    I don’t think anyone else that’s promoted the NAP. Has done so in a way that can be sourced and documented in an encyclopedia.

                    L. Neil Smith is close.

                    His writings were plagarized as founding documents for the Free State Project. Also there are pages calling themselves the Zero Aggression Project that shamelessly rip-off his work.

                    Mencken gets credit for both Nock and Rand being as popular as they are.

                    Heinlein gets credit in 1966 for advocating what he called rational anarchism.

                    Heinlein and others are close cousins of the NAP. The authors of Anarcho-Capitalism.

                    The latest AnCap author has been Tarrin Lupo. whose novel Pirates of the Savannah follows the lives of men who create an economy outside the purview of the government in the area around Savannah, Georgia during the American Revolution.

              • Bevin, even back in my day, in the filthy public schools, we got virtually not a word about Chinese history. In my mother’s day, when they still taught actual history, there may have been the briefest mention of some political and military events involving China- but no real history or exposition of Chinese thought- and in my day, and forward, when “Social studies” is taught, rather than history, all that may ever be mentioned are a few social customs- fireworks and dragons- and maybe a brief mention of the Silk Road.

      • Voluntaryist, I have read and watched Larken Rose’s books and videos and he is spot on. The one superstition that runs through both government and religion is indeed the false claim of “authority”.

        Both institutions are designed to usurp the Natural Law Rights of man. Therefore I have no use for either one.

        • Trouble is, most of what is called religion- organized/corporate churches etc. are organized under the very same model of authoritarianism as is government- and why not, since the institutions of both are made up by the same people; and can be used in unison to essentially give certain men/the state god-like powers, including the obligation of worship, servitude and obedience- and even the right to define right and wrong, or who is worthy to live or die?

          All government is theocracy.

          A distinction should be made between that, and the worship of the True God, who is the enemy of the state, and whom the state tries to mimic and replace.

          • Nunzio, I agree with the premise that all government is theocracy in that it is expected to be obeyed blindly.

            But I disagree about the notion of the “True God” (the Christian god, I presume) being an enemy of the state. Does not the bible explicitly state that god creates governments on earth? And therefore governments must be obeyed? Somewhere in Romans I believe.

            • As I noted the other day, the tribute episode says otherwise.

              Check out Jeffrey Bell’s January, 2010 essay on the meaning of the tribute episode. You can find it at

              Shorter version: Caesar is filthy; he is a serial adulterer; he is a pedophile; he conceives of himself as a god; and he is a mass murderer and thus, why would a Christian be obligate to obey Caesar.

              Even shorter version: Caesar owns nothing so one need not render unto him anything.

                • Eric-

                  Based upon my limited knowledge of Augustus, I would agree.Last year, I plodded through some, but not all, of Tom Holland’s tome, Dynasty: The Rise and Fall of the House of Caesar.

                  I use the word “plod” because I did not like Mr. Holland’s writing style (in contrast to you, as I will sometimes read your non-political car columns even though I have limited knowledge of cars). He, however, did not overlook Augustus’ good qualities.

              • LM, “Caesar owns nothing so one need not render unto him anything.”

                Fully agreed.

                But the problem is that today too many not only think the government does own everything they want the government to own everything in the name of “economic justice” AKA redistribution of wealth.

            • Hi, Skunk,

              >”Does not the bible explicitly state that god creates governments on earth? And therefore governments must be obeyed? Somewhere in Romans I believe.”<

              Nope. nope, and nope.

              Kind of a long subject to get into here, so I'll just give a very brief answer.

              God defines right and wrong by His law, and said that we should follow it and turn from it to the right nor to the left. God never gave men the authority to make up their own laws and enforce them on others. Any government which makes it's own laws is at odds with God.

              Ancient Israel originally had no king. At some point, the people desired a king- which the Bible acknowledges was a rejection of God. God warned the people that if they had a king, he would tax them, and conscript their services and use eminent domain, etc. The people still wanted it- God essentially said "You want it, you got it!".

              The verses in Romans have been greatly abused and misapplied by statists. The perverted new bible "translations" REALLY butcher them into a statist's dream- even inserting the word "policeman" [Did they have policemen 2000 years ago when the epistle was penned?] but, long story short, the Apostle Paul, who lived under the very regime which crucified Christ; was himself under house arrest for 2 years, for no other reason than for wanting to defend himself against false charges brought against him by the Jews; and had seen that same gov't kill many of the other Apostles, and kill and persecute many Christians…. was NOT referring to any such government [and gov't has only gotten worse since Paul's day] when he said such things as "they are the ministers of God for good" etc. which statists try and tell you is referring not just to the sick Roman gov't of Paul's time, but to any gov't at any time- which, if it were so, would mean that we'd have a moral obligation to obey Hitler or Obama or Mao or Idi Amin….and thus Chritians would be obligated to be the ultimate tools of evil…

              And funny, how the people who would make us think that the Scriptures say such a thing, are always gung-ho about it when it comes to their own country….but somehow seem to forget that if their nonsense were true, it would apply also to Christians in countries which are enemies of theirs- so that an American statist "Xtian" would have to concede that a good Xtian in N. Korea would be doing what ever Kim dude decreed, and somehow, both the American and the N. Korean would be doing the work of God, while both were obeying men and following contrary paths, and neither was obeying God- and this they would have us believe is good Christian conduct!

              ….and this they claim to get from the guy who said "Ye were bought with a price, be ye not the servants of men"- as they worship the One who was crucified by the state, and of which prophecy states that the nations shall be gathered against to fight at His return.

              It wouldn't make any sense, would it?

              • We don’t just consult official authority here.

                Shouldn’t discussions here include red-pill sources, not only propaganda put out by sources approved by Official Authorities that violate the NAP?

                Is there a church to be found anywhere, that doesn’t want to subject complete strangers to the whims of their brutal and often deadly authority?

                I ask you to look into the publisher of what you consider “holy book.” Is it not in the end published under some kind of authority that has innocent blood on its hand.

                Jesus never asked for these books to be written and used in the terrible way they’ve been used.

                Open your mind and heart, and realize the bitter machine of tyranny that has been the Gutenberg Press and its successor death guides.

                Saul of Tarsus hated Christians. He made it his goal to capture, then bring Christians to public trial and execution. Saul was present when the first Christian martyr (named Stephen) was killed by an angry mob.

                “Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison” (Acts 8:3).

                Under the NAP, any subsequent revelations are moot. He has never compensated the families of the many innocent victims he murdered.

                He is a robed authoritarian who escaped justice.

                He is not someone to be remembered or looked up to. He never even met Jesus. He’s no apostle.

                It’s just as likely some authoritarian weaved his “gospel” into the narrative to push their anti-life anti-human agenda.

                Every word of his is disgusting, he is not a mensch, how can you think beings who created life on earth would advocate his anti-life altruistic self-loathing denial of everything that is good in this world?

                Throw fake Apostle Paul in the woods already.

                • In the 1100 and 1200’s in England, Jews were rounded up and given the choice of renunciation of Judaism and becoming Christians or being put to death. By the 1300’s you couldn’t find anything with Judaism on its face nor anyone who’d admit to being a Jew.

                  Rather than being slow-burned at the stake, people accused of not being Christians and only pretending to be a Christian often took their own lives, not waiting for the court of public opinion to burn their asses as a good public burning was good for morale, the crops, the weather, etc. etc. and the Catholic Church would turn a blind eye if not outright support burning the blasphemers.

                  Like the old Protestant hymn says “And when we’ve been here ten thousand years”. Damn, not very good at keeping up with science since I still hear these lyrics at funerals…..the only time I go near a church.

                  • To be more accurate 8Man, Jews were coerced to be Catholics- not Christians. Catholics persecuted Christians just as they persecuted Jews and many others.

                    Christians were butrned at the stake for teaching the 10 commandments to their children, or for being found to have a copy of the Bible in Englsih.

                    Catholicism is just the bastardized religion of Constantine, who, upon seeing the popularity that Christianity was started to have, marched his army through a river and said “You’ve just been baptized! You’re all Christians now!” and then proceeded to give Chritain names to all of the old pagan customs, so that everyone in the empire would “join the church” because it was easy to do so, since they could keep on doing what they’d always done, only now it was “Christianized”.

                    And those Jews in the 1100-1200’s….they were Turks who converted to Judaism in the 800’s-900’s.

                    That’s really what Hitler was being used for- The Jews wanted to cleanse their race. Didn;t work out too good…. we still have several distinctly different racial/ethnic types all claiming to be Jews- from the big dark-haired, dark-eyed big nosed olive-skinned Jews, to the blond-haired blue-eyed light-skinned Jews; to the classic European Jews (the said converted Turks) to Jews of obvious Celtic origin, with red hair and pale freckled skin….

                    • Nunzio, my bad, you’re correct. First time I wrote RCC. You notice I have a couple comments twice. What you don’t see are the comments that didn’t post at all. Loverly word press bs.

                    • AAARRRhhggg!!!! Nothing worse than typing a comment and watching it disappear, 8Man. I usually copy my comment before hitting ;post’- that way, if it goes away, I can just paste it in and try ag’in. (Ask me how I know!)

                      I meant to include in my former response to you that I haven’t been inside a church in c. 40 years myself.

                      Most churches are 501c3 corporations- from the giant ones to the itty-bitty ones. Caesar is their head. Even the ones what[sic] ain’t, you go 2 or 3 times, you’ll hear them preaching why we SHOULDN’T obey what it says in the Bible- seriously.

                      Triyble is, to those who don’t know the difference, anything that claims to be “Christian”, is. They think the RCC is Christian- though you’d be hard pressed to find any similarities between the Bible and it; and though they did their damnedest to try and keep the Bible out of the hands of the people for 1000 years- knowing that their monopoly would be over when the people saw the stark contrast between what the Bible advocates vs. what the RCC does….

                      Like big-party politics though- the average person doesn’t know or care. They still vote for Hitlery, despite her being the most corrupt politician probably since Nero. And their religion is whatever their father’s was.

                      Reminds me of my nephew once, when he was a teenager. He was filling out some kind of application, and when it came to “religion?” he yelled to my sister: “Ma? What are we?”.

                • Jesus never asked for those books to be written? You mean, He would have had us rely on “oral tradition” instead of things which can be verified through literary citations as having existed several thousand years ago? The One who pronounced a curse upon any who would add to or take away from the words of “this BOOK”?

                  Blood on the hands of those who in-fact were themselves martyred as recently as just a few hundred years ago to bring us the Book which when obeyed, prevents us from serving the machinations of the state and participating in it’s wars and crimes against humanity?

                  As the Limeys like to say: Not BLOODY LIKELY!

                  Yeah, Saul/Paul started out as a Jew- like Thomas Sowell started out as a Marxist. We all pretty much used to be something different than what we now are.

                  Paul renounced Judaism, and the Jews were constantly trying to kill him. He did more for Christianity than anyone in the world except Christ Himself (Though his words are greatly misapplied today, and used to actually say the opposite of what they mean)- and it was Paul who preached how God had in-fact rejected the Jews, and was now working with the rest of the world- which is why the Jews hated Paul.

                • Hit Tor,

                  Have you read Neitzsche’s take on Paul?

                  “The first Christian. All the world still believes in the authorship of the “Holy Spirit” or is at least still affected by this belief: when one opens the Bible one does so for “edification.”… That it also tells the story of one of the most ambitious and obtrusive of souls, of a head as superstitious as it was crafty, the story of the apostle Paul–who knows this except a few scholars? Without this strange story, however, without the confusions and storms of such a head, such a soul, there would be no Christianity…
                  That the ship of Christianity threw overboard a good deal of its Jewish ballast, that it went, and was able to go, among the pagans–that was due to this one man, a very tortured, very pitiful, very unpleasant man, unpleasant even to himself. He suffered from a fixed idea–or more precisely, from a fixed, ever-present, never-resting question: what about the Jewish law? and particularly the fulfillment of this law? In his youth he had himself wanted to satisfy it, with a ravenous hunger for this highest distinction which the Jews could conceive – this people who were propelled higher than any other people by the imagination of the ethically sublime, and who alone succeeded in creating a holy god together with the idea of sin as a transgression against this holiness. Paul became the fanatical defender of this god and his law and guardian of his honor; at the same time, in the struggle against the transgressors and doubters, lying in wait for them, he became increasingly harsh and evilly disposed towards them, and inclined towards the most extreme punishments. And now he found that–hot-headed, sensual, melancholy, malignant in his hatred as he was– he was himself unable to fulfill the law; indeed, and this seemed strangest to him, his extravagant lust to domineer provoked him continually to transgress the law, and he had to yield to this thorn.
                  Is it really his “carnal nature” that makes him transgress again and again? And not rather, as he himself suspected later, behind it the law itself, which must constantly prove itself unfulfillable and which lures him to transgression with irresistable charm? But at that time he did not yet have this way out. He had much on his conscience – he hints at hostility, murder, magic, idolatry, lewdness, drunkenness, and pleasure in dissolute carousing – and… moments came when he said to himself:”It is all in vain; the torture of the unfulfilled law cannot be overcome.”… The law was the cross to which he felt himself nailed: how he hated it! how he searched for some means to annihilate it–not to fulfill it any more himself!
                  And finally the saving thought struck him,… “It is unreasonable to persecute this Jesus! Here after all is the way out; here is the perfect revenge; here and nowhere else I have and hold the annihilator of the law!”… Until then the ignominious death had seemed to him the chief argument against the Messianic claim of which the new doctrine spoke: but what if it were necessary to get rid of the law?
                  The tremendous consequences of this idea, of this solution of the riddle, spin before his eyes; at one stroke he becomes the happiest man; the destiny of the Jews–no, of all men–seems to him to be tied to this idea, to this second of its sudden illumination; he has the thought of thoughts, the key of keys, the light of lights; it is around him that all history must revolve henceforth. For he is from now on the teacher of the annihilation of the law…
                  This is the first Christian, the inventor of Christianity. Until then there were only a few Jewish sectarians.”

                  • Nietzsche was Anti-Christ, not anti-Jesus

                    Contrary to popular belief, Nietzsche was not anti Jesus. In H. L. Mencken’s introduction to The Anti-Christ, he claims that it was not Nietzsche’s intention in writing it to destroy Christianity.

                    He did not seek to rob the plain people of the world of their virtue, their spiritual consolations, and their hope of heaven.

                    What Nietzsche challenged was ‘the elevation of those beliefs to the dignity of a state philosophy.

                    Son and grandson of Lutheran ministers, what pissed off Nietzsche was the way in which Paul had transformed Jesus into the Christ figure in order to promote his own perverted brand of religion.

                    Paul was more of a believer in a worldwide Muslim Caliphate type world church.

                    Nietzsche says it far less bluntly and tactfully than I ever could.

                    If you believe in anything Paul ever wrote, you’re absolutely fucking dead to me.

                    • Dear Tor,

                      It is hard to imagine a blunter condemnation of Paul than that provided by Neitzsche. He considered Paul to be a merchant of revenge: vain, tortured and cruel. Unable to live up to the “law”, he eventually latched onto Christ as expiation for his own deficiencies. He sought not only to undermine the noble virtues, but to marginalize the example of the living Jesus. To him, the resurrection promised salvation and eternal life as a reward for faith, not action.

                      Neitzsche viewed the “reward” of eternal life as an appeal to vanity; explicitly denying the importance of the lived life.

                      “The great lie of personal immortality destroys all rationality, all natural in the instincts—all that is healthy, all that is life—promoting, all that guarantees a future now arouses mistrust. The meaning of life is that there is no meaning to present life.”


              • Nunzio, I must respectfully yet strongly disagree. Even though I am an atheist I respect Chuck Baldwin and enjoy his columns. His take on the Romans 13 issue seems about the same as yours. But the fact is that it clearly states, in any bible version, some form of “the powers that be are ordained of God”. I do not see how it can be any simpler than that other than “governments are ordained by god”.

                So how can anyone be against anything that is ordained by god?

                • Hi, Skunkster,

                  Awww, well…”The powers that be” may be an idiom in modern English for all forms of intrusive government, but in Biblical parlance, that’s pretty much a foreign concept.

                  Secular governments did not have the monopoly that they do today. The Levitical priesthood bore the sword over ancient Israel; angels are elsewhere refered to as having power and bearing a “flaming sword”. And nations which have been subjugated by foreign powers (as Israel had been in the time of Christ) can be under legitimate power in certain circumstances- but none of those things apply to most of the governments of this world at this time.

                  And even if they did, any such instances would be disqualified because of statements like “They are the ministers of God for good”* and “For rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil”- Do any secular governments of this world meet such qualifications?

                  [*=Sounds much more like the Levitical priesthood, doesn’t it? -Which was still extant at the time Paul wrote Romans]

                  In fact, if it were talking about civil government, Jesus Himself would have been in violation of “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers”, because when He was questioned by Herod, “He answered him not a word”.

                  Just curious: Is this at all similar to what Chuck Baldwin said?

                  This was just the condensed version, I could go a lot deeper, into the Greek and all…but you get the idea. Even the KJV could have translated that chapter much better…but hey, can’t make King James mad!

                  It’s funny too, because of all the Bible, both the statists and the “churchists” abuse Paul more than any other author to support their claims- often almost exclusively, which is telling, because the Apostle Peter even warned that Paul can be hard to understand, and that people were already “wresting” [I guess it’s like “wrasslin’ ” :D] his writings in his own day- How much worse would it be 2000 years later?

                  Well, I hope smoke isn’t coming out of your ears from all the Bible-talk 😀

                    • Best. Proof> EVER! of how government schools produce brain-dead ignoramuses! HAhahaha! Thinking that Catholics would have Bibles!!!! Oh…that is rich! 😀

                  • Nunzio, no smoke from me at all. I enjoy a good discussion no matter the topic. Although I am leery of getting into some religious discussions only because it is often a waste of time.

                    I do not mean to be insulting but to me quoting the bible is meaningless because I do not believe it is the inerrant word of a god.

                    What gets me though is how bible quoters will try to explain away what the bible actually says with claims of “It does not really mean that, it really means this” or “That particular word really does not mean what everyone thinks it does” etc.

                    Romans 13 is a good example. The words are there and it clearly means what it says so why try to deny it away?

                    Chuck Baldwin’s argument is about the same as yours more or less. BTW I agree with Chuck’s arguments against obeying authority but he is still just arguing against that which is plainly stated in Romans 13. Either the bible is the inerrant word of a god or it is not. There is no middle ground IMO.

                    • Some things require further study, especially when compared with the rest of what Scripture has to say on any given subject.

                      Then there is the problem of the translation of Greek into English. What word was used in the Greek, and what is its meaning in the context? That’s what is at issue in the Romans 13 passage (and in the somewhat parallel passage in 1 Peter 2). Since it clearly is at odds with other pronouncements about civil government, the apparent meaning is not necessarily the correct one. Ergo, more study is needed to ferret out the exact meaning.

                      I think it’s safe to say that God did not mean for every tyrant to be obeyed unquestioningly. That would apply to Hitler, the Caesars, the Jewish Sandedrin, Mao, Obama, etc. Their edicts and “laws” certainly don’t have to be obeyed when they conflict with other, clearer passages that spell out morality with respect to governing authorities. They can’t say what’s inherently evil is okay (theft, for instance), and vice versa. When they act outside of their sphere of competence, they become tyrants, not agents of justice.

                      There is every indication from more recent scholarship that does not take the face representation for granted that the passage is talking about natural authorities, either in the home, the church, or civil society. That’s what Chuck Baldwin and others write about. And that’s my take, also.

                    • Skunkmeister,

                      Ah, yes, I realize that you do not believe in the validity or inerrancy of the Bible- T’was just quoting it because it’s kinda hard not to, when that is what we are discussing… 🙂

                      There are indeed plenty of fellas who try and say “That’s not really what it means”- but one does have to realize that when dealing with ancient texts from foreign cultures in non-native language…uh, well, it’s not quite just like picking up a copy of How To Change A Lightbulb…. Especially when dealing with the most intellectual person to have contributed to that book (The Bible…not the Lightbulb book :D), and the more so after a couple of thousand years of religionists and critics and kings having established cultures which have built traditions and beliefs which claim some connection to that book, but in-fact may differ substantially from it- but yet are looked upon as the standard “Christian” thought or practice by reason of their widespread and/or long-standing tradtion.

                      Much like like a Larken Rose video I was watching last night, in which he reiterates how what politicians say is not what the people listening tro them think they are saying.

                      So too with the Bible- one can not just look at a verse or chapter in isolation and presume to understand it. One must “know the lingo” and the thought from having taken the Bible as a whole.

                      I mean really, would anyone to whom Paul was writing, who lived under that Roman government at that very time, have accepted such nonsense if Roamns 13 really meant what many say it does? What could Paul’s possible motivation have been if he had indeed uttered such thoughts as he is accused of, considering that said governments- from that of Rome, to Jerusalem, to even the smaller local governments (Such as in Philippi- Acts 16), were openly killing and persecuting believers?

                      Remember, this whole idea for which you are arguing is predicated upon “the powers that be” and “rulers” referring to what we call civil gov’ts today….

                      Ah, it’s late and I have to hit the hay- but tomorrow is another day.


                    • Antonio, if a word is not accurate then why use it? Why not use the accurate word? If it is not certain what exactly is the correct word then how can the meaning of what is being said be understood? And if it is not clearly understood then how can anyone know it is Truth? Truth requires accuracy does it not?

                      If the bible is still “under construction” then should not there be an asterisk on the cover saying “Subject to Change”?

                    • Nunzio, I am going to start a new thread for this conversation but please see my response to Antonio above.

                    • Well-said, Antonio!

                      One knows when they have a proper understanding- be it with the Bible, or anything else- when there is no contradiction.

                      We are also in a rather unique time today, where governments have morphed into busy-bodies who think it their right to dictate every little aspect of one’s life and interpersonal relationships- from how their children are raised, to what we may or may not consume; to what type of medicine may be practiced, to what kind of shrubs you have in your front yard, or how your shed is constructed and where it may be placed on your own property. Such “government” was foreign to most of the world until just the last few decades, and was certainly never sanctioned by God.

                      The state/kings/empires in the Bible, in it’s historical accounts; in it’s examples of then current events; and in prophesy, are always portrayed as the enemy and oppressors of God’s people, and the usurper of God’s position.

                      Daniel 2:44
                      “And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

                      A wrong understanding of Romans 13 would have every Christian serving that which God is going to “break in pieces”. (And sadly, that is exactly what many professing Christians are indeed doing)

                    • SkunkB said: “If the bible is still “under construction” then should not there be an asterisk on the cover saying “Subject to Change”?”

                      Oh, Greek (which the New Testament was written in) is a very precise language- being the language of scholarship, science and commerce of the old world, and the Bible remained unchanged except for changes in spelling and such to accommodate changing modern languages….until just recently (c. the last 100 years) when the liberals got into the picture and started foisting off obscure formerly unaccepted source texts, and personal interpretations on the unsuspecting to further their own agenda- namely that of denying the deity of Christ and transforming the Bible into a text which could be used to further a generic one-world religion.

                      Even the KJV is not perfect- for instance, in Acts 10, for absolutely no textual or linguistic reason, they translated “pascha” -the Passover- as “Easter”.

                      Or, in the very corrupt New International Version, references condemning homosexuality were modified…. Virginia Mollenkott (Google it…you will be shocked) a rabid bulldyke, was one of it’s translators!

                      Men can make up anything they want and call it the Bible- but concordances are readily available so that even the simplest reader can see what the real source text (the only one which has been accepted throughout history as comprising the Scriptures) actually says.

                      Not only that, but the real Biblical texts contain internal numerical patterns which even computers can not generate today while still allowing the finished product to read as needed. These internal patterns are not present in spurious texts, of course. If they can not be duplicated by even today’s computers, they certainly could never have been created by men thousands of years ago.

                      It is interesting/significant too, that of all religions/religious texts, it is only the ones pertaining to Christianity which have been so perverted and changed and even embraced by those who want to call themselves Christian, but who have a problem with the precepts of Chritianity as truly revealed in it’s source texts.

                      You don’t see them doing this to Muslims, for just example. You don’t walk into a mosque and or a Muslim’s home and see them reading from some Koran which claims to be made to read “more like a modern newspaper” and which translates the original in ways that have no textual basis, and/or from texts which were spurned by Islam as heretical and worthless and fraudulent.

                      But go into most any church today, and they’ll be reading from the NIV, as a woman stands in the pulpit and performs a wedding for queers.

                      Why did they do this to “Christianity” and not to Islam or Hinduism? They attack the enemy they know is real! (And sadly, most Christians are supplying the bullets!)

                    • I’m just trying to catch-up here, Skunk, after finally having caught-up on the “There’ll Be More” thread….but I’ll get back on track here (Or have I already? 😀 )…

            • No, it doesn’t. A by-product of the thinking at the time when most of the English translations were produced.

              That idea seemed reasonable to them because that’s all they knew. More recent treatments, like the ones you’ll find at LRC, and Chuck Baldwin’s book, bring the realization that earthly authorities have to be subject to God’s Law, or they are no authorities at all.

    • “Antonio, I am not trying to be argumentative here but I am only asking you to provide the “preponderance of evidence” you claim exists.

      Again, I hear this claim from Christians all the time but they never produce this “preponderance of evidence”.

      I can accept the argument that one’s beliefs are based on intuition more than actual evidence (including my own). What I cannot accept though is anyone making the claim that there is evidence yet refuse to present that evidence for cross examination.

      FTR I am not anti-Christian any more than I am anti other religions. It is just interesting to me what people believe and why.”

      Skunkbear, maybe I’ve already replied, but I can’t do it at the end of the post in question because of the formatting of this page. I don’t see the “Reply” button at the end.

      So, I can give you evidence from biology, from history, from archeology, but what would it matter? You would explain it all away. For instance, I think that the odds against evolution and natural selection being responsible for what we see around us is beyond staggering; I think they are effectively zero. Everywhere you turn in trying to construct a plausible scenario of how mutations lead to better and more advanced forms of life, better able to survive and have offspring, you run into a brick wall.

      Better yet, read some on your own. I don’t know what kinds of evidence would convince you, so I’m not going waste my time guessing. The evidence is out there. Just read other things than approved sources. I would start with the Intelligent Design folks and see what roadblocks are there at every turn in natural selection as the mechanism by which everything was “created”. Read Josh McDowell’s books, though they are a bit dated. Read Lee Strobel’s book.

      I think that’s the best evidence I could give. Look at the world around you. Convince me that the most intricate think we can see was brought about by purposeless, blind processes. The more we discover the more unlikely that proposition becomes, and it’s already effectively zero.

      Well, that’s all I’ve got. I probably can’t give you what you want, but don’t make the erroneous assumption that there is no evidence. If you let go of the naturalism myth, it’s surprising how much of the world makes sense.

      • Antonio, “So, I can give you evidence from biology, from history, from archeology, but what would it matter? You would explain it all away.”

        I am afraid you have made two false assumptions. The first being that I would “explain…away” any such evidence that you claim proves your god is real. I am not asking you to provide evidence that disproves evolution; I am asking you for evidence that proves your god is real. Disproving one thing does not prove the other.

        The second erroneous assumption is that I believe in evolution. I do not. There are more than two ways to seek the answer to The Great Question – “What is the meaning of life?”

        Respectfully submitted, SB

        • Fair enough. Yes, I do assume you would explain away any such evidence. I think all people are hard-wired that way. I make no apology for that assumption. I’ll stand on the Word of God that it is a universal trait of mankind. Sorry if you feel otherwise. I think that the Bible is the most accurate description of man and his ills that there is. I should say “the” accurate description because I think that the creator knows his creatures better than we know ourselves. The other religions tend to sugar-coat the situation – the Bible doesn’t do flattery.

          I’m curious – what evidence would convince you that the God of the Bible is real? I’m not a philosopher, so my reasoning skills may not be up to snuff. What would convince you? If God himself came down and told you he is real? The Book of Hebrews says Jesus Christ is the very image of God, and he has made him known. Sounds pretty good to me.

          But, I can’t really think of any argument that would prove God exists. So, I guess I’m out of luck. There are interesting arguments out there, but they’re not accessible enough to me to be able to call them my own.

          About the second assumption, well, you kind of got me there. There may be more than two explanations, but I tend to think that the others are just variations on a theme. Either it’s all an accident, or it’s all done on purpose, by an intelligence. Even if you argue some third or fourth way, it still comes down to one way or the other, doesn’t it? It’s either unintentional, or it’s intentional, only the agent or the process changes.

          Am I wrong about this?

          • Antonio, what is the difference between “explaining away” evidence and exposing the fallacy of the “evidence” through cross examination?

            “I’m curious – what evidence would convince you that the God of the Bible is real? … What would convince you? If God himself came down and told you he is real?”

            Of course that would convince me. But that is not required. All I ask is for evidence that can withstand reasonable cross examination. I will even take it down another notch.
            I will believe in the bible when anyone can show me exactly who wrote it, complied it, and edited it. (Or should I say “them” instead of “it” since there are so many versions.) We do not know who actually created the bible yet we are supposed to just accept the claim that it is the inerrant word of an invisible thing called “god”?

            ” The Book of Hebrews says Jesus Christ is the very image of God, and he has made him known. Sounds pretty good to me.”

            Two overlapping logical fallacies here. The appeal to “authority” which, in this case, only has its own claim of validity as the basis for its authority which creates the LF of circular reasoning.

            This is just another example of how the “evidence” does not stand up to cross examination through reason.

            “It’s either unintentional, or it’s intentional, only the agent or the process changes.

            My take is a) my concern is not so much whether is it intentional or not but rather is it real? and b) who says there has to be an agent or a process? The agent/process might just be the Thing – if it is indeed real – it/themselves. Are there other factors which could be unknown to us in play here as well? Many avenues yet go down.

            This is far out stuff I know but I really do ponder them so please do not think I am being a smart aleck.

            “Am I wrong about this?”

            One of the top questions one should ask oneself. Regularly.

            My philosophical answer is that there are no incorrect (better word than “wrong” IMO) answers because we humans, in this life form, simply are not capable of knowing what is the correct answer.

            So through this philosophical filter my direct answer is that the only honest answer can be “I do not know”.

            Respect, SB

            • I am also not trying to be a smart aleck, but how much of what we “know” is based on the testimony of others, long dead, who can’t be cross-examined? I don’t think this is an idle question.

              Unlike the sciences, where results can be duplicated, historical events can’t be duplicated. We rely on the testimony of people who witnessed the events in question, but we can’t ascertain the truth to an absolute certainty, only a moral certainty, if we’re lucky.

              Using this standard, then, what do we really “know”. Can you “prove” for instance that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration? Or, better yet, can you prove that Homer wrote the Illiad and the Odyssey? Who will you cross-examine? (Interestingly, one of Paul’s points in the letter of 1 Corinthians, I think, was that many of the 500 people who saw Jesus alive after he was raised from the dead were still alive, and you could go and ask them what they saw)

              So, of course, except for Paul’s letters and the letters attributed to certain Apostles, I can’t “prove” to an absolute certainty that the Bible was written by Moses, the Prophets, David and Solomon. Again, we rely on the testimony of others because these things happened so long ago.

              This is all very interesting, and I am learning all the time to be careful in my argumentation, but I can’t prove anything to you. That’s not my job. If every Christian who ever lived had to be an expert in epistemology and philosophy, well, our Faith would have died in Jerusalem. The plain fact of the matter is that The Bible reveals this faith as a supernatural occurrence. It is not ascertained through natural means. Maybe to you that sounds like a cop-out, but that’s the way it is.

              So, my job is not to “prove” anything to you. If I have accurately discerned what the Scriptures are saying, and if I have accurately described the Gospel to you, I have done my job. God can and will use that seed that was planted, which someone else will water, and God will produce the harvest. Sorry, that’s the best that I can do. I’m not a philosopher. I’m just a simple man who has experienced a measure of God’s mercy.

              The ball is in your court, SB. When you stand before God at the end of time, I don’t think he will be moved by your plea that you didn’t have enough evidence, or nobody was able to prove the truth to you.

              Of course, you can do this kind of investigation on your own. I’m much has been written addressing your points. But, you never will, unless God moves you to do it. That same circular reasoning says that no man, in his natural state, seeks God. The natural man doesn’t want anything to do with him. I think that’s damned accurate. I think most men (maybe you’re the exception) will use this uncertainty and lack of “objective” evidence evidence as a fig leaf, as an excuse not to seek God. I was there myself many years ago.

              May God bless you on your search for truth. You may consider this my final word. Sorry if I disappointed you.

              • Antonio, first there is no “disappointment” here whatsoever. We are adults at the adult table conversing about adult things. And as such I fully respect your views and opinion even though we disagree.

                And, if there is indeed a god, may he also bless you on your search for Truth as well. Absolutely no ill feelings here on my part.

                But you were the one who claimed that the “preponderance of evidence” shows the veracity of Christianity. Again I ask, where is this “preponderance of evidence”? I merely argue that this alleged evidence simply does not exist.
                That you cannot provide this “preponderance of evidence” tends to support my POV.

                “Can you ‘prove’ for instance that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration? Or, better yet, can you prove that Homer wrote the Illiad and the Odyssey? Who will you cross-examine?”

                The clear difference here is that the claims that Jefferson wrote the DOI or that Homer wrote the Odyssey do not involve claims of the supernatural. Jesus may have actually lived and he may have actually been crucified but those claims are not supernatural unlike the claim that he rose from the dead because he was the “son of a god”.

                “The plain fact of the matter is that The Bible reveals this faith as a supernatural occurrence. It is not ascertained through natural means. Maybe to you that sounds like a cop-out, but that’s the way it is.”

                This is simply your – and others’ – opinion. Which is fine. But please do not try to claim that there is a “preponderance of evidence” to your opinion without providing this evidence.

                “Interestingly, one of Paul’s points in the letter of 1 Corinthians, I think, was that many of the 500 people who saw Jesus alive after he was raised from the dead were still alive, and you could go and ask them what they saw”

                Except for the fact that the veracity of whether or not these “500” people actually witnessed the resurrection is based solely on the very same so-called “eyewitnesses” who make the claim of the resurrection and its “500 witnesses” in the first place.

                “When you stand before God at the end of time..”

                Interestingly here, when I was a CCC (Christian Constitutionalist Conservative) I was terrified of such a meeting with this god. Yet now that I realize that such a “god” does not exist I am no longer afraid of the “other side”. If the Christian god is indeed real and a being of Justice and understanding then I have nothing to fear.

                Respect, SB

                • We’re not arguing about the supernatural. You were talking about giving evidence that can be cross-examined. I gave an example of an accepted historical fact. I asked how you can verify that fact if you can’t cross-examine anyone. My claims don’t have as much to do with the supernatural as they do with simply evaluating a historical claim. Why does my proof have to be that much greater? The Romans said that Jesus was dead. They buried him, put a guard on his tomb, and yet Paul says that as many as 500 witnesses saw him afterwards, at the same time. Forget how it was accomplished; how do you evaluate that claim? It should be by the same standard you enforce upon me, shouldn’t it?

                  Except for the fact that the veracity of whether or not these “500” people actually witnessed the resurrection is based solely on the very same so-called “eyewitnesses” who make the claim of the resurrection and its “500 witnesses” in the first place.

                  Are you serious? How, exactly do you impeach their credibility? I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say, and I’m pretty literate. What does “veracity” have to do with 500 people witnessing the same event at the same time? They either saw him, or they didn’t. Is this any different from a witness in a courtroom? Paul said that the majority of those people were still alive when he wrote to the Corinthians, and they could ask them about what they saw. Could you rephrase what you said, ’cause it’s kind of awkward?

                  It’s not that I can’t give you evidence, I simply choose not to argue that way because that’s not how the Gospel is experienced or propagated. I don’t want to spend all my days becoming an expert on every conceivable area of knowledge just to be able to prove to everyone that God exists. I used to do that kind of thing until I realized how pointless it is. God does not work through human wisdom, sir. It’s as simple as that. He chooses to work through the foolishness of Gospel preaching, not providing foolproof arguments to all men who have doubts. Sorry, I don’t want to dishonor God by relying on human wisdom just to try to “win” somebody. It’s not that I don’t care about evidence; I do, but I care about the means that God has ordained to bless more.

                  So, If you desire evidence, I’m not the guy who’s going to give it to you. It is out there; do your own research, if you’re really interested. Somehow, I doubt that you will because you seem to have already made up your mind. You have no fear of God in your eyes, and that should worry you.

                  Just curious – why were a Christian before, but not now? On what was your faith based before? Apparently on nothing solid.

                  • Dear Eric,

                    As the meme I posted underscored, theists make an eloquent case for skepticism 99.98% of the time.


                    It is only when it comes to the one religion out of 4200 that they adhere to, that suddenly the reasoning they applied to the 4199 other religions suddenly goes out the window, and they become believers without question.

                    That of course is all well and fine if they abide by the “live and let live” rules of conduct as the Amish and the Mennonites.

                    The problem arises when their insistence that they are right and everyone else is wrong gets translated into violations of the NAP, such as Crusades and Jihads.

                  • Antonio, but you are indeed talking about the supernatural not “historical facts”.

                    I think it is fair to say that the entirety of Christianity is based solely on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead, yes? Cannot get more supernatural than that, no?

                    So then the logical question is Where is there any proof that this happened? The only “evidence” that this happened is the claims made in the bible.
                    And who are these men who made these claims? Four guys. And out of those four guys only one makes the claim that he was there and witnessed it himself. So the other three are not actual witnesses. So why should I believe them? Why should I believe that these guys are speaking “the word of (a) god”?

                    Now where is the “evidence” for these “500 witnesses”? Who is saying there were also 500 witnesses to the resurrection? Why none other than these same four guys who are making the original claim of the resurrection.

                    This “evidence” is the same as me saying I saw Jesus on a UFO and there are 500 witnesses who also saw it too. Do you dispute my claim? Why do you not believe me? I have “500 witnesses” to back me up.

                    And if there were indeed 500 living witnesses to the resurrection at the time the gospels/Paul’s letters were written then why did not any of these 500 witnesses write what they saw instead of three or four guys who did not themselves witness it?

                    This soup is way, way too thin for me.

                    You claim that the “preponderance of evidence” supports the veracity of the bible. I have asked you to please provide this “preponderance of evidence” yet you have not provided anything other than the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. “It is true because the bible says it is true” is not an “historical fact.”

                    It is precisely because I did/do my own research that I am no longer a Christian (or Constitutional Conservative).

                    I was raised a Christian and firmly believed in it all because that was what I was taught to believe. But, to make a long story short, one day I asked myself the greatest question one should ask themselves: What do I believe and why do I believe it? This question, of course, is the catalyst for even more questions.

                    It is precisely because of the answers I found that I concluded that Christianity (as well as many other things I was taught and believed in) is not based on “anything solid.

                    That is why I am looking at Christianity in the rear view mirror.

                    Please forgive me if I come across as snarky. That is not my intention. No disrespect, just telling it as I see it.

              • Hi Antonio,

                You’re right, we can’t know for certain that Jefferson wrote the Declaration – but we can know for certain Jefferson the man existed and that the Declaration was written.

                Similarly, we can know the Bible exists and that someone – several someones – wrote it. It also seems very probable that Jesus, the man, lived.

                But the fact that the Bible says “witnesses” saw the risen Jesus is no more proof of that fact than is the testimony of the Mormon elders that they saw the Golden Plates….

                Belief in the divinity of Jesus is just that, a belief. And it may be a true belief – just as the belief in UFOs mght be based upon actual fact. But until it can be proved, neither thing can fairly be called more than belief.

      • You still have the problem of “Who created the Creator?” So believing that some mythical being in the sky did it all doesn’t really explain origins. (Though you could probably convince me that we are the leftovers from some failed cosmic science experiment.)

        • LOL! That’s what I used to think….when I was 7.

          Since matter is not eternal, it has a beginning and an end. Time can be assessed because every physical thing has a lifespan.

          Since we are physical, it is hard for us to conceive of a realm beyond the physical or a dimension in which time essentially does not exist because of the fact that it is populated by things which are eternal/have an unlimited lifespan.

          The Creator always existed.

          One thing is certain: Matter has not always existed, and therefore had to be created out of non-matter, so it is certain that there has to be someone or something out there which brought matter into being. The question that remains is Who or what? Very few even make that claim, and only One makes any coherent claim such a feat- one which withstands the scrutiny of the collected knowledge of mankinds science through the ages down to the present day.

          Also, if you are a heliocentrist, you believe that the Earth is rotating at 1000MPH as it flies through space on an eliptical orbit [defying the very physics they use to explain it’s ability to do so] at [get this] 67,000MPH. Where might this energy come from to accomplish this? Energy which has not ruin down for thousands or billions of yeatrs [depending on who you believe]???

          Really, it can not be explained without a god. Many just choose to believe that this god is called “Nature” and is unintelligent, and has never provided a revelation of Himself. Find me an explanation of origins which does not reference the god known as nature.

          And water! Water may be our one link to eternal non-matter. The Bible doesn’t out-right say it, but strongly implies it, because water was already present at creation- it filled the universe! Witness that water is not compressible (Oooopppss! There goes that whole “The whole universe was compressed into a dot the size of a >.<period and then exploded theory!)- Water can not be destroyed- just changed or converted, and only temporarily- it always ends up as water again at some point. Men did not know this until quite recently; I know of no ancient text which makes reference to such principles- but yet, there's the Bible, in it's oldest parts, penned several millenia before Christ, and we see a place being separated out of a universe of water which is already in existence, so that the earth and it's habitat could be established.

          If that doesn't give you paude for at least a little awe… should.

          • Nunzio, “Since matter is not eternal, it has a beginning and an end.”

            Questions arise my good sir.

            First, is man simply matter?

            Second, is not water itself matter? If so then is it not contradictory to say matter has a beginning and an end yet also say “Water may be our one link to eternal non-matter. The Bible doesn’t out-right say it, but strongly implies it, because water was already present at creation- it filled the universe!” and “Water can not be destroyed- just changed or converted, and only temporarily- it always ends up as water again at some point.”? Sounds like no beginning and no end to me.

            Love your question though about where does the energy come from to propel the earth around at such high speed? I am not a flat earther (yet) but that question has been in my mind for years too. As well as this one: If the speed of the earth’s spinning at the equator is faster than the speed of the globe’s end poles then would not that have a differing effect on humans via G forces? Another one: If the earth is a globe spinning on an axis what is the starting point in space establishing the horizontal and vertical lines to determine the axis is at a certain degree? Because in theory there is no such thing as upside down or east or west, etc. right? (I probably am not conveying my questions accurately here.)

            And let me be the first to admit I have no evidence or claims of knowledgeable authority on this subject whatsoever. I just think it is interesting and fun to think about.

            Respect, SB

            • Correction please. “If the speed of the earth’s spinning at the equator is faster than the speed of the globe’s end poles then would not that have a differing effect on humans via G forces?”

              Got that entirely backwards. My bad. Clearly the speed (revolution) of rotation at the equator will be less than that of the speed (revolution) at earth’s end caps.

              Wake and bake on a Saturday morning – I make no excuses and stand by my assertions.

          • “The Creator always existed. ”

            Easy to say. More difficult to prove. Simply stating it does not make it so. I’m afraid the circular reasoning used by theists does not substantiate anything. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.)

        • Hi Jason,

          Another problem Antonio has is the huge leap from “there might be a god” to “the god(s) of Christianity” exist.

          I marvel with Nunzio at the miracle – and incomprehensibility, frankly – of ex nihilo creation.It boggles the mind, probably even minds as great as Einstein’s and Hawking’s. But to go from that to believing that any of the world’s multitude of religions is true (particularly when all of them are marred by things that, at the very least, make no sense at all and some of which are vile and vicious and when all of those religions are regional/cultural/tribal rather than universal) is a leap too far for me.

          • Hey Ya, Eric!

            I agree with you, that to just jump from ex-nihilo creation to any specific claimed god, would indeed be delusional.

            I can only speak for myself here, as I know that many worshipers would not fit the model which I am about to describe; nor would I want to make any assumptions about our friend Antonio….

            But for me, it was a logical progression. I was raised in a nominally-Christian home -which was a mix of Catholicism (which is not Christianity) and a few rudimentary tenets of the faith, but which were based on nothing more tradition and blind faith, essentially.

            In my very early 20’s, I realized that I was going to have to address the question as to whether or not there really was a God; and if so, who is He? I didn’t want to live my life serving an assumption/tradition/blind faith- nor did I want to deny something based on limited knowledge or the suppositions/blind faith of those who claim no god, but whose explanations still require a god- just by a different name.

            The ex-nihilo creation thing was essentially just the first step, as it demands the existence of something beyond the physical, visible realm. Let us refer to that something as god, be it some unknown impersonal entity or one which has maintained involvement with the creation and who has revealed himself in one way or another.

            The next logical step was to examine those things which claimed to be a revelation from that god, or which were vaunted as such. It appeared to be a daunting task at first, but in reality, the pile of gods which ended up on the scrap heap distinguished themselves quite early on, as the vast majority did not even claim to be the creator of the physical realm, or in many cases, even a deity- but were often just exalted by men as such; or were just the philosophizings of men exalted.

            At that point, I was down to just a few contenders- but one revelation stood out as containing not only the requisite claims of representing the One Who created all, but which contains facts about that creation, which now know are true, but which men in the time it was written had no knowledge of, as it was at that time outside the scope of human knowledge- many of those facts being only realized/proved by real science in the last 75 years or more recently.

            What many had always assumed in the Bible to be mere sentiment or surmisings, have indeed come to light in our very day as being true physicap fact, down to the very word. There is only one record of what claims to be a revelation of this God, which consistently does this.

            And not only that, but the foretelling of major events- both in history, and also ones happening now before our eyes. No human is capable of doing this consistently and precisely.

            Just a rudimentary example: Consider how the Passover Lamb in the Old Testament was sacrificed every year on a set date according to the Hebrew calendar. No one[not even Richard Dawkins!] would contend that that info did not exist well over 1000 years before Christ.

            The Christ comes on the scene, who is “The Lamb Of God”; is rejected by His own people- the Jews [also prophesied] and is killed [sacrificed] by the Romans at the very time when the Passover Lamb was to be slain. But wait….there’s more- and this is the biggie: Since Christ accomplished what the Jewish sacrifical system had merely been a picture of, there was no longer a need for the sacrificial system. c. 40 years after Christ’s crucifixion, the Jewish temple at Jerusalem (The only place sacrifices could be legitimately offered) was destroyed, and despite the Jews existing down to our day, they have STILL, in 2000 years not been able to rebuild that temple nor re-establish sacrifices- and not lack of wanting to!

            And that’s just the tip of the iceberg- just one tiny example.

            Now you might say: Well what about the possibility of a god who is unknown; who has not revealed himself? But that leaves us with the problem, that if we have a revelation which indeed claims to be from a creator, and which contains physical knowledge which was hitherto not known to men, but which is being vindicated as amazingly true and accurate the more human knowledge increases as time goes on, even though such revelation is ancient; and which foretells future events, some of which have played out in history, and some which are now playing out as we speak, how would silence be superior to that? And if there were a god apart from that revelation, then what is the source of that revelation, seeing as it contains that which was not known to men at the time it was written?

            The process of going through that only took me about 6 months in my early 20’s- but of course, I did not have all the knowledge I now have; all the details- but that was the rudimentary basic progression, and you have to admit, THAT is a far cry from “Evolution doesn’t have the answers so therefore Christianity is it!”. 😀

            • Nunzio, if I may join in here. It is precisely because of some of the things you mention that I turned away from Christianity.

              I will listen to the argument that there is a “god” but I simply cannot believe that a god that is capable of creating the universe as we know it is a god that requires animal and human sacrifice “to make things right”.

              This is no different than any other primitive religion throwing-virgins-into-volcanoes nonsense IMO.

              • Ah, I get it, Skunk. It does seem strange at first- but the Bible does say that it is “impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should cleanse sin”. The animal sacrifices, which were instituted for a specific time, were merely a portrayal of heavenly justice.

                Sin ultimately results in the death of the sinner. To cite the most extreme example, if you were to murder someone, there is no restitution that you could make in order to effect justice. If you stole something, you could make restitution, and add punitive damages to make the person wronged whole again, and deter you from doing so again. Value for value.

                If you steal someone’s life, the most you can do is to give your own life, and that would not make the murdered person whole, because it would not bring back his life; nor could there be any punitive damages above that, because you have but one life to give, and the victim is not alive to receive any restitution and compensation. Ditto with a sin such as rape, or even a series of lesser sins which may not be quite as severe, but which destroy the life of a society (Picture a “homie” who spends decades perpetually committing various crimes which result in a place becoming like Detroit!); or even sins which result in our own destruction.

                Or to put it more Biblically, God, as the creator of the world and life, is the creator of law; and we have all transgressed His law, and will therefore die.

                Jesus, as an incarnation of God, through Whom all was created, is worth more than the sum total of all humanity. Therefore, His one-time sacrifice made it possible that those who believe upon Him, and repent, can be offered eternal life in the spiritual realm, because He has paid the price that justice demands for our sins- much like if you got a speeding ticket and your brother paid it for you.

                The animals sacrifices were merely a portrayal of this substitutionary sacrifice..To say “human sacrifices” isn’t really accurate, as we having only one very limited life, can not even atone for our own sins, much less could we atone for the sins of someone else.

                This is quite different than the pagan concept of sacrificing animals/people to “appease the gods”.

                This is in reality a great thing, and one of the reasons which really cemented me as a libertarian/anarchist: There are no cages in God’s plan. Punishment in God’s economy was in the form of restitution and punitive damages, or in some cases, a beating.

                Today, if we were to pay punitive damages to the law-giver (a position which the state has usurped) we would pay in currency or property. In God’s economy, where punitive damages were paid to the victim it could be in currency or in like property; and when punitive damages were paid to the temple, it was often required in the form of clean[kosher] animals- from which the fat and organs were burned, and some of the meat became the property of “the justice administration [priests], and some was eaten [depending on the circumstances] by the person giving the sacrifice.

                It’s all about justice, and the value of life and blood; and an earthly representation of that which is ultimately effected in heaven. Quite different from the heathen ritual of throwing a virgin into the volcano. But unless one educates themself about such matters, it all appears to be the virgin/volcano thing…. 😀

                And this is NOT to say that one could murder someone and evade the physical penalty of death for doing so. “Ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer”. But even someone who has committed sins worthy of death, and repented, could be forgiven in the resurrection, because of the fact that Jesus paid the penalty to effect the necessary justice, for those who will accept the terms to receive the gift thus proffered.

                I hope that this has made sense. Sorry that I could not be more concise- but brevity is not my forte! 😀

                • Nunzio, “…but the Bible does say that it is ‘impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should cleanse sin’.”

                  Why does any blood need to be shed at all?! Why would an “omnipotent” god create such a dynamic or “Law”?

                  “The animal sacrifices, which were instituted for a specific time, were merely a portrayal of heavenly justice.”

                  Heavenly “justice” requires the killing of animals even though as you have said those animal sacrifices do not accomplish anything?!

                  If a man went out today and killed – “sacrificed” – his dog and said he did it because his god X told him to do it he would be, correctly, considered mentally deranged no matter what reasons he claims are the benefit of his “sacrifice”.

                  When did this specific time come to an end? When did god declare that animal sacrifices are no longer needed? What bible verse commands this?

                  Why would such a “supreme” being need to create such “laws” and “rituals”?! What is accomplished by killing animals let alone people? Does this feed god? Does the death of these sacrifices make god “even more powerful than (we) can imagine”?!

                  How are these sacrifices not any different than throwing a virgin into a volcano?

                  “My god, X, says we must make a sacrifice of X who is pure because my god X says it is for X reasons to correct for X.”

                  The reasons and the “correction” and the manner of the sacrifice are the only differences. Otherwise they are both just sacrifices made because a people believe they have to do it because “their god” said so.

                  My contention remains. Why would an all powerful god – of any claim – make up such bizarre “laws” and “penalties”?

                  As for “sin” I do not believe there is any such thing as sin. There is only evil and the only evil is hypocrisy. That is, doing something to someone else that you do not wish done to yourself.

          • Dear Eric, Skunkbear,

            Quite right.

            It is one thing to listen to Catholic theologians debate metaphysics and epistemology with Aristotelian philosphers.

            It is quite another to listen as fundamentalists of whatever faith go on and on about how the very same mountain visible from his front door just happens to be the Sacred Mountain from which the Creator of the Entire Universe handed down his laws for men all over the planet earth, not to mention all sentient beings in distant galaxies.

            The credulity required to convince someone of the truth of such a proposition, boggles the mind.

  7. I have as much respect for these legislator-cowards as I do for a dead housefly.

    This is another case of creating a standard for behavior that isn’t based upon any corroborating evidence whatsoever. Just like the Global Warming hysteria and their rampant War on Carbon.

    I think I would be more upset with a family member being killed in a vehicle accident caused by someone who was completely sober than I would be if the person was a raging drunk at the time of the accident. Because the completely sober person is supposedly more in control of their actions while behind the wheel than the drunkard is.

  8. The path to freedom is not by violence. Only losers use violence.
    Getting angry at politicians/bureaucrats is a futile focus on the symptoms, not the root of the problem. The root is the forfeit of sovereignty by most under the delusion that individual responsibility can be transferred to others and that is more efficient than self governance. This delusion includes extending it universally, under threat of death and justifying this forced dependence on a flawed “social contract theory”. As if being born into a society indentures all to be ruled, to obey harmful limits, to sacrifice our life for others, the group. This is self enslavement and if forced on others is immoral. I person may throw away his life on a flawed moral code. That is his right to act as he sees fit, as long as he does no harm to others. But when he includes me by force or fraud in his delusion, I will fight back and resist with all my might.
    That force/fraud is the worldwide paradigm. It is called government. It is no way to live. I want to be respected as a sovereign and I will do the same for others, but they reject that paradigm. I want to live in a society based on voluntary social interactions, but I know of no such society. I seek a “Galt’s Gulch”.

    • “Getting angry at politicians/bureaucrats is a futile focus on the symptoms, not the root of the problem.”.

      Bot really……when they are the ones who ultimately use violence or the threat of violence to accomplish/enforce their dictates. True, the real root of the problem- the human tendency to desire and support authoritarian collectivism- is what puts politicians in a position of power and enables them, but they are just as responsible for their actions, even if they don’t commit the violence personally- much like a Mafia don, who may not personally kill someone, but just order a hit-man to do it- yet that don is ultimately equally culpable. Only pacifists don’t resist or counter violence.

      • I didn’t say the politicians.bureaucrats were not responsible for their actions or not despicable. So why do you want to keep the focus on them? They have had their heads chopped off en masse (French Revolution) and nothing changed. That is the norm every where it has been tried, except in the American Revolution where the emphasis was on secession, not retribution. The new states did not declare war on the King/nobles or the British Empire. They just declared their independence and stopped supporting them. If a significant % of us do the same with the US Empire, victory is ours.
        But first a lot of educating must be done. The sooner the better. Focusing on the symptoms is worse than a waste of time; it misses a chance to inspire the statists to look in the mirror and see what they have created and support. This is the way to resist and counter the political paradigm of initiated violence.

        • Violence against a robber, assaulter or kidnapper is not retribution- it is necessary force to overcome and stop them.

          True, when these crimes are perpetrated on a large scale by organized men- whether you call them politicians or mobsters, mere acts of violence will not change anything- but considering human nature, and the fact that liberty in the world only decreases the more that time goes on, and the more populous the world becomes, it becomes clear that at some point the only defense is to fight fire with fire, whether in an organized war, as merely as individuals doing what they can to resist unprovoked violence/robbery when threatened with such.

          Face it, men do not voluntarily give up power once it has been acquired. Sometimes their institutions of power may crumble from their own dysfunction and decay, but even then, another will merely rush in to fill the vacuum.

          As Jefferson said- “Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.

          Will we go quietly into that night?

          I’m not advocating gratuitous violence ya understand- just self defense. If the po-po wants to take you away when you’ve harmed nobody nor anyone’s property, are you going to go quietly, or are you going to meet force with force against the aggressor if you are able?

          And while it’s not my war, maybe those who make war wouldn’t be quite so bold if they had some skin in the game.

          • Of course violence in defense is moral. In our case it is also suicide as we are, maybe 2%?, against thugs who specialize in violence, thrive on it, both politically and psychologically. We “appear” to lose the high ground if seen as violent. The masses will not get the full story, only the violence.
            In short, “to meet force with force” is moral, but not smart strategy. That is what Gandhi, MLK, and Gene Sharp taught me. When I very reluctantly did “face it” I realized the goal is not to convince anyone to give up power, but to stop the creation of the power, stop the masses from enabling their own enslavement, and the power evaporates. The thugs are left alone, naked and harmless. That is what they fear most. That is what propaganda is all about. We only have to show the alternative to sovereign rulers is personal sovereignty and that means self governance, which is way better.

            • Voluntaryist,I get what you are saying but the problem is is that, IMO, the majority of people do not seek personal responsibility/self governance. Why they are so is open to discussion.

              • Oh, I agree about the majority being political zombies. But that means we only need to educate the few (10-15%?) who do think but are still statists.
                The rest will follow blindly. That’s a good start. The zombie population can be reduced by an authentic education in private schools that teach the liberating subject of “How to use your mind so you may think for yourself”.

        • Hi Voluntaryist!

          I agree with you about withdrawing consent – both moral/intellectual as well as otherwise. De-legitimizing what is going on is, arguably, Step 1. Step 2 – much more critical – is offering a better alternative.

          If all we do is delegitimize the regime but do not have a better alternative both available and accepted by a critical mass of the population, we are setting ourselves up for a horror. For the toppling of the current miasma of crony capitalist authoritarianism/semi-socialism and quasi fascism with something much more… pure. As in Soviet Russia or Revolutionary France pure…

          • So eric, do you advocate any specific path? I like Travis’s comparison of two completely different shit eaters…..with simply a larger swatter needed for one.

            But that’s just me. Now where did I put that can of IMR 4350?

            • I recommend supporting carefully vetted liberty movements, local is best. I support Larken Rose and his “Mirror” project as well as his seminars “Candles in the Dark”.

              • I just recently discovered Larken Rose- His “I’m Allowed To Rob You” video is probably the best tool for anarchistic evangelism I have ever seen!

                I think he is a little overly-optimistic though in thinking that society is going to embrace liberty/anarchy as a whole. We’d have to first change human nature, and no mere political philosophy can do that.

                • I don’t know about that. MOST neighborhoods and towns function perfectly well with virtually zero input from the law. If the law went away, or largely went away, it would be no different. Certainly if you erased the fed, tomorrow would not change at all. We’d all need to donate to charity to feed the poor, and they might have to get back to a traditional family unit. It would work out just fine. Those that didn’t want to get a long would be dealt with quickly.

                  • Oh, I agree, Todd! Laws are the problem; not the solution. Trouble is, towns and cities these days have too many laws of their own. From having to get permission to rent out property that you own, to having to get a permit to have a yard sale or a lemonade stand.

                    That is the problem- the average person wants laws. Even where laws are not forced upon them by government, they will often volunteer to be serfs- like when they buy a house where by doing so they agree to come under the jurisdiction of a homeowners association, where other citizens can dictate every little detail pertaining to their property and conduct.

                    Most people will so give up their own freedom and autonomy, so how much less do they care about ours?

                    The majority of these people will never be converted to libertarianism/anarchy- nor should they necessarily be. Their power over others (power which is achieved through the political machine, and ultimately threat/use of violence) just needs to be restrained- and the only way that will happen, is the same way that sovereign nations keep other nations from invading them- by maintaining power equal to or greater than the enemy- and until and if such time as there are enough of us to achieve that (which will likely never happen) we will continue to see tyranny of one sort or another on every level.

                  • What could Human Nature be?

                    Consider the possibility of each newborn baby.

                    Redpilled babies wouldn’t be dependent on distant authoritarians.

                    Give them responsibilities and challenges from birth. The breast is for champions not whiners.

                    Design milestones of your own. Help your younger self down the rabbit hole earlier and faster.

                    Make them work for things. Let them freely roam, put them in stressful situations with others.

                    Have empathy but not sympathy for them.

                    Children are the ultimate DIY project. And ultimate future community resource at the same time.

                    Have them live an anarcho value creating rights respecting childhood.

                    Babies are anti-fragile, we can raise our preferred polity our own damn selves.

                  • Human nature is that which satisfies the flesh, when it is pursued to the exclusion of other concerns or consequences. (I just made that up, but I think it comes pretty close…. :D)

                    The thing is (And this is the thing which most other philosophies do not make provision for) is that if people want to exercise that nature over their own sphere of authority; their own lives, property, voluntary associations, etc. we as Libertarians/anarchists are fine with that- but the thing which would allow our philosophy to work, is that we allow defense of our person and property- for as long as a balance of power exists, all can pursue their own interests without infringing upon the rights of others.

                    Human nature will seek to steal, co-opt, extort, infringe, take advantage, etc.- and if we were to require that all subdue their natures as many of us do voluntarily, we would be back to an authoritarian state; but all we need do is ensure that the balance of power can exist, and then it doesn’t so much matter whether others restrain their own natures, because only they and theirs will be affected by what they do, and not us.

          • There is only one hope, one solution – secession. The complete dismantling of the US into hundreds of sovereign, independent Nation/City States. All else is folly.

  9. Hi, Eric,

    I am finding that I can’t reply to all of the latest messages because I don’t see a “Reply” link at the end of the comments. The columns get shrunk and very long, and there is nowhere to post a reply.

    Some recent comments deserve a response. Please help if you can. Maybe browser settings?

    • Antonio, what I do, is just scroll up until I come to the nearest “reply” to the message in question- and then my reply will be after that message. Eric may have a better way- but in the interim, that’ll work.

    • Hi Antonio,

      What you describe is an annoying bug of wordpress. It is much easier to read the comments on the full comments page. Access instructions below.

      If you are a registered user, this link: takes you directly to the full comments page. A screen may come up displaying a “sorry, no log-in enablers provided”. Ignore this statement and put in your name and password in the space provided. If you bookmark this link, you can always go directly to the full comments page. It is much easier to navigate from this page. The comments appear chronologically. To the right of the comment there are two headings, “in response to” and “submitted on”. If you click on the date/time section under the “submitted on” heading, it takes you directly to the specific comment you wish to reply to. You may need to scroll up or down a little, but it will be easy to find. If there is no reply button, just scroll up until you find one. If you are concerned about attribution, just make it clear in your post. I hope this helps.


    • Hi Antonio,

      Your comment appears to be in moderation. Don’t know why this happens. Did you get the log in page that strangely says, “sorry, no log-in providers enabled”? If so, you must enter your name and password.


      • Hi Jeremy, Antonio –

        I have no idea why this happens – people who’ve been approved and previously posted having their posts routed to the Moderate queue. I hate computers…

        • From VA Copbloc 2 facebook fan site,

          After he published that article about me, Nathan Cox, i tried to reach out to him on that blog in the comment section, Twitter and Facebook with no avail…

          I was simply trying to express my gratitude for writing about my situation and also asking him if he would be kind enough to link to or embed my legal fund that my attorney created for me on Gofundme.

      • Replying here to your other comment.

        An uncensored forum is as important as air. Here, it likely saves a 3 year old’s life.

        Fat Shaming Club

        The statism in this thread is cringeworthy to the extreme. The OP is a Child Protection Service hero taking a child from his family. The worst sort of govt vermin swine.

        He was getting abducted anyway, but at least his healh may be improving.

        Of course such forums need not be virtual. But never have I met fellow workers-friends-family, barfles, or random strangers who think like my fellow epautomatons.

        Galts Gulch is real. But virtual. And very sparsely inhabited so far.

        We at least need some office hours and a phone number for the gulch. Here’s a temporary one for noe.

        Leave a text or call me 24/7 worldwide. Post on the facebook fan site or send a message.

        U.S. Number: (702) 723-0847. I will text you a reply and forward your message to eric.

        Thans for choosing Libertarian Car Guy


          • Kanpai E,

            Abuse? Well I’m old, bald and ugly. Also structurally unsound from being pinned against a fence by a black walnut treestump and falling off a scaffolding.

            Gotta climb the beanstalk to work among giants tho. Semper fee fi fo fum.

            Mazel NAP!

          • Just trying to put skin in the game.

            I don’t disagree with the consensus here. But use the available comm tools to further my goals. Know thy enemy.

            What’s lacking among most anarcho capitalists, redpill paleoconservatives, apolitical farmer curmudgeons is no risks are taken.

            There’s no stake in making a free world.

            I’ve had dozens of facebooks and they’ve said many different things.

            I’m pretty sure the NAP doesn’t require that I dutifully conform to the instruction form of a website and put the correct info in all the boxes because of the magna carta or golden rule or being an honest man.

            I follow an alternate NAP that very well might be fatally flawed. Not even follow, but merely try to approach as a limit, in a calculus sense.

            Also I have to flip a switch and go from foul mouthed anon troll mode to regular old quirky family man and coworker.

            • I don’t know that using Facecrook would in any way violate the NAP- I just find it odious- to voluntarily forfeit my privacy and grant privileges to a truly evil corp/individual whose goals are diametrically opposed to my own- and all for what? To be able to engage in banter in a format which discourages long-term intelligent reasoned personal communication and meaningful debate?

              A high price to pay, for virtually nothing to gain. If I’m going to take a chance, it’s going to be for something worthwhile- not for something of no value. (Although I wouldn’t consider the use of Facebook to be very chancey….just more like donating to a cause which you don’t support or which you know is bogus).

              “What’s lacking among most anarcho capitalists, redpill paleoconservatives, apolitical farmer curmudgeons”

              I’ve never heard anyonme describe me so perfectly! 😀

              • Sorry to inform you Facebook is not confined to its famous internet domain.

                It is the largest online church in the world. It’s scripts and databases interact with nearly every internet user in the world.

                It is controlled by the very same Northeast Megalopolist BosWash Judeo-Christian-Muslim thought monopoly that’s been ruling our world for 2000 years now.

                It is the gospel and technology of Harvard elites now proselytized to all people everywhere. It’s freeee to use, but it’s cost is the further centralization and monolithification of human discourse and social interaction.

                I post to my wall, and there for I am. Cogito ergo online sum. Amen and stay logged in.

                • Tor,

                  I’ve always avoided cell phones/smartphones; smart appliances; vehicles with black boxes; anything Microsoft or Apple – mainly for the simple reason that they SUCK, and I like simple, old-fashioned things over which I and I alone have ultimate control.

                  But avoiding the tyranny and spying that such things enable is a nice benefit.

                  If the government told you that you had to travel a personal track device, you would be up in arms [hopefully]- but yet do you voluntarily carry a phone which tracks you and even affixes GPS coordinates to pictures that you take, and which can provide a means for the listening in on and recording of your calls and a record of your contacts?

                  Even though you may never do anything nefarious or illegal, I thought libertarians were about protecting liberty- starting with their own by resisting voluntary encroachments of said liberty- just as we may never have taken a drug in our life, yet we advocate the abolition of drug prohibition.

                  If Uncle decreed that all personal communication must be through a means whereby what you say and see can be censored; and everything you do online monitored and recorded, and used to build a personal profile of you, we would scream. Why would we accept such things voluntarily? [Now it’s voluntary. As the noose gets tighter and tighter, one day soon it will be defacto mandatory- once everyone has gotten used to it. It is already to the point where potential employers are suspicious of people who do not have social media accounts; and where government can demand your passwords….)

                  I’m afraid I just don’t understand it when avowed supporters of liberty and privacy voluntarily throw in the towel, and cede so much of their lives over to that over which they have no control; that which a corporation of globalists will use to their advantage, and which is available freely to Uncle without warrant, for the mere asking.

                  On the positive side…having Eric’s articles out there is good. Maybe one or two peons will stumble across them and start to think… [ “Joe Mundane likes this” (posted under video of Aunt Bessie farting loudly while recovering from colonoscopy)]

                  Hey…people do it!

                  • I held out on a smart phone for years.

                    Right before dark 150 miles from home after a hard day of oil field trucking I set out for a drilling rig on that cold, dark, rainy night and after being lost for a while before I got loaded(overloaded)and began my trek back and being lost again(yeah, they were right, there were rig signs…..some of which had been run over)I vowed I’d never do that again. The events of a similar night 45 years earlier with an overload of casing I spent almost the entire night trying to find my way out after never finding the rig I sought to deliver that casing to before finding the way back out again. I pulled up on the highway in the rain(luckily, it was really slick)and at road speed in No Trees Tx. the buzzers, flashers and gauges all said simultaneously I had a broken air supply line, a broken coolant line and to add insult to injury, a broken headache rack as the emergency brake buttons both popped and locked up 18 wheels with me surviving because it was so slick and because I always used at least 4 chains and one belly chain on a load if not more.

                    I sometimes take the battery out of my phone when I’m pleasure traveling since it will automatically connect with various wifi’s along the way even though I have that feature turned off. The first time I discovered it had been doing that after I turned that feature off I began removing the battery. Take that Googul and NSA and CIA and every other “A” who uses that info.

                    Besides that I pay cash though it would be easy enough to figure out who used my phone….but that doesn’t mean I don’t have another phone I only turn on well away from home and intermittently at that and I only have to buy minutes for that phone seldom to rarely.

                    • 8, where ya been?!!

                      I actually got my first cell phone back in the mid 90’s, ’cause it was cheaper than hiring someone to answer the phone or missing calls while I was out doing the work.

                      Got rid of it in ’01 when I moved to the sticks. But a few years ago, when i blew an alternator on a country road, and realized that pay phones no longer exist (even in town!) I got a Tracfone.

                      Keep it in the glove compartment and never turn it on except once or twice a year when I want to make a call.

                      The one I had before this ‘un, I’d keep the battery out of, because it had a nasty habit of turning itself on at the least provocation (Not so easy to turn off…you have to answer prompts and all…but it’ll turn-on at the drop of a hat!)- But last year, that ‘un became “obsolete” so they gave me a new one for free…..

                      Uh…this reminds me, actually, I think today is my last day of service! I need to pay my $60 for another year of service (No minutes…I have thousands built up, so I just buy the time extension).

                      I really hate paying that $60- it feels more like $6000 ’cause i hate these damn phones…..and for the two or three calls a year that I make, and the frustration I suffer using the damn phone, it’s awfully expensive. I’d really rather just smash the phone…….

                      And to think; we live in a world where people live their lives around these stupid things!

                    • Nunzio, been in computer hell and finally got another with a browser out of date. Got that fixed but I couldn’t even use my phone since epa kept finding reasons to deny me.
                      I have had the new computer going since Sat. but no luck resetting the password and couldn’t find my book. I gave it another shot this morning and get the password reset on my phone after finding two of them on my computer mail that were 12 hrs old.

                      Fun and games bro or bra as my 30 year old neighbors texts.

                      We got bag phones in the 90’s but needed external car antennas even with that 4 watt phone. It was about 2002 when a cell phone would sorta, kinda work at the house and they still barely do. They don’t call it the sticks for nuttin!!!

                      Ah, I see it just logged me out when it reloaded for a reply. More fun and games.

                      I’ve been looking for somebody who’d do semaphores with me near a town for 20 years.

  10. A reading from the proven prophets Fibonacci and Fermat. Peace be upon them.

    The set of integers is an infinite group with respect to addition my brothers.

    Is it not known the number 2 is an integer, and ipso facto, the sum of 2 and 2 must also be an integer?

    Suppose, for the sake of heretical contradiction, that 2 + 2 0. Adding two to both sides, we get 2+2 > 0+2. Since 0 is the identity element for addition, we have 2 + 2 > 2. Hence 2 < 2 + 2 4, ∃b ∈Z such that b > 0 and a−2 = 2 + b. If a were a solution to the equation 2 + 2 = a, then we would have a−2 = 2+0. The holy lemma states that this cannot hold for any a > 4, and so a = 4, as desired. So, it only remains to prove our sacred lemma.

    The blessed proof is by induction over a. Our base case being a = 5. Let 5−2 = 2+b. Five is the 5th Fibonacci number, and 2 is the 3rd Fibonacci number. Therefore, by the definition of Fibonacci numbers, 5−2 must be the 4th Fibonacci number. Letting fi denote the ith Fibonacci number, then we have fi −fi−1 > 0 for i 6= 2, because f2−f1 = f0 and f0 = 0, but f1 = 1, and the miraculous Fibonacci sequence is nondecreasing my brethren. Hence (5−2)−2 > 0. Now, suppose that ∃b ∈ Z such that b > 0 and (k−1)−2 = 2 + b. We need to prove that, for some b0 > 0, k−2 = 2+b0. Our inductive hypothesis is equivalent to: k−1−2 = 2 + b k−1−2 + 1 = 2 + b + 1 k−2 = 2 + (b + 1) Since 1 > 0 and b > 0, we have (b + 1) > 0. Thus, letting b0 = b + 1, we have a nonnegative solution to k−2 = 2 + b0, as desired. Thus, gloriously, it is not the case that 2+2 > 4. Hence 2+2 ≤ 4. We also have 2 + 2 ≥ 4. Therefore rejoice, 2 + 2 = 4

      • Speaking of gold. I identify as being Polish. Once I won a gold medal and I was so happy I went out and had it bronzed.

        The Divine Proportion aka Golden Ratio

        Triangle ABC is a right triangle, where the measure of angle BAC is 90 degrees. The length of side AB is 1 and the length of side AC is 2.

        The Pythagorean theorem can be used to determine that the length of side BC is the square root of 5. Side BC can be extended by 1 unit of length to establish point D. Line segment DC can then be bisected (divided by 2) to establish point E.
        The length of line segment EC is equal to Phi (1.618 …).


        • HAhaha! Good ‘un! (And finally, a Pollock joke I hadn’t heard before!)- Hey, the Polish invented the toilet seat. Of course, it took the French to put the hole in it….

          Ah, I was thinking more of the Fibonacci Ratios…… (I’m more of a nuts and bolts type dude)

          • Yeah I’m more of a gentleman farmer. I can get out and do the labor, poorly, and it definitely makes me more proud to do things with my own hands.

            But I have a Jewish streak in me. I found out early on I could bask in nearly the same amount of pride through virtual signalling, while discreetly using low cost goy labor to do all the heavy lifting and complex skilled tasks.

            • The trouble I have with manual labor [Thurston Howell III: “Manual labor; how dreadful!”] is that I prefer more intellectual pursuits. I get bored easily if the mind isn’t engaged. Doing mowing and stuff with the tractor, I’m in my glory, because I can accomplish work, and get lost in pure thought or daydreams- I can do it forever. But put me out there with a shovel, and while I’ll enjoy it for an hour or so; and enjoy the benefit of having done it, much more than an hour or two and I’m pining to get to the computer or a book, or a vehicle (Motion helps…I like being in motion. I don’t even buy stationery chairs- every chair I own swivels and rocks….). And boats! I miss not working on the water anymore!

  11. It might be an exaggeration to say that the Black Death single-handedly caused the Renaissance, but surely the Black Death was the leading factor that played the largest role in bringing about the Renaissance.

    Culturally, Francesco Petrarch was the founder of Humanism, the philosophy that worked as a vehicle for the establishment of the Italian Renaissance. His art and philosophy was intensely plague inspired as most of it dealt with the fact that pretty much all of his friends died during the first and second waves of the plague, including a woman named Laura who he claimed would’ve been his lover if she had lived longer.

    Economically and Politically, the plague caused an upwards distribution of wealth in the long run, as the nobility and the church took over the land of plague victims. This great wealth in the nobility and the church started off a patronage war between the nobility (the old money), the church, and the new money traders who were reaping the benefits of new found commercialism in Italy. Their way of fighting for power/respect often took the form of seeing who could pay artists and intellectuals the most as a part of patronage. This made artistry a lucrative profession, and sparked one of the greatest art movements in European history, the Renaissance.

    Petrarch’s love sonnet to Laura

    It was the day the sun’s ray had
    Turned pale
    With pity for the suffering of his Maker
    When I was caught, and I put up no
    My lady, for your lovely eyes had
    Bound me.

    It seemed no time to be on guard
    Love’s blows; therefore, I went my way
    Secure and fearless – so, all my
    Began in midst of universal woe.

    Love found me all disarmed and found
    The way
    Was clear to reach my heart down
    Through the eyes
    Which have become the halls and
    Doors of tears

    It seems to me it did him little honour
    To wound me with his arrow in my state
    and to you, armed, not show his bow
    At all.

    • The renaissance began with a return of Aristotle’s works, via a German translation taken from an Arabic translation. His work had been lost to the West in The Great Fire (the burning of the library of Alexandria). It helped to have St. Thomas Aquinas promote it.

  12. It will be so much better when we have an AnCap society so when the clovers insist on 45mph and 0.01 BAC you will have “volunteered” and shut up about how it is so wrong because you won’t have access to any road until you agree to the terms before you can drive, and the Clovers will write the conditions.

    • Hi Tz,

      Yes, exactly. This is how the Autonomous and Ride Sharing Future will work. You will be driven to your destination precisely as the car’s programming decides, supervised all the way.

  13. When I grew up in Germany, the legal limit was .8 – ten times the US limit of today, apparently. That was reasonable, because you could reasonably assume that the average guy with a blood alcohol level higher than that would be too pissed to drive. Now they have .5 in Germany, and in Austria too, where I live now. That´s a bit low for my taste, but still not ridiculously low like in the US.

    But soon that will be irrelevant, anyway, because the “new European” will be an occasionally self-exploding desert creature who by definition does not drink alcohol because Allah forbade it.

  14. Here is some Talmud to consider. Let it rustle you, if you have jimmies…

    I am not this mercenary, but I understand the sentiment when you are a wealthy minority underdog. A man of learnings and abilities amid a horde of violent superstitious niggers…


    The followers of “that man,” whose name is taken by the Jews to mean “May his name and memory be blotted out,” are not otherwise to be regarded than as people whom it would be good to get rid of. They are called Romans and tyrants who hold captive the children of Israel, and by their destruction the Jews would be freed from this Fourth Captivity.

    Every Jew is therefore bound to do all he can to destroy that impious kingdom of the Edomites (Rome) which rules the whole world. Since, however, it is not always and everywhere possible to effect this extermination of Christians, the Talmud orders that they should be attacked at least indirectly, namely: by injuring them in every possible way, and by thus lessening their power, help towards their ultimate destruction. Wherever it is possible a Jew should kill Christians, and do so without mercy.


    A Jew is commanded to harm Christians wherever he can, both indirectly by not helping them in any way, and also directly by wrecking their plans and projects; neither must he save a Christian who is in danger of death.


    “Those who do good to the Akum . . . will not rise from the dead.”

    At times it is permitted to do good to Christians, but only in order to help Israel, namely, for the sake of peace and to hide hatred of them.

    “Needy Gentiles may be helped as well as needy Jews, for the sake of peace…”

    “Therefore if you enter a town and find them celebrating a feast, you may pretend to rejoice with them in order to hide your hatred. Those, however, who care about the salvation of their souls should keep away from such celebrations. You should make it known that it is a hateful thing to rejoice with them, if you can do so without incurring their enmity.”


    “Do not say anything in praise of them, lest it be said: How good that Goi is!”

    Moreover, you should seek opportunity to mix with them and find out about their evil doings.

    In this way they explain the words of Deuteronomy (VII,2) . . . and thou shalt show no mercy unto them [Goim], as cited in the Gemarah. Rabbi S. Iarchi explains this Bible passage as follows:

    “Do not pay them any compliments; for it is forbidden to say: how good that Goi is.”

    “No one is allowed to praise them or to say how good an Akum is. How much less to praise what they do or to recount anything about them which would redound to their glory. If, however, while praising them you intend to give glory to God, namely, because he has created comely creatures, then it is allowed to do so.”


    “It is also forbidden to make mention of the Akum; for it is written (Exodus XXIII,13):. . . and make no mention of other gods.”


    “Their idols must be destroyed, or called by contemptuous names.”

    “It is permitted to deride idols, and it is forbidden to say to a Goi: May your God help you, or I hope you will succeed.”

    “The Scripture teaches us to hate idols and to call them by ignominious names. Thus, if the name of a church is Bethgalia—”house of magnificence,” it should be called Bethkaria—an insignificant house, a pigs’ house, a latrine. For this word, karia, denotes a low-down, slum place.”

    In numerous places ignominious names are given by the Jews to Christian things. It will not be out of place to list a few of these names which they give to things and persons which are held holy and dear by Christians, as follows:

    JESUS is ignominiously called Jeschu—which means, May his name and memory be blotted out. His proper name in Hebrew is Jeschua, which means Salvation.

    MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, is called Charia—dung, excrement (German Dreck). In Hebrew her proper name is Miriam.

    CHRISTIAN SAINTS, the word for which in Hebrew is Kedoschim, are called Kededchim (cinaedos)—feminine men (Fairies). Women saints are called Kedeschoth, whores.

    SUNDAY is called the day of calamity.

    FEAST OF CHRISTMAS is called Nital, denoting extermination.

    EASTER is not called by the proper word Pesach (Passover), but Ketsach, meaning a cutting down; or Kesach, a Gallows.

    A CHRISTIAN CHURCH is not called Beth Hattefillah, House of Prayer, but Beth Hattiflah, a House of Vanity, a House of Evil.

    THE GOSPEL BOOKS are called Aavon Gilaion, Books of Iniquity.

    CHRISTIAN SACRIFICES are called Dung Offerings. In the Jerusalem Talmud the following occurs:

    “He who sees them mezabbelim (excrementing—sacrificing) before their idol, let him say (Exod. XXII, 20): He that sacrificeth unto an idol shall be utterly destroyed.”

    Rabbi Iarchi teaches that the Gentiles actually honor their God by excrementing before him.

    A CHRISTIAN GIRL who works for Jews on their sabbath is called Schaw-wesschicksel, Sabbath Dirt.


    “It is forbidden to give gifts to the Goim. But it is permitted to give them to a convert who lives among the Jews; for it is said: To the traveller who stops in your cities, give it to him to eat, or sell it to a Gentile, that is sell it, not give it.”

    “It is forbidden to give free gifts to the Akum with whom a Jew may not treat familiarly.”

    The Talmud, however, allows a Jew to give gifts to Gentiles who are known to him and from whom he has hope of getting something in return.


    “In 24 cases a Jew must be repudiated, namely . . . 8. Anyone who sells his farm to the Akum must be sent into exile—unless he undertakes to make up for all the harm that follows as a consequence of having the Akum live near the Jews.”


    “It is not permitted to teach any trade to the Akum.”

    * * * * *


    Since the Goim minister to Jews like beasts of burden, they belong to a Jew together with his life and all his faculties:

    “The life of a Goi and all his physical powers belong to a Jew.”

    It is an axiom of the Rabbis that a Jew may take anything that belongs to Christians for any reason whatsoever, even by fraud; nor can such be called robbery since it is merely taking what belongs to him.

    “All things pertaining to the Goim are like a desert; the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own.”


    “If you send a messenger to collect money from an Akum and the Akum pays too much, the messenger may keep the difference. But if the messenger does not know about it, then you may keep it all yourself.”


    “A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum, for it is written: Return to thy brethren what is lost. For he who returns lost property [to Christians] sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people.”


    “It is permitted to deceive a Goi.”

    “If a Jew is doing good business with an Akum it is not allowed to other Jews, in certain places, to come and do business with the same Akum. In other places, however, it is different, where another Jew is allowed to go to the same Akum, lead him on, do business with him and to deceive him and take his money. For the wealth of the Akum is to be regarded as common property and belongs to the first who can get it. There are some, however, who say that this should not be done.”

    “If a Jew is doing business with an Akum and a fellow Israelite comes along and defrauds the Akum, either by false measure, weight or number, he must divide his profit with his fellow Israelite, since both had a part in the deal, and also in order to help him along.”


    “If a Jew is able to deceive them [idolaters] by pretending he is a worshipper of the stars, he may do so.”


    “It is allowed to take usury from Apostates who fall into idolatry.”

    “It is permitted, according to the Torah, to lend money to an Akum with usury. Some of the Elders, however, deny this except in a case of life and death. Nowadays it is permitted for any reason.”

    * * * * *



    “Our teaching is as follows: When a Jew and a Goi come into court, absolve the Jew, if you can, according to the laws of Israel. If the Goi wins, tell him that is what our laws require. If however, the Jew can be absolved according to the gentile law, absolve him and say it is due to our laws. If this cannot be done proceed callously against the Goi, as Rabbi Ischmael advises. Rabbi Akibha, however, holds that you cannot act fraudulently lest you profane the Name of God, and have a Jew commited for perjury.”

    A marginal note, however, explains this qualification of Rabbi Akibha as follows:

    “The name of God is not profaned when it is not known by the Goi that the Jew has lied.”

    “The name of God is not profaned when, for example, a Jew lies to a Goi by saying: ‘I gave something to your father, but he is dead; you must return it to me,’ as long as the Goi does not know that you are lying.”


    “She (the mother of the mamzer) said to him, ‘Swear to me.’ And Rabbi Akibha swore with his lips, but in his heart he invalidated his oath.”

    “If the magistrate of a city compels Jews to swear that they will not escape from the city nor take anything out of it, they may swear falsely by saying to themselves that they will not escape today, nor take anything out of the city today only.”

    * * * * *


    Jews must spare no means in fighting the tyrants who hold them in this Fourth Captivity in order to set themselves free. They must fight Christians with astuteness and do nothing to prevent evil from happening to them: their sick must not be cared for, Christian women in childbirth must not be helped, nor must they be saved when in danger of death.


    “Rabbi Jehuda said to him [Rabbi Chezkia]: ‘He is to be praised who is able to free himself from the enemies of Israel(Galt’s Gulch), and the just are much to be praised who get free from them and fight against them.’ Rabbi Chezkia asked, ‘How must we fight against them?’ Rabbi Jehuda said, ‘By wise counsel thou shalt war against them’ . By what kind of war? The kind of war that every son of man must fight against his enemies, which Jacob used against Esau—by deceit and trickery whenever possible. They must be fought against without ceasing, until proper order be restored. Thus it is with satisfaction that I say we should free ourselves from them and rule over them.”


    “The Akum are not to be cured, even for money, unless it would incur their enmity.”


    “No help is to be given to an Akum woman in labor on the sabbath, even in a small way, for the Sabbath must not be violated.”


    “If you see a heretic, who does not believe in the Torah(NAP), fall into a well in which there is a ladder, hurry at once and take it away and say to him ‘I have to go and take my son down from a roof; I will bring the ladder back to you at once’ or something else. The Kuthaei, however, who are not our enemies, who take care of the sheep of the Israelites, are not to be killed directly, but they must not be saved from death.”

    “The Akum who are not enemies of ours must not be killed directly, nevertheless they must not be saved from danger of death. For example, if you see one of them fall into the sea, do not pull him out unless he promises to give you money.”

    “Do not have any pity for them, for it is said: Show no mercy unto them. Therefore, if you see an Akum in difficulty or drowning, do not go to his help. And if he is in danger of death, do not save him from death. But it is not right to kill him by your own hand by shoving them into a well or in some other way, since they are not at war with us.”

  15. 56% of the world is a Judeo_Christian_Islamic theocracy. Soft or Hard varying theocracies of believers. The state is the seen. The holy deep state is the unseen.

    American separation of church/state is more on paper than in practice.

    The Seven Laws of Noah. Rules nearly 100% of people.

    8 min vid on Mossad(They have authority even for 9-11 Jews all called in sick.)

    MI 6 and CIA are more restrained but comparable. This permanent unseen deep state is our true govt, not those selected.

    7 Laws
    Do not deny God.
    Do not blaspheme God.
    Do not murder.
    Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.
    Do not steal.
    Do not eat from a live animal.
    Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.

    Every nation has a version. (exception in China substitute Party for God)

  16. If you mean a binary question of property rights and the sovereignty of the individual as moral standards.

    Then I would concede that I must be treated as someone who does not justify my actions and moral standards.

    I use a big screen TV as my monitor. And an infrared mouse as a remote control for this TV/Computer hybrid.

    In my house your YouTube channel is just another cable channel. There is no separation of electronic gizmos. All tablets phones laptops and workstations can display here. And on this great media altar, we watch British and Japanese TV shows. And the new Wonder Woman movie in 1080p with no compensation to creators.

    If you count cable, netflix, amazon, xbox, itunes, android, kindle, you’re talking many hundreds a month in payment for content. But I also “liberate” theatrical releases and television programs worldwide. And countless books audio and video, probably valued in the millions and all archived offline available for barter and SHTF scenarios.

    My modifications of the NAP are content pirating. And lying. I would lie to anyone anywhere anytime about anything if it benefits me. This is the best it is practical to do right now. And many others would and are doing much worse to me right now.

    There is a limit to the golden rule. Because gold isn’t used in exchange much at all. So I live in the existing fiat rule, and use fiat to my advantage to protect my life property and pursuit of happiness.

    If this makes me a pariah in the NAP club. So be it.

    The idea that some tiny minority can follow golden rules in a world of fiat is an altruistic self sacrifice too far for me. Most of the real founders were bootleggers and plantation bosses, and they built great fortunes and avoided violence as much as possible.

    But if sometimes their hired men had to lean on slaves, well we all need to eat and fuck and multiply, and you can’t always take the high road you’d like to take if you want to live well and prosper.

    I have more of a Mossad mindset. I’ll run all the non-NAP goyim I can to fill my pockets. I’ll give them a taste of NAP, but maintain my aloof intellectual advantages over the sacrificial tax cattle who can’t function without some heaping burden of noble burden on their semi-savage shoulders.

    I have all Larken Rose’s material stored offline. Never sent the guy a dime. I’d be willing to create some kind of intellectual ledger that shows my indebtedness to all the pirated content I have. But how someone like me can ever do more than declare moral bankruptcy, I have no idea.

    I don’t mean to crow about this in some kind of hideous Clover manner. It is just the reality that America has always been, before any Europeans ever arrived. I take whatever property I can take peacefully by any means. But I also offer property in exchange.

    Admittedly, it’s a poor exchange. But that is the true original American morality that goes back tens of thousands of years.

    • Hi Tor,

      “And lying. I would lie to anyone anywhere anytime about anything if it benefits me”.

      Lying is not a per se NAP violation. In certain cases it is, contractual obligation, fraud, etc…, but in many cases it is not. I am puzzled by libertarians who believe that lying necessarily violates the NAP. To assert this, one must assume that the imposition of an involuntary positive moral obligation is legitimate. How is this different than claiming that “we” have a moral obligation to pay taxes, help the poor, produce less CO2, etc…


      • To me life is like a game of Texas Hold Em. You have to be able to bluff. And to look strong or weak as it suits your needs.

        I would never bear false witness, which really pissed off my Dad. One time he gave back a rental property to some poor Greek fellow. I told I couldn’t testify, mostly because he had a hot daughter. But also because he was an honest hardworking aerospace engineer and truth be told, he was better than me or my father, if people can really be weighed and measured. That guy got screwed.

        I had lived their when my parents first threw me out a week before my sweet 16. Good times. Later some schmuck tenant deadbeat had a party and after the booze and dope was gone, they beat the walls and appliances like red headed stepchildren.

        I would recommend several sail fawns. For use in whatever different groups you frequent. And never tell anyone in group A contacts about the people in group B contacts.

        There is no requirement to be a single person. Just ask Thomas Paine or any Jew who took an American name. Or Cher.

        I do think lying can harmed loved ones, so I try to do so sparingly.

        Ayn Rand: Who has the usual chick’s view of lying:

        “People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked…The man who lies to the world, is the world’s slave from then on…There are no white lies, there is only the blackest of destruction, and a white lie is the blackest of all.”
        ― Atlas Shrugged

        The name on my drivers license, I self abdicated that identity long ago. My mother has a name for me. Not even the same name my father knew me by. The realest person was my Mother’s mother. A true Carmela and Toni Soprano all in one.

        She adopted my Mother out of a Minneapolis orphanage and brought her to far northern Michigan where I mostly grew up. Except when I was in the Ozarks for a while when my Dad sold $600 solar panels door to door.

        Papa would do whatever he could. File several patents for starch derivatives for the paper industry. Cook up in big vats and sell all kinds of consumables on a cash basis like a MADD scientist sober yet drunk with grey marketeering getting richer quicker dreams.

        What you’re last name people would ask. It so long and it has a funny symbol on that one letter. It’s pronounced Smith I’d say. It’s just spelled funny. And never any other answer more truer than that.

        Because all identity questions at root usually have statism as at least a partial purpose. What is your name. What is your history of crimes.

        • Hi Tor,

          Except in certain defined circumstances, nobody can claim a right to my honesty. Still, I rarely lie, and usually only when I believe the consequences of telling the “truth” will cause unnecessary harm. I understand Rand’s point but I must note the irony that she seems to be channeling her arch nemesis Kant. My biggest problem with Kant is that, unlike libertarianism, his views require an atomistic understanding of morality; adherence to an abstract ideal must be the only moral consideration. Rand’s view, in this passage is similar, and makes sense only if one believes that one must profess his “reality” whenever asked because to do otherwise is an “act of self-abdication”.

          What if part of my reality is to not be cruel? Very often, those who profess absolute honesty as a virtue are merely legitimizing their cruelty. I dislike and distrust cruel people, especially those who justify their cruelty on moral grounds. I consider myself a natural rights utilitarian. In other words, ends do not necessarily justify the means, but consequences do matter. Lying is a complex moral matter and it cannot be made simple by a rigid (and in my opinion, false) application of the NAP. Nor is “personal integrity” (implied by Rand) a sufficient a sufficient excuse for ignoring the likely consequences of one’s actions.

          Rand claims that “a white lie is the blackest of all”. In my view, this is morally repugnant. While I certainly have a right to truthfully assert my opinion on any matter to any person (absent specific, legitimate prohibitions), does refusing to do so make others my master? Rand believed that the individual is the ultimate value and that, absent aggression, the pursuit of self interest is the highest goal. But, as you stated earlier, maintaining peace and friendship with others is in your self interest. If you believe that a “white lie” is conducive to this goal, who is Rand to insist otherwise?

          Finally, sometimes telling a lie is the only morally correct action. I will not invoke the slave catcher/Jew hunter example but give a more EPAutos relevant scenario. Imagine a friend of Eric is testing out his new motorcycle. About three miles from Eric’s house, he blows by a cop at 120 MPH. He knows that if he stops he’s fucked, so he cranks it up to 150, reaches Eric’s house long before the cop sees him turn into the driveway, and hides his bike in the garage. Fifteen minutes later, the cop arrives at Eric’s house and asks Eric if he is “harboring” this “criminal”. Now, Eric has three choices: tell the truth, refuse to answer or lie. Keep in mind, Eric’s friend has not harmed anyone and, therefore, Eric believes that he should not be punished. If Eric tells the truth, his friend will be illegitimately punished. If he refuses to answer, the cop is likely to believe that Eric is hiding something, assert probable cause, obtain a search warrant and call for back-up, which will likely cause harm to both Eric and his friend. Or, he can lie. Which is the correct choice? If one believes that lying constitutes a NAP violation, Eric must tell the truth or refuse to answer. If one believes that lying is an act of self-abdication, then Eric must tell the truth or refuse to answer. Either scenario is likely to result in harm. The correct answer is to lie. Recently Bionic Mosquito made a great observation: “libertarianism is thin, life is thick”.


            • Hi Tor,

              Thanks for the link. I do not have a shed but I do have a shop. In it, I keep my lathe and mill, an “awesome set of tools” and the material things that bring me the most joy.


                • I often imagine living in my shed. I’m somewhat of a minimalist; I love simplicity. I’ll go in the shed to get a tool or something, and start fantasizing about living in it…and then forget what it is that I went there for!

                  But since I already have a perfectly good singlewide, and it’s not inhabited by some odious bitch- just my dogs and cats, I can partake of the luxury!

              • That brings back the feels.

                My cousin who was like a brother to me built us a treehouse. I helped as a dumb laborer. He was the structural and materials engineer. He conceived the process and told me the needed steps. I provided the brute assembly and boundless energy.

                We started in the early morning in the horse pasture, near the rock pile, where we often hunted for geodes by cracking them open one after another.

                He went to bed that evening with his family, I stayed up all night working by moonlight, I work best when everyone else is asleep. It was nearly dawn before I was done. I think I might have slept up there even.

                Man those were the days. I wonder if it was really moving up in the world, coming down from the trees like ol’ Darwin claimed.

                This was our alloidial titled domain. Sure, the old corn crib loft was bigger and most of our treasures he and I kept up there. But the best tools and geodes, the most secret and spectacular things, we kept in the treehouse.

                He and I didn’t know it then, but we were each other’s competition. Though two years younger he was my superior in building, fighting, imagining, and executing most anything.

                But where he was hyperactive and dyslexic, I was literate and tirelessly scholastic. So I played the Jacob to his Esau, and years later got the blessing and sinecure from our families’ moneyed matriarch.

                He’s gone now. Last time I saw him, I brought him an inner city Detroit filly out to the sticks for him, he got laid but couldn’t seal the longterm deal because he was such a corny hick. Too bad she was a stunner and still is.

                The filly showed my wife his letters and she told me about it saying he was having a ruff time. Spelled just as written. The things people care about. Well also, he dressed like Eminem in these ridiculous baggy pants like some motwon rapper.

                Why are rural guys so cucked by city guys? Especially mongrel gibs me types? His family had thousands of acres, but he just had a truck. And an old house where every floor leaned to one side like living in the Tower of Pisa.

                I miss him. I’ll just stop here.

                • I spent my childhood building forts and tree houses- from scavenged wood, and nails purchased with my $2 a week allowance (I think I singularly kept that hardware store in business!).

                  The one time an adult friend of of a friend got us a good piece of plywood which formed the basis of my best work….we had the tree house for barely one day before someone stole the plywood!

            • If I spend more time in my shed, will I become a better writer? Just gotta get me one’a them anti-Q Underwood typewriters, and kick that Thoreau guy out…. (I already have a fountain pen…seriously!)

          • I would tell all colors of lives to this costumed slave catcher.

            If at my door, I’d calculate what is on his dashboard terminal. That links to Amazon AWS powered CIA inerlaced databases. And lie and then switch to asking for his help on a case of my own.

            If caught then adjust my lie. Never does the lying stop.

            Default tho is utter submission and truth. Cops came to my house when I was 3 first time.

            Sang like I was confessing to a priest.

            Best way to get an answer on the internet is to assert a lie or half known truth.

            Quickly you will be corrected.

      • I argue that lying is a violation of the Golden/Silver rule which is the basis of the NAP so while it may not be an act of aggression it is a tool available to those who wish to harm others. I do not want anyone lying to me so therefore I should not be lying to others is my standard.

        This is not to say that the act of lying is not complicated. White lies about one’s wife’s butt not looking fat in her new dress kinda things.

        And especially there are cases where there are those who do not deserve the truth. Jeremy gives a good example about the motorcycle test ride.

        Maybe the morality of the lie depends on whether or not the liar is lying to gain advantage for himself at the expense or harm of others.

        Wisdom is required here.

        • Hi skunkbear,

          As you imply, the act of lying is subordinate to a higher morality or purpose. Lying does not necessarily violate the golden rule, as you may, in certain circumstances, wish to be lied to. Kant’s categorical imperative is often described as a philosophical formulation of the golden rule, but it is not. Kant insists that one must judge the morality of an action by asking “would I wish this become a universal law”. The golden rule merely requires that one consider the reciprocal nature of human action. In theory, the golden rule does not even preclude aggressive violence, as one could both wish to dominate and welcome challenges as proof of the “legitimacy” of one’s dominance. But, such people are outliers and, in practice, the golden rule is a better moral guide than the categorical imperative.

          Kind Regards,

          • Jeremy, but is not the Golden/Silver rule itself the one universal law? To ask the question “Would I wish this to be a universal law?” is to ask “Would I want this law to be applied equally to myself?”

            Now one can answer yes to that on certain things e.g. drug laws. One can say they want drug prohibition and they want it to apply to themselves too because they do not use drugs. But drug usage falls under the category of no one elses business. So for someone to support butting into other’s business they then cannot complain if others butt into their business.

            Would one want others to inflict aggressive violence on oneself? If not then one has no moral authority to claim the right to inflict aggressive violence on others.

            Kind Regards to you too sir.

            • Hi Skunkbear,

              Kan’t’s formulation of the categorical imperative is negative. So, the formulation would be, “would I wish that lying become a universal law”?. If no, than one must not lie. He also believed that doing good because it makes one feel good is amoral. Kantian morality is devoid of nuance, lifeless and atomistic. It precludes the the idea that specific circumstances matter when choosing the correct moral action. His theory supports the absurdity you described earlier about the Jehovah’s witness kid.

              The golden rule asks that one judge his own actions by imagining if he were the recipient of those actions. Application of the golden rule requires empathy and imagination. It is nuanced, vibrant and inclusive. It allows for some moral ambiguity and implicitly recognizes that specific circumstances matter. It is the opposite of the categorical imperative.

              Kind Regards,

              • Jeremy, I think you may have mistaken me on the Jehovah Witness Kid thing. Not sure what you are talking about there.

                Anyway, whether the formula is negative based or not the result is the same – one cannot get around the G/S rule for the basis of all morality, the foundation of civility. Anything else is barbarism.

                Or Authoritarianism. Funny how both evils have the same foundation.

                As to the issue of doing good, is one supposed to feel bad for doing good? Why? And how is it immoral to feel good about doing good? My reply to Kant is “So what?”

                • Hi skunbear,

                  It was Nunzio who told the story of the Jehovah’s witness kid who claimed he would not lie, even to protect his mother from jack-booted nazis, seeking to take her to a concentration camp. Sorry, I misattributed this to you.

                  Anyway, you seem to think that I am dismissing the Golden rule, I am not. You responded to an earlier post of mine by claiming that the categorical imperative and the Golden rule amount to the same thing.

                  You wrote: “Would I wish this to be a universal law?” is to ask “Would I want this law to be applied equally to myself?”

                  In my last post, my intention was to show the difference between the two, and clearly show the superiority of the Golden rule. Moral judgements based on the categorical imperative do not allow for consideration of specific circumstances or likely results. The Golden rule requires consideration of specific circumstances and likely results.

                  This conversation (between us) began because you claimed that lying violates the Golden rule. I do not think this is true, and this is one of the reasons that the Golden rule is different and better than Kantian morality. So, going back to my EPAutos scenario, Eric is faced with a choice. If he believes in the categorical imperative, the only correct action is to tell the truth. But, the action most consistent with the Golden rule is to lie.

                  This is so because, applying the Golden rule, the question is not “would I wish that lying become a universal law” but “would I wish that someone lie to protect me from illegitimate harm”. The Golden rule explicitly requires the consideration of others when making such choices. As such, the Golden rule is the foundation of civility.

                  Does this make my position clear?

                  Kind Regards,

                  • Dear Jeremy,

                    … the question is not “would I wish that lying become a universal law” but “would I wish that someone lie to protect me from illegitimate harm”.

                    Correct! In fact, obviously correct!

                    I’ve often used the example of a mugger who asks you “Is that all the money you have on you?”

                    Does “honesty” mean that one must tell a mugger that the wallet he just took from you was a sacrificial decoy, and that you have several thousand dollars hidden in a secret compartment in the heel of your shoe?

                    Only a complete simpleton would interpret “honesty” that way.

                    • So true, Mr. Bevin!

                      I use the same illustration against those who say that it is “dishonest” or “cheating” to avoid/minimize taxes.

                      Is it dishonest to tell the mugger that you have no money? Are you cheating him by not letting him have access to all that you have for the purpose of his stealing it? Of course not.

                    • Yes.

                      If I hear a person use the term “tax cheat”, or “tax evader”, or “draft dodger”, “draft evader”, I immediately know I’m looking at an indoctrinated sheep, at someone who is unable to think for himself, but whose assumptions about right and wrong were implanted in him by Big Brother.

                    • My Dear Mr. Bevin [<–Dr. Smith voice! ] 🙂

                      The only "tax cheats" I know of, are those who cheat us out of our money and justify it by calling it "tax".

                    • Oooopppss! That wasn’t the clip I thought it was…might want to ignore that link, Bevin….

                      (Tor might still enjoy it though… 🙂 )

                      Now I’ll have to search YT to hear what Agent Smith sounds like… 😀

                    • Bevin @9:24 June 11, excellent take sir.

                      The notion of “Duty, Honor, Country” is the creed of a slave but is obnoxious and repugnant to any free man.

                  • Jeremy, my apologies. I was not suggesting you were dismissing the Golden Rule. I understand what you are saying. My point is that Kant and Golden Rule are looking at the same problem but from different perspectives. I am only saying that I think the Golden Rule side is the correct side.

                    Sorry for any confusion, it is entirely my fault. But I do love a good conversation.

                    Best regards, Skunk

                    • Hi Skunk,

                      No apologies needed, but I appreciate it. I’ve enjoyed the conversation as well and I think we agree on the important stuff.

                      I don’t think that the dismissal of truth is OK. I just think that sometimes, to honor truth, one must lie.


                  • Jeremy, “The Golden rule explicitly requires the consideration of others when making such choices. As such, the Golden rule is the foundation of civility. ”

                    Absolutely agree.

                    I include “I do not want someone to lie to me so therefore I should not lie to others into the dogma of The Golden Rule/NAP”.

                    But, as I have posted before, with the issue of lying there are many exceptions which require Wisdom.

                    When is the dismissal of the Truth ok? If ok, then does this dismissal mean that Good can come out of not acknowledging/denying the Truth? If so, then this seems to me that Truth is meaningless.

                    • Skunk & Jeremy,

                      This thoughtful exposition between the two of you on the subject of lying and the Golden Rule, is a wonderful explanation of why, although the Bible commands honesty and truthfulness in one’s dealings, there is no outright “Thou shalt not lie” command!

                      Imagine how easily good people would be turned to being the tools of the wicked if there were such a command!

                    • Nunzio, that is a good point about the commandment not being about not lying but rather about not bearing false witness against your neighbor. IOW do not lie if it is going to harm others. I think that is a good way to look at the morality of lying.

        • >>”Maybe the morality of the lie depends on whether or not the liar is lying to gain advantage for himself at the expense or harm of others.”<<

          This is true!

          In the Bible, God Himself even blesses people for lying when it was for the cause of good- i.e. He blessed the midwives for lying to Pharaoh, in order to defy his command to kill the male Israelite children who were being birthed; and He blessed Rahab for lying to the government of her city of Jericho when hiding the Israelite spies.

          Deal honestly and truthfully- but we are under no obligation to suffer injustice or promote evil just to avoid lying to those whose intent is to use the truth in their commission of nefarious deeds- for if we tell them the truth, are we not complicit in their deeds, when a lie could have thwarted them from committing those deeds?

          I believe questions such this really illustrate a person's true motivations and allegiances. A few years ago, I was talking to this Jehovah's [false]Witness, and we were having a conversation about this very subject, and his position was that one should never lie, no matter what.

          I asked him if jack-booted Nazis were at his door, looking for his mother, to haul her off to the concentration/FEMA camp, would he lie and say that she wasn't there, or tell the truth and let them cart her away? He said he would tell the truth!!!!

          Right there, it became clear that that kid's allegiance was to an organization, more so than to his God; his family; or himself. (The poor mother- she has the one black kid who won't lie….even to save her butt!)

          [Where's Mac? He should be hearing this. 😀 ]

    • Tor, “I would lie to anyone anywhere anytime about anything if it benefits me.”

      With very rare exceptions this forfeits one’s moral authority to complain about others doing the same including those in power.

      • Because Jews and Rothbard’s perversion of Rand’s original NAP? Or Mossad comic book morality

        White cucks are the ONLY ones who practice this.

        Every other group owes nothing to outsiders.

        Good luck in Han China with that.

        Moral authority to complain? Who grants that? If one has this but no property or power. What use is it.

        This fails because people aren’t fungible. You might be a perfect gentleman for 20 years.

        Your wife might still divorce you cause she meets a guy with a better job, one who’s better looking etc.

        Your moral points are irrelevant to her Pussy Power.
        Enjoy your Altruism Participation Trophy.

        Just your opinion man.

        Interesting belief though.

        We each have a story we tell and follow.

        There is no mechanism or math that reconciles them.

        This is Hayek’s fatal conceit and Bastiat’s window.

        I am unlike others IRL. Rarely are those in power against me.

        I will never be caught because I am compartmentalized so what you see as a lie. Is true to my partitioned identities.

        Later with the wife. I will temporally love Trump Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfield with her.

        That’s as NAP as she rolls and it’s just one Major Key for me.

        I am an insrument of many harmonies. Dissonant if all played at once.

        But beautiful in each libretto for each listener.

        • Tor, I absolutely, totally 100% agree with you about White cucks and the war on Whites. One has to deliberately refuse to see what is clearly obvious – the White race is under genocidal attack. And I fully agree with you as to who is behind it.

          Whites need to understand that we are indeed at war with those who seek to destroy us. We did not want this war but it is here whether we want it or not.

          In a war the enemy is not worthy of the truth. They are not truthful with us so we are under no obligation to be truthful with them. But we must be truthful with ourselves and our tribe.

          And I would add that the US government is clearly part of the enemy’s force so it too does not deserve the truth either. They initiated the aggression therefore we have the right to respond by any means necessary.

          This is the very essence of the other side of the NAP IMO.

          BTW pussy power is real but it is useless against me because I am asexual. It is the most liberating thing that has ever happened to me.

          • I have friends and hang out with skinhead bikers white makes right kind of guys. You know the Gammas and Deltas, not the higher minded ones who I don’t mesh well with.

            I look at Stormfront plebs as a more healthy version of militantly statist obeyers. I don’t care about the melanin in the skin. Certainly lots of dark indians are every bit our equals. Maybe sometimes a bit better. If only they could have a spec of independent gumption.

            The Lew Rockwell ideal is a great starting point. But there is more to the equation than just the system of anarcho capitalism and austrian economics. I don’t know exactly what all more is needed. But first is to keep swallowing the red pills. And keep watching all the matrices fade out. Lucky is the man who transcends the pussy matrix.

            I live in that one mostly, and all my complex identities probably stem from wanting some independent existence outside of the one institutional matrix of unto death do I part. Being 50 its more a case of potentials than actuals nowadays.

            I am a great student of the UK and Japanese govt. These are functioning governments that address every intricate thing to the very last detail. And there is a comfort and a safety there that seems genuine, unlike the current American Pie in the face farce.

            Careful driving your Chevy to the levy, or buying a bottle of whiskey and rye. Good old altruist boys singing I regret I can only but once for my country declare this to be the day that I die.

            Bye bye Miss American pie.

            • Hi Tor,

              People will only accept that which they agree with. So long as most of them accept authoritarian collectivism, we will have some form of authoritarian collectivism. It will wax, too, as the population increases. H.L. Mencken observed – rightly, I think – that the plague which wiped out half of Europe’s population is what resulted in the Renaissance.

              • Authoritarian collectivism is alive in well in Mother England today. The Tories now need to cede some control to Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist to maintain rule.

                Brexit is still on but the Irish want a soft EU/UK border and are far more traditional/conservative than the only nominally conservative Tories.

                I’m still optimistic Trump+Brexit will move the US & UK heimats to also experience the elite privileges that Israel has long enjoyed despite the Jews abysmal industry and value provision.

              • Ya know, Eric, I was not aware of Mencken’s plague/Renaissance quote, but in thinking about the coming economic crash/breakdown of our own society, I always imagined that it will be the self-sufficient; the capable; the intelligent; and the seekers of liberty who will survive in greater numbers (Although a large number of barbarians will survive also, due to theim having compunctions about using violence and theft for their own benefit- so as to kind of mitigate the positive effects of the more civilized and liberty-minded groups- but at least the balance may swing a little more in our favoer than it is now).

                On the other hand, who are going to be the first to go when crisis strikes? Those who are reliant upon big government (When the entitlements and paychecks stop, they won’t know how to do anything useful); single mothers, who have built their existence upon a false independence, made possible only by the welfare state; Minority groups who practice a dysfunctional culture, and who only survive because of protectionist laws.

                We’ve come to the point where even most farmers are more dependent on government subsidies, loans, and programs, than on trading on the free market; and where businessmen are more concerned with generating numbers which will give them a positive rating on Wall St. even if it means degrading their actual businesses….

                History sure does repeat…..

                Let’s hope that maybe, just maybe, there will be enough of us to at least establish a few little areas of sanctuary where some freedom can exist. Even that is a long-shot though.

            • Tor, I wish no ill will on anyone. But it is clear that others wish a whole lot of ill will against me and other Whites just because we are White. But Whites have every right to defend themselves from this onslaught.

              I wish it did not have to be this way and it could have been prevented but shit is coming.

              • It sure is coming SB, and ironically, you know who anticipated this very thing 50 years ago? Of all people: Charles Manson!

            • The idea of “racism” is a sham, invented to shame white people into accepting acts of aggression against our own cultures.

              Very few people, except for a handful of idiots, believe that skin color has anything to do with intelligence or behavior, etc.

              All skin color does, is identify people as being members of a certain culture or group- and if a large number of members of any such group who are so identifiable by visible physical traits, such as skin color, engage in negative behavior, naturally all people who appear to belong to that group will be viewed negatively, unless they prove themselves to be at odds with the culture to which most of their brethren belong.

              Just like Italians and organized crime. Some people think all Italians are mobsters. You can’t blame the people who think that, because there are plenty of Italian mobsters. Blame the many Italians who perpetrate the behavior which causes the stereotype.

              By-the-way, ironically, Stormfront is owned by a Jew!

              I have a friend who is a mod at – I find it ironic that a website which is based on political incorrectness, engages in censorship, and actually prohibits it’s users from using certain expressions (such as “coal-burner”) or from criticizing/poking fun at Jews and faggots. -A site on which you say “nigger” all day long…. (It could be a fun site- I would join, if it weren’t for the censorship).

              • Nunzio, the differences between the races goes beyond skin color. The differences in intelligence, temperament, empathy, future planning etc. are clearly observable. The purpose of Political Correctness is to convince people to not see what they clearly do see.

                Ask the question: Why would Stormfront be owned by a Jew? Who benefits and how?

                • Hi, SB,

                  Clearly, there are differences- we’d have to be fools to deny that. Does the culture perpetuate the characteristics, or did the inherent traits create the culture? Maybe a little of both- but we’d all be far better off if people would accept the obvious facts rather than trying to deny it, and saying that “we are all the same”.

                  Clearly, the idea of a “melting pot” civilization, is one of cultural genocide, in which the strong and independent are degraded, and all come to acquire the beliefs, actions and culture of the lowest common denominator. (And is that not exactly what we are seeing today, as even middle-aged white people listen to rap “music” and dress like “homies”?)

                  Yes, I actually publicized the fact that Stormfront was owned by a Jew- I forget his name now. He was based in Palm Beach, FL. The info was freely available on one of those domain look-up sites. Shortly thereafter, he switched ownership from his personal name to a corporate name. (Not that I had any interest in Stormfront- I don’t like skinhead/Neo-Nazi types…. My Niggermania mod friend had some interest in it, and I forget what prompted me to investigate it…)

                  As for the motivation? I believe that just like in the past, where a lot of physical groups and clubs existed as a means to discover people’s true alliances and beliefs, and as a way to spy on them/infiltrate/steer them, so now a lot of websites do. Sometimes for the government…sometimes for other groups who may want to use them as useful idiots.

                  You can be sure some such subterfuge is at play on sites like, too. Why on earth would a site that encourages it’s members to use the term “niggers”, prohibit one from refering to white girls who sleep with black bucks as “coal-burners’, or from making negative comments about queers or Jews? It just doesn’t make sense. Funny thing too, is that virtually all of the other similar sites, like, etc. are the same way….

                  • Nunzio, well said, fully agreed.

                    The question of “Is it race or culture?” is one of the most sophomoric questions of all time: can a culture create a race? No, but a race can and does create a culture.

  17. Hmmm…

    Well, that’s too bad. I’ve usually found this site to have a rational discussion regarding political issues, including issues surrounding drunk driving.

    No more, apparently.

    I am a Mormon, and I live in Utah. And, I find the .05 BAC ridiculous. I don’t drink, and never will. I recognize the change in the law as an opportunity for the STATE to garner more funds by pulling over more people for DUI and then fleecing them.

    The Mormon Church (correct name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) isn’t garnering anything here, outside of their influence. They certainly don’t stand to benefit financially by this ridiculous law.

    That said, some of the statements I’ve seen here regarding the church and its influence are a bit off, and a a bit irritating. You don’t care for religion, that’s fine. But, if you’re going to slap around one particular faith, then perhaps this is the time to find somewhere else to fill my informational needs.

    When will a column be forthcoming involving Catholics, Jews, or Muslims? I can’t wait to read that….

    • Jesus Christ warned of false prophets. He did not make any exceptions for Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or Senator Hatch or Rep. Thurston or Spencer Kimball.

      If you are truly a friend of liberty, you do not let a state legislature off the hook when it enacts a tyrannical statute that is utterly repugnant to First Principles. If the state legislature is comprised almost exclusively of Mormons (about 88%), it would be utterly irrational to criticize those of us who correctly connect the dots.

    • Hi Michael,

      My critique wasn’t directed at Mormons per se. I was hoping to make the point that this business is religious in nature; the Mormons being secondary.

      It’s an anti-alcohol (an anti-liberty) jihad.

      A shabby excuse to increase the power of the government by criminalizing conduct that harms no one.

    • “…slap around one particular faith…”?? First, politicians who use laws to enforce their religious agenda are despicable bastards. They “slap around” millions. Eric points is out, and suddenly he is characterized by you as attacking a “faith”? I’ve seen this before. Israel attacks the defenseless U.S.S. Liberty (1967) with the intent to kill everybody on board and president Johnson lets it happen, then covers it up. People call out Israel and their facts are not addressed, only “You are ant-Semeitic.” or “Go attack someone else’s religion.”

      You can focus on what was actually said, or deflect and try to put the messenger on the defensive. Sadly you did the latter. Being “irritated” (offended?) by facts does not justify it.

        • The whole of Israel is like Bel Air. Everywhere totally safe and orderly. Everywhere property unmolested and secure. Perhaps a few ghettos that are as bad as small town.

          No violent underclass. No homeless, graffiti, drug seekers for the most part.

          Women are traditional while there. There state exists only to serve Israelis. Their Mossad is empowered to do anything in the world, except in Israel.

          In the US each agent runs hundreds of rackets. Has hundreds of thousands of people they “run.” Most of them here in the US. Porn. Film. TV. They are the ultimate free marketers when they are in someone else’s nation. Hands in every American’s pockets, to send a cut back home and to live like Sultan’s here.

          Women there are traditional. It is only everywhere else in the world that they play the slut. And the word Jewess has always meant, the best courtesans in the world. But now they stand above the world of non-Jewish men.

          These women say transgenders and gays are sacred. And soon it is so. That nudity is bad, and nowhere in America is nudity allowed. Only in European nations is this still allowed, though always under seige.

          Christianity and Islam are products of Jewish engineering. They churn out Jewish pets that are well housebroken to serve their masters. I say this only to redpill your minds. Not to say we need another violent solution and war against are intellectual dominators.

          Jews rule the world through the UK Commonwealth. And they, like America, are still members of this 2.2 billion people. Right now Londoners are freer and less dehumanized than Americans. But this is always in flux.

          Our prosperity and technical knowledge has Greek roots. But somehow, though Greece assimilated Judaism and scattered them to the wind. The Jews learned to live inside a superior hierarchy, while largely retaining their autonomy and independence of thought. Though not of industry and physical manifestation.

          I say this not as an antisemite, but as an admirer. Of what a state could be, if we’re going to have one. The only protection against this is to have a nation without

    • Dear Michael,

      Some Muslim “refugees” who have emigrated to Western nations have succeeded in getting Sharia Law imposed upon non-Muslims in their host nations.

      To wit:

      A German court has ruled that seven Islamists who formed a vigilante patrol to enforce Sharia law on the streets of Wuppertal did not break German law and were simply exercising their right to free speech. The “politically correct” decision, which may be appealed, effectively authorizes the Sharia Police to continue enforcing Islamic law in Wuppertal.

      The self-appointed “Sharia Police” distributed leaflets which established a “Sharia-controlled zone” in Wuppertal. The men urged both Muslim and non-Muslim passersby to attend mosques and to refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gambling, music, pornography and prostitution.

      Critics say the cases — especially those in which German law has taken a back seat to Sharia law — reflect a dangerous encroachment of Islamic law into the German legal system.

      In June 2013, a court in Hamm ruled that anyone who contracts marriage according to Islamic law in a Muslim country and later seeks a divorce in Germany must abide by the original terms established by Sharia law. The landmark ruling effectively legalized the Sharia practice of “triple-talaq,” obtaining a divorce by reciting the phrase “I divorce you” three times.

      A growing number of Muslims in Germany are consciously bypassing German courts altogether and instead are adjudicating their disputes in informal Sharia courts, which are proliferating across the country.

      Suppose Islamic fundamentalists flooded Utah, and began imposing Sharia Law upon residents of Utah, the way they have in Germany?

      Would you be “irritated” if Eric “slapped them around” for imposing their Islam based values upon Mormons and other non-Muslims via the legal system?

      Or are you “irritated” only because Eric’s lament about the evils of theocracy happened to involve Mormonism in this particular instance?

      Why do I suspect it is the latter?

      • Actually, if religious fundamentalists in America, Muslim or otherwise, decided to hand out leaflets saying they were imposing religious law, but did not do anything to enforce that, that would be considered an exercise of their First Amendment rights.

      • Dr Bevin:

        I am a man of faith. Every bit the zealot as the most fanatical of the 23000 million christ-ers, 17000 million mohammed-ians, and 21 million yahweh-sters existing worldwide most of whom took the one sacred blue pill.

        I have faith you will take your redpill and see how far YOUR rabbit hole goes. Jeremy take his redpill and see how far HIS rabbit hole goes. and Nunzio will take his redpill and see how far HIS rabbit hole goes, and so on the long list of liberty patriarchs here.

        We will each be our own Rabbiis (Rabbits). Our pill formulas and rabbit hole locations and logistics may vary widely.

        But in the abstract we will all be the same clever creatures adapting to an unfree habitat.

        In the abstract our beliefs are righteously cumulative. We are blessed anarcho disciples though separated by time, space, dialects, and local predatory mental carnivore avoidance adaptations.

        We use our jew-jisu to fight off the behind the scenes power-elite who police the use of Matrix English.

        Our FreeSpeak English is under intense silencing pressure.

        We’re not even at Cockney slang status yet.

        We’re a powerless micro minority living month to month on the prayer that Eric will not delivered unto Asset Confiscation.

        If they get to our Synagog Sensei, we’ll all be back in Diaspora.

        Maybe even be virtually holocausted, gassed off the internet by our IP. Or placed in Facebook/YouTube troll concentration camps for having consumed too much wrongthink.

    • Dear Michael,

      Bear in mind that pretty much everyone who posts here is an “anarcho-capitalist”, “free market anarchist”, or “voluntaryist”. Google the terms if you are unfamiliar with what they mean.

      Some are religionists. Those who are, are mostly Protestants. Others are not. Religion or opposition to religion is not the common denominator here. It is considered a side issue. Respect for natural rights and individual liberty is.

      Anyone whose religion remains a matter of individual conscience, who does not condone its imposition by law upon others, will not get any flak here.

      In fact, the harshest “slapping around” is usually reserved for left liberal welfare statists who are nominally atheists, but who are actually religious zealots. Their religion is “democracy”, a secularized form of blind faith.

      • Bevin, the term “religious zealots” is exactly what I call liberal statists too! The mindset of libs is the same as those “witch” hunters during the Middle Ages. Except now instead of crying “Witch!” they cry out “Racist!” or “Sexist!” etc. There is absolutely no reasoning with them. Their god is government and their dogma is “Equality” uber alles.

        This is why they have to use weapon grade doublethink to rationalize their contradiction in supporting women and gay rights while also supporting muslims flooding in.

        • Dear sb,

          Yes. The term I often use is “coercive egalitarianism”. That is their underlying dogma.

          But interestingly enough, just as most religions preach equality but practice hierarchy, so it is with coercive egalitarians.

          They talk a good game, but look at the economic status of all the political candidates, especially at the national government level. They are all billionaires these days. Being a mere muliti-millionaire these days no longer cuts it.

          The egalitarian part of “coercive egalitarianism” is window dressing. The coercive part of “coercive egalitarianism” is the substance.

          Government is never about any of the wonderful things it is supposedly about, such as “freedom and human rights”, or “liberty and justice for all”.

          Government is and always has been about only one thing — CONTROL.

          Government is merely a framework that enables sociopathic control freaks to act out their psychoses, and experience artificial reassurances that “everything is under control” — their control, that is. That is its true raison d’etre.

          In short, government is not a hallmark of civilizational order. Government is a symptom of mental illness.

          • Yep. Government is nothing but a gun to the head and the person holding it is always – Always! – a sociopath, D or R.

            True civilization is based on respecting your fellow man and being polite with each other. No gun to the head needed.

            • “True civilization is based on respecting your fellow man and being polite with each other.”

              I could even do without the politeness. We don’t have to all like each other- that’s the province of political-correctness! 🙂

              Some people I’ll never respect- whether personally, or as a group. I have no obligation to be polite to them. They may find my views of them or my words to them offensive, as I find their existence offensive. So be it.

              As long as I do not harm their person or property, that is as much as I can do without abandoning my own rights.

              • Morning, Nunzio!

                I do not support false civility. Meaning, I do not feel burdened by an obligation to show respect for people whose views are loathsome to me. For example, committed authoritarian collectivists. I do my best to avoid having any interaction with them at all.

                • Exactly, Eric!

                  I need to be more like that. I tend to try and give people the benefit of the doubt too often, thinking perhaps that they mean well, but that they just may have never encountered thoughts of true liberty; thinking that it would be easier to at least present our arguments to them if we were “nice”.

                  But I see no evidence of that having born any fruit. And in-fact, in my own life, on the occasions when someone has gotten my attention and made me think, it usually wasn’t because they were being nice and polite and coddling…it was rather because they took a strong stand for what was right, and condemned that which was wrong, without mincing words- and if anyone’s going to be converted, it is because their own conscience convicts them; and their conscience is less lilely to convict them if we’re being falsely polite and friendly.

        • They are indeed religious zealots, and their liturgy/law/torah/law (whatever you want to call it) is political correctness! Want to know how to conduct yourself in the Church Of Globalist States? Want to know the proper words to use to appease the black robed priest….just consult the nearest college for the latest catechism…..

      • I personally have a warm place in my heart for smack downs on “Clovers” whenever they presume their Holier than thou attitude here….it’s why I keep comming back!

  18. Dear Eric,

    This makes me think of the scene in Sam Peckinpah’s classic Western “The Wild Bunch”, where the Temperance Union clovers find themselves in the middle of a firefight between the Wild Bunch and the hired guns of the railroad, and get blasted to Kingdom Come.

    Don’t know why…

    Actually I do, heh heh heh…

    • Dear Antonio,

      You wrote:

      “And, to put your mind at ease, I am also not interested in forcing my beliefs on others. I used to be a Moral Majority type, until I realized that we can’t remake the world as we would like it to be. That’s not our mission. So, I stopped trying.”

      The fact that you “used to be a Moral Majority type” is what makes many “non-theists” leery of devout religionists.

      It isn’t so much that they can’t tolerate your choice to believe.

      It’s that they fear you will succumb to the impulse to impose your beliefs on them, by force, the way Sharia Law zealots do, or Medieval era Catholic Church Inquisitors did.

      The fact that you overcame that impulse however, is a hopeful sign for humanity. It means that peaceful coexistence is not impossible.

      Actually the biggest threat today comes from “secular religionists” known as “Champions of Democracy”, who are determined to convert everyone to Democracy, even if they have to bomb them back into the Stone Age.

      Bevin, sorry to do this here, but I couldn’t find a reply link at the end of your comment to me, so I’m piggy-backing on this comment.

      I have one main rejoinder, and that is, all of us anarchists used to be something else, presumably a Statist of some stripe who wanted to impose their beliefs on others. So, your point is actually not as effective as you suppose. So, I don’t quite get why you mention Christians or religious people, specifically, when all of us are subject to that impulse, even as anarchists. We are not always consistent. If it’s not religion, it’s some other philosophy or “ism”. All of us have what Judge Napolitano calls, “libido dominandi”. That some of us largely give up that lust doesn’t negate the fact that we once indulged ourselves.

      That’s all I have.

      • Antonio, that is some thing that I find myself often having to remind people of- that people of EVERY persuasion, religion, philosophy and political ideology universally want to impose their beliefs/values/way of life on everyone else- and the more so if they believe in “democracy” [They think that they are perfectly justified in doing so, as long as enough of their comrades exist to give them the clout to impose their beliefs], and even more so if they are liberals who constantly moan about “the Christian Right” wanting to impose their views on everyone- while they themselves want to impose their leftist views on everyone at gunpoint and with brutality.

        We, free-market anarchists, seem to be the only ones who advocate freedom for all to do what they feel is best in their own lives / want to do / feel is expedient in order to live their consciences before God.

        The world can only be as free as the freedom which we advocate for our neighbors and enemies. No wonder the world is under tyranny, for most who claim to advocate freedom, only advocate the freedom to practice what they consider to be propitious, and only for those who are like minded. In their view, all others must either be restricted, or forced to practice only what they consider appropriate.

        For some odd reason, people tend not to realize that it makes no difference who the oppressor is- whether it be the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the Muslims, or the Secular Humanists or the Marxists, etc. Any time we are compelled to serve others or do that which is against our will, what difference does it really make as to which group is pointing the gun at our heads?

        • Dear Nunzio,

          “The world can only be as free as the freedom which we advocate for our neighbors and enemies. No wonder the world is under tyranny, for most who claim to advocate freedom, only advocate the freedom to practice what they consider to be propitious, and only for those who are like minded. In their view, all others must either be restricted, or forced to practice only what they consider appropriate.”

          You have put your finger on the simple reason why there is no escape from tyranny anywhere in the world today, even in Antarctica.

          The reason is that most people who claim to be champions of freedom, are champions only of their own freedom, and tyrants when it comes to anyone else’s freedom.

          Gail is almost a caricature of that transparently hypocritical mindset.

          The reason freedom is nowhere to be found anywhere in today’s world, is that most people are plain and simple tyrants, no matter how loudly they insist that they cherish freedom.

  19. I really think that this .05 BS is just the next logical step toward making driving so onerous; so perilous to one’s liberty and finances, that between things like this, and all of the EPA/NHTSA nonsense making the cars so expensive and so prone to planned obsolescence, that it is just the American way of covertly complying with the UN agenda to practically eliminate driving for the masses by 2030. In other countires like Germany and India, they make a decree that internal combustion engined cars will be gone by 2030. In many countries in Europe, they’ve already been doing the .05% and all the other BS designed to dissuade mundanes from driving (and make it too expensive).

    I kind of expected the .05 to start here- but thought it would be in CA or MA or NY 1st- but UT’s as good as any,, seeing as the Mormon big-wigs are all high-level Freemasons. (I’m not much on secret society conspiracies, but there is some validity to Mormons carrying out the goals of Freemasonry unabashed).

    This is something which will spread like wildfire once it is established in UT. Within a few short years, it’ll be the new standard for the whole country. It’s like a cost-of-living increase for the states…instant revenue generation. Cops, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, private prisons, bailbondsmen, etc. will all be happier than a pig rolling in feces.

  20. I find a lot of these religions to be fronts for sinister things like pedophilia, child trafficking, drug trafficking, and bankster shenanigans (Vatican Bank).

    • Funny thing is, too, that whether it’s the Catholics in the Northeast; the Baptists in the South; the Mormons in the West, etc. it really seems to make little difference- the end result is the same- but then again, why shouldn’t it be? Seeing as as how these groups do not attain their large numbers of adherents by advocating fidelity to Christ and His Word, and the overcoming of human nature; but rather by embracing the world and the desires of human nature.

      • Mexican Roman Catholics (82.7%) of population.

        There still is a Catholic caliphate. Lot’s of countries that are nearly all Catholic. France. Italy. Spain. Most things south of Trump’s border wall.

        In the 16th century, 250,000 Spaniards entered American ports. They were joined by 500,000 in the 17th century. Unlike the English-speaking Anglican colonists of North America, the majority of the Spanish colonists were single men who married or made concubines of the natives,

        and were even encouraged to do so by Queen Isabella and the royal roman church during the earliest days of colonization.

        As a result of these unions, as well as concubinage and secret mistresses, mixed race individuals known as “Mestizos” came into being as the majority of the Mexican population in the centuries following the Spanish conquest.

        And thus Latinos came to transcend the world as they had been conquered by so many races and conquered so many themselves and then they all got into a great big fucking pot and were fruitful and multiplied until nobody could tell what any started out as much anymore, but the women were an attractive sort and the men were terrible slaves but they were at least gammas and deltas not nigger epsilons.

        After America was discovered, Cortez came and the church was with him too. He burned the ships and went off looking for slaves and gold.

        The priests burned down all the written records of almost everywhere, kept a few choice scraps for the secret Vatican library, but mostly served as the Ministry of Truth and told everyone we have always worshipped eastasia.

        I personally know the catholic school story all to well. When I still believed as a child I/d pray for something to happen. And often times not even logically see what I could do to get to the outcome I wanted. Just prayers alone in my room. And begging and then anger. One time I said Fuck You God, and I really thought that did something. I’ll show him for not listening to me.

        Different people are at different levels. Think Brave new world. Alphas are clear thinkers uncluttered by frivolous beliefs. Betas are females who have some faith for when a loved one dies or something but mostly are just hard headed practicalists who do the work and get the results. And then all those praying Gamma males. And church lady Delta Dawns. What’s the flower she has on. Could it be the faded rose of holy days gone by.

        Minds are pretty well set by age 11 as far as what you do and how you do it. Now comes the perfecting. If you make a course change here, you’ll never truly be Alpha is you started out as a Gamma. You’ll always be error prone and start out the wrong way.

        Sicilians come from blacks, latinos are part native indian and black, different shades of eggplants all and they have black and brown and beige blood from the Moors who are niggers…

  21. The author provides no direct evidence to his multiple claims about the Mormon church’s goals of A) a theocracy and B) directly influencing alcohol laws. That’s because there isn’t any. It’s complete and total conjecture. And given the fact that there are 74 countries with the same, or stricter, blood alcohol laws – many of them very secular – his entire argument falls apart.

    • As a former Mormon, I can attest that much of the Church membership wants to impose their values on the rest of the population. But, it’s not something that the Church leadership would openly advocate for — yet. At low single digits in the population, that’s not gonna fly, given the historical attempts by the federal government to destroy the Church in the late 1800s.

      Let the Mormons get anywhere near 50% of the populace, like they have in Utah, and watch the Mormons in the legislature start imposing their values via laws like this – without the leadership ever directly telling anyone to do that.

    • It’s more likely that the .05 is slated as a nationwide agenda, and UT was chosen as the state to be the first to implement it, since it would receive the least resistance there considering the Mormons views on alky-hall, and the fact that UT is populated largely by Mormons, and the state and local governments are controlled by Mormon pols who almost entirely just happen to be Freemasons also.

      So really, it’s a no-brainer if you’re looking to implement such a law, to start in UT. As I’ve said previously, once it gets established there, it is going to spread to the other states like wildfire!

  22. One can only hope that, if this bill becomes law, people like him will be the first to be nailed by it. Of course, he is a Mormon, so they supposedly don’t drink, so the burden will not fall on him unless he is a closet imbiber of strong drink.

    I truly hope he is a hypocrite in this regard, and gets in the cross hairs of this law.

  23. To those unfamiliar with the great state of Utah: I spent the first 35 years of my life in rural Northern Utah, and…IMHO…the Mormon Church is not anti-alcohol. Honestly, they have no interest in abolition, merely strict…okay…VERY strict control over it. There are a variety of reasons the Church looks upon alcohol as a necessary evil:

    First off, all liquor is sold by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (DABC). In a recent Salt Lake Tribune article, it was revealed that the average mark-up on liquor sold at these state-run liquor stores ran about 86%, which equates to tens of millions of dollars directly to the state coffers. Alcohol prohibition would require them to bilk this revenue from another source.

    Second, the sale of alcohol is used as a quid pro quo for more control, either with regard to alcohol or other areas. A slight easing of restrictions on alcohol sales or consumption means a greater tightening of control somewhere else.

    Third, sinners who imbibe, smoke, or do any of the awful/fun sins serve as a cautionary tale to the flock. A DUI can not only mess with your ‘privilege’ of operating a motor vehicle, but it can cost your your job, and one can end up being an out-cast within their own community. Bad examples make control of the flock just a little easier.

    Personally, I think it comes down to money…In the rural county I grew up in, alcohol sales were prohibited on Sunday. On Saturday night, around 10 pm, stores were required to completely block access to beer and beer-like beverages…so they’d run a chain through the handles of the upright cooler units, and padlock them. Seriously, security was tighter on the beer cooler than on the cash register till. Then a funny thing happened. A new convenience store was researching the ordinances in their community and an awful or awesome error (depending on one’s point of view) was uncovered. The city council had reaffirmed their codes and ordinances without actually reading through them (gee…seems odd that a politician would vote on something w/o reading it, doesn’t it?) and the company who handled publication of their codes inadvertently (or not…) left out the section regulating beer sales on Sunday. So, the convenience store began selling beer and wine coolers on Sunday while the Council figured out how to ‘fix’ the issue…until they started seeing the revenue, then it became a complete non-issue and other municipalities followed suit in (very) quick order. Funny how a new source of revenue can change a community’s moral compass in a very short period of time.

    Utah truly is a hodge-podge of weird, restrictive laws. And the rural areas are more clique-y than high school. Laws about lingerie and sex toy shops, strip clubs and anything else fun are cobbled together in very interesting ways, carving out exceptions in certain municipalities, even at certain addresses. What your neighbor ‘thinks’ they know about you is far more important than who you really are. Many live shadow lives, with a public persona radically different than their private one. There’s an old joke among non-Mormons: Why do you always take two Mormons fishing with you? Because if you take only one, he’ll drink all your beer!

    I–personally–was able to use my feet to express my displeasure regarding the laws and politics prevalent in Utah and relocate to Sin City. Others trapped there can, as well. Unfortunately, there’s tyranny here in Sin City, too…just a little different, maybe a little less. And no chance of escaping the tyranny emanating from The Swamp. …

    • Vegas Vic, my blood boils with Sunday alcohol sales prohibition and bull shit “sin” taxes. It is absolutely no one’s goddamn business what I purchase and consume on a Sunday morning. And by what “authoritah” does one man have to decide what another man’s pleasure is a “sin” – so long as it is not harming anyone else- and therefore he must pay extra for this bullshit claim of “sin”?

      And, as you have pointed out, the hypocrisy of the “pious” is the real evil because every busybody is a flaming hypocrite.

      • It goes beyond just taxing sin to make it more sinful, skunk… Many have a really interesting way of interpreting causality. Back in the late 80’s, the state rep from the area I grew up introduced legislation to ban beer sales at convenience stores with gas pumps. The thought process? Well, if one can buy beer and gas in one stop, that directly leads to drunk driving, doesn’t it? It didn’t pass, so a year or two later, he introduced something to make it illegal to sell beer through a drive-up window. Same rationale. For years, prior to the 2002 Olympics anyway, stores couldn’t have any beer advertising visible from the outside of the building (think: neon Bud sign in the window) lest the impressionable youth be exposed to the fact that alcohol exists and can be purchased. To this day, restaurants must have the “Zion Curtain”, a partition separating the dining areas from the (evil) place where alcoholic beverages are mixed or otherwise prepared. In the words of a state rep who was fighting the loosening of the requirements for the partition this past legislative session: “we don’t want to expose children to the glamor of bartending”. Uh, yeah…every bartender lives the life of Tom Cruise in Cocktail, don’t they? Many in UT have a very odd understanding or mind-set about alcohol.

        I, too, have a problem with ‘sin’ taxes. It’s always claimed that the tax is a discouragement of consumption, the spreading soda taxes, for example. Public health concern, right? Well, if it’s in the public’s best interest, then why not outright ban it? Why stop part way? And really, what kind of twisted moral justification is it to make money off these alleged sins? My favorite example is cigarette taxes being used to fund the CHIP program. They tell me I shouldn’t smoke, yet tax my smokes to provide healthcare to poor kids. So, something good comes from my ‘sin’, doesn’t it? Who’s going to pay for that healthcare if they finally succeed in getting rid of smoking, either via laws, shame or onerous lawsuits against tobacco manufacturers? Talking out of both sides or their ass, methinks…

  24. The purpose of Ayn Rand’s writing was to inform and inspire living men. Her native language is Russian. Her culture is Jewish. She reads French and German fluently.

    She was hoping to mentor a race of self-sufficient self-directed men who she could fully submit to. To be of maximum value as a female partner to male excellece and greatness.

    She wasn’t seeking a name for herself.

    She was seeking a name to adopt in epistemic matrimony.

    She wanted fictional and historical men to surround her in actuality.

    letter to Sylvia Austin, in Letters of Ayn Rand:

    There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism — the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul, and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal; this means — one’s ego and the integrity of one’s ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one’s soul — (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one’s soul?) — Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one’s soul, one must love or help or live for others. This means, the subordination of one’s soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one’s soul to the souls of others.

    This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men’s natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war — both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man’s soul).

    • You don’t understand Christian doctrine if you think this.

      These things are not a means of saving one’s soul; they are a result of being saved. Salvation is a work of God. The fruit of that experience is good works and putting God, and others, above one’s self. But, again, these are the results, not the means.

      There really is no contradiction. If one looks at the spiritual realm, we all belong to God, or were made by him, so we owe our very lives to him. Of course, if you don’t believe this, then you aren’t going to be convinced that there is no contradiction.

      Try to do a little research before you post about this subject. try for a better perspective and better information than what you have provided.

      • What “research” will convince me I do not own myself? Who would accept life as a spiritual slave, or any other kind? Maybe you, and some others, but not me. This myth is an attempt to con humanity into self sacrifice. It is obscene. It undermines everything humane. It is not just counter-intuitive, but ant-life, spiritually and physically.

        It is not people like me, self owners, who readily submit to authority, both religious and political. It is the people like you, who disown their life, who defer to superstition for guidance. Why?

        • In a way, even the most religious person is already an atheist -since he has rejected all the other gods. Meanwhile, the believers in those other gods have rejected his god.

          Neither can prove or disprove the existence of their god – or the nonexistence of the other gods.

          It’s exactly like arguing over the existence of the Fairies vs. Trolls…

          • Since we are discussing Mormons and Christ and anarchism, how about the March 17, 2010 essay, Render Unto Caesar: A Most Misunderstood New Testament Passage, penned by Jeffrey F. Barr, regarding the anarchist interpretation of the Tribute Episode?

            The essay can be found at It is a fabulous read.

            I bet Lawrence Vance would agree with Mr. Barr’s thesis.

          • A few things that every thinking person needs to confront at some point:

            Since matter is not eternal, and thus there had to be a point at which none existed, and then came into being*, one would have to conclude that there must be a realm otrher than the purely physical, and superior to the purely physical, and which transcends mere physics.

            [*=The surmisings of some retard in a wheelchair who claims to know what happened in “distant galaxies” “80 billion years ago” not withstanding. Cheating, by saying that while matter hasn’t always existed, it “sort of did, it was just real small, as everything in the physical universe was compressed into a little tiny dot smaller than a period” is like a 4 year-old thinking you can’t see him if he covers his eyes! 🙂 )

            And then once we have matter, we have the problem of it all fits together so nicely, because of the complex symbiotic relationships required to perpetuate the existence of plant and animal life, and other physical organisms, that it requires the establishment of a vastly complex self-perpetuating system in which all such pieces exist and are functional from it’s establishment, in order to keep perpetuating itself as opposed to invoking the laws of entropy, as happens as soon as you remove one facet of the system from the mix.

            Then there is the problem of life and consciousness: You can have a fully functional body, and just deprive it of oxygen or damage one small part, so that it dies- and once it is dead, although the machinery is still there and intact, even though you might be able to easily fix that body, you can not put the life back into it. You might even be able to make the organs work again with the most complex and expensive of machines which we have today as the sum result of the total of human endeavors throughout our history….but you still can not put the self-sustaining life and consciousness back into that body- and yet some believe that such life and consciousness arose spontaneously from non-living, non-intelligent ingredients.

            I had to confront these issues when I was in my early 20’s. The more I studied it, the more I saw that people like the Retard In The Wheelchair [Stephen Hawking] and the other pontificators who seem to know what happened billions of years ago in a galaxy far far away, were just making it up- It “had to be” because such was the only way it could be if the theories in which they believed were true. Yet, those theories are not based on any observable facts, but are tantamount to a Buck Rogers or Superman comic book- just wild fantasy which only works in a special universe if you put on your clover glasses.

          • Except in the reality of what happens when you meet that “nonexistent” God. That reality is countless lives saved from the pit of Hell.

            If you haven’t experienced that kind of reality, you just don’t understand. Ask the person who was delivered from a life of sin and death. They’ll tell you that no power within them or on Earth could have made the changes they have experienced.

            I don’t want to make this an exclusively religious discussion (although you opened the door with your column). I just wanted to set one person straight on what Christian doctrine teaches. Others can certainly chime in, but I can’t make you believe. Only God can do that.


            • That may be subjective in the mind of an unbeliever, Antonio- but the amazing thing is, TODAY, like never before, we are seeing (even from a purely secular viewpoint) that this world appears to be on a truly, literal, Hell-bent course of suicide like NEVER before!

              The nations of the world are literally destroying themselves, with the full blessing of their citizens, who are demanding the influx of thje lowest variety of foreigners and the dilution of their own cultures and races! It truly is amazing and astounding to see this happening.

              Remember the image Daniel saw, of the statue which represented the empires from Babylon down to the final sputtering of the remnants of Rome? The very end, the feet of the image, the toes were of “iron mingled with clay” “and just as iron does not mix with clay….” hehe, that is exactly where we are- and now the out-lawing of currency is becoming a thing…. “…and all who did not receive the mark….could not buy or sell”- and the fact, that as prophesied, these things are not just happening on an isolated basis, but WORLDWIDE…..

              Man! What a time to be alive, to see these things coming to pass!

            • Hi Antonio,

              What follows is not meant to be flippant:

              If I am presented with direct evidence – not “the book says,” or “testimony” or an inference or deduction – that there is an omnipotent being responsible for all creation I would happily acknowledge it. Just as I acknowledge other facts, such as entropy and gravity and 2+2=4. Because one must, if one is not insane – or really stupid.

              But otherwise? I consider it conjecture, opinion, faith.

              To be very clear about my own position:

              I am neither an atheist nor a believer. I am a man who is open to possibilities; willing to not dismiss anything that could be true but unwilling to accept as absolutely true that which cannot be demonstrated to be true via objective facts that cannot be disputed, which are beyond mere opinion, say-so and feeling.

              I am a little skeeved out by religious certainty – because of the (so far as I have been able to determine) fundamentally faith-based nature of the thing.

              Imagine (and, again, I am not trying to offend) that I substitute “Napoleon” or “Hiuxtlopochtli” for “Jesus” when people state that they have a “personal relationship” with the personage/deity being discussed.

              The believer in Jesus is offended when his deity is not accorded the (supposedly) deference he is due. But why isn’t the ardent Napoleon-ite or follower of Hiuxtlopochtli entitled to the same deference? Are they not equally entitled?

              As I see it, these are all beyond proof. They are articles of faith – and so ought to be (my opinion here) very personal and not imposed on anyone else.

              The problem with religion is that believers often assert absolute certainty – and those who question this are not regarded as merely skeptical but as apostates (and worse).

              That’s the road which leads to with hunts and obsidian knives cutting out still-beating hearts…

              • Eric, very well said especially the fifth paragraph which is exactly my position too.

                I will listen to just about any claim but I am going to have to see some evidence and, most importantly, be able to cross examine that evidence.

                I have learned that the weaker the evidence the more strident its proponents are against it being cross examined. “Climate change” or any “blasphemous” laws (including political correctness) for example.

                • Thanks, Skunk!

                  I enjoy discussing theological questions.. provided the other person doesn’t insist I “accept” or “just believe.”

                  • Eric, Skunky, et al,

                    What really “gets” me, is when I see professing Christians say “You just have to accept it by faith!” 😀

                    Faith is for those who already have been convinced and thus believe. It doesn’t somehow cover for a believer’s lack of knowledge; it just makes them look foolish, and ensures that the only ones twhom they will ever convert will be the ignorant.

                    (I’m surprised that Gail didn’t pull that one! Speaking of which….where did she go? Only 600 comments in the orange Balloon thread, and it’s died already? 😉 )

                    • Morning, Nunzio!

                      Used car salesman and politicians also ask people to “just trust me”… to accept on faith what they say.

                      To be clear: I consider it very possible there are UFOs. If I saw one myself, I would certainly believe in the fact of the existence of UFOs. I might tell you I saw a UFO and that I am 100 percent certain they exist. But would you believe me? Would you have to believe me?

                      This is one of the issues – problems – with religious belief. The believer does believe; I do not assert that he is a fraud and take him at his word that he personally is certain god exists and so on. That is ok with me, per my comments in reply to Antonio. Just as I may have personal knowledge of the existence of UFOs – UFOs may in fact be real – the believer may have actually encountered Jesus or Ra or Hiuxtlopochtli and so he knows it is real. But in neither case can proof be adduced; so the believer is frustrated and the skeptic remains . . . skeptical….

                      Thus will it remain until a UFO lands on the White House lawn and Ra or Jesus or Hiuxtlopochtli puts in an appearance on CNN.

                    • Exactly, Erick. The only one who would advocate that anyone believe “just because” is not doing any service to their cause, nor themselves, because there is no basis for their faith, other than the fact that they want to practice it and have sought out a variety which suits them- instead of seeking out what is real and true, and conforming to it.

                      I was raised as a Catholic, and I rejected Catholicism when I was 13. I noticed, that when the Catholics were trying to convince you of something, they would just say something like “This is what we teach”…they would never appeal to anything other than their own authority; not even the Bible.

                      Or like a TV evangelist, who may appeal to a few vague verses of the Bible, but not go any further- “Just believe because it is written”.

                      That is not sufficient for anyone more than a child. Real truth can withstand scrutiny and be proven.

              • Dear Eric, I am not offended at all. I, too, enjoy theological discussions.

                But, I will not offer you evidence or reasons to believe. I am a presuppositionalist, meaning I assume the Scriptures are true at the outset. I used to engage in evidentialist apologetics, but I became convinced that it was fruitless. The best that I could ever do is maybe demonstrate that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that God exists, or that Christ rose from the dead. But it could never be conclusive because someone may not be convinced even if, as Jesus said in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, someone came back from the dead.

                In this light, no one is a seeker of God. No one is open-minded. Our natures simply will not allow that. We will love and seek a God made in our own image, but we will never seek and worship a God who demands obedience and worship (because He made us) and demands that we give up our life of sin and rebellion.

                Note that I include myself in this description. I was not a seeker. I was somewhat a skeptic after I left home for college, even though I was raised a Catholic. While at college, I met, for the first time in my life, people who testified to personal faith in the risen Christ. I was taken aback, to say the least. How could anyone be so arrogant?

                Well, in the nearly forty years since, I have learned why they could be so sure. And I have also learned that the natural man is absolutely unable to seek God or please God. It’s simply not a possibility. But God, in his infinite mercy and grace, grants repentance and faith to whom he wills, and you life is never the same. This is how we know. As I mentioned in another post, if that happens to you, you are forever changed. Ask the person who has been redeemed from the pit of Hell itself. He or she knows there is no power in the universe that could have done that except for the God revealed in the Scriptures. His Word was preached to them, and they were made alive by the Word and the Spirit, even though they were spiritually dead.

                So, if you will forgive me, you are not open-minded. You will never have enough evidence. Your sin nature suppresses the knowledge of God. I will not ask that you “just believe” because I know you can’t. That is a guarantee. No one can.

                True Christian faith is a mystery. It doesn’t come to the smartest, strongest, prettiest, most morally-upright (in human terms), though many of those are also recipients of faith. The Spirit moves where it wills, and it is impossible to predict where it will move. The common denominator is that those to whom the Spirit grants spiritual life are then able to respond to the call of God in their life. They are able to receive the merits of Christ’s death and resurrection on their behalf.

                The only way you will ever be convinced is if God moves in your life and produces saving faith. Note that this faith does not come from you. This is one example of a biblical term that is simply unable to be accurately defined by a mere dictionary. Faith is not absence of evidence, a mere belief with no factual basis. Faith is the way that the Bible describes how we know what is unseen. Read a good translation of Hebrews 11:1, and ponder what is actually being said. It doesn’t say faith is innate, but it does say that faith is how we know things that are unseen. “The evidence of things unseen”.

                I hope you and your readers take this in the spirit in which it was given, not as way to shame or condemn, but to tell it the way it is, the way the Bible says it is. You can take it or leave it.

                May God use his Word and his Spirit to do the work of redemption.

                • Good morning, Antonio!

                  All of that was nicely said but comes down to “just believe” because “it is written” and because you have had a personal revelation/experience of some sort that is ineffable and cannot be weighed, examined, proved. Everything you’ve written could be said just as fervently by the follower of Ra or Hiuxtlopochtli – and with equal weight.

                  None of this troubles me, by the way. Provided the belief is tempered by an absolute acceptance that others are not obliged to also believe. You appear to be of that persuasion.

                  Unfortunately, a great many believers are not like you and consider the non-believer a dangerous animal who must be chained if not destroyed outright. Consider the Muslims of today and the Christians of yesterday. It is very serious business.

                  One does not need the sword to convince a man that 2+2=4.

                  • One does need a sword to enforce the writings of the “founders.”

                    For it too is just more peonage to Crom and Ra.

                    Consider most of the world knows nothing of it. Yet they get along just fine.

                    The founders were men who had far less weight of laws burdening them like beasts.

                    It is fine to aspire to be like them as far as being unburdened.

                    But to say that somehow their fatwas are good weight that we must carry because it is essential and beneficial.

                    Is just as looney as it is to say Joseph Smith’s golden plates are the one true burden we beasts must bear as righteous cattle.

                    Let go of your founding fathers god delusion. It is all just echoes of tyranny now.

                    The time and the place when they might have been of any use is now long gone forever.

                    Understand instead their lived version of the NAP. And how they respected the property of their fellows, and worked to create more wealth for their households.

                    That was their greatness.

                    Your humble fan, Tor.

                    • Hi Tor,

                      I do not regard the founders of the United States as god-like beings and have repeatedly stated my own belief that – excepting perhaps Jefferson and Mason – they were men who simply wished to replace King George and Parliament with themselves. And did so.

                      None of this is “here” or “there” as regards the questions of property rights and the sovereignty of the individual as moral standards.

                  • Hi, Eric. I don’t think you really got my point. It’s not “just believe”, although it does come down to “it is written”, but I didn’t write it.

                    Still, you say you need evidence; I say you’ll never have enough evidence because that’s not what it is about.

                    Rather than repeat what I’ve already said, I’ll just leave it alone. Your belief or unbelief is in God’s hands, not mine.


                  • If you start early enough, you can convince very small beings (regardless of chonologic age) that 2+2= whatever you say or else…thus the forcing of an arbitrary BAC defined as DUI…

                    • If I have 2 observant gay men and 2 strictly lesbian women on an island. I will always have 4 people.

                      This 4 will eventual become dead people, but 4 they will remain.

                      If I have 2 breeding age males and 2 breeding age females.

                      2 male + 2 females may have a wide amount of offspring.

                      I might have 5 people or 10 people or even 15 people. These 5 or 10 or 15 might become 20 or a 100.

                      In a 300 generations I’d have 7 billion people. If the island is big enough, and the people are as fertile as homo sapiens have been so far.

                      Maths are funny.(UK term and brighter)

                      American Math (singular, and dull) is needlessly contentious and impossible to order. Since there can never be one math to calculate them all each unto their kinds.

                • Antonio said: ” I will not offer you evidence or reasons to believe. I am a presuppositionalist,…..”

                  So why not then just suppose Allah or Buddy-Ha-Ha (Buddha) or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

                  I believe in Jesus Christ and His Word because I see PROOF of the veracity of their claims, and the lack thereof in the others (or more accurately in most cases, their failure to even make any such claims).

                  Nowhere in God’s Word will you ever find an instance of God demanding faith from anyone BEFORE they saw proof of His revelation- whether it was Ancient Israel being deliver4ed from Egypt through a series of supernatural occurances, or the miracles performed by Jesus Christ; or the foretelling of judgments/events by the prophets.

                  If it weren’t so, then there would be no basis to suppose that our God was God; it would then just be a matter of picking one of many supposed gods, and believing for no specific reason other than your own emotions, and hoping that you picked the right one.

                  I hate to say it, but things like presuppositionalism are among the reasons that many reject believing- and if that is presented to them as a necessary part of faith, then I can’t blame them a bit, because one who advances such an argument is essentially telling them to turn off their brain and block their senses, and “just believe because I say so”. -and their is no basis for such belief, other than pure emotionalism.

                  As a Christian, my faith is based on reality, because God is real and His Word is true- our faith needn’t be blind.

                  Faith is calling your friend at 1 AM to come and pick you up, and knowing that he will be there in 15 minutes, because he has always been reliable.

                  Blind faith is calling someone you hardly know at 1 AM to pick you up, and just saying “He’ll come…yeah…he’ll come…” for the next 3 hours…..

                  • No, it’s not about evidence. It’s about the will. The will is held in bondage to sin, because of sin.

                    Now, I admit that this is a disticntly Reformed, Calvinist opinion. I make no apology for that. The point is that I believe that Scripture teaches that mankind in the unregenerate state would never choose God. It’s not a matter of evidence.

                    If it was a matter of human will and evidence, we wouldn’t pray to God to open hearts and minds. We could do that ourselves if we give the right sort of evidence and apply the right psychological techniques. We could have conversions all day long.

                    But, that’s not the way this works. The widom of this world is foolishness. The Cross is foolishness, to those who are perishing. It’s not about evidence.

                    In the end, you and I and countless other believe, if they are really converted, because God enabled you to believe a message so foolish that nobody should believe it. The Gospel is unreasonable, in human terms. It’s nonsense, according to human wisdom.

                    Take a listen to Paul Washer’s first twenty to thirty minutes in his message to the Deeper Conference, way back in 2008. You’ll see what I mean.


                    Sorry to be so blunt, but that’s the way I see it. Presuppositionalism is not the reason men reject the Gospel. Their wills are why they reject it. They simply will not believe.

                    Obviously, you disagree. So be it.

                  • Skunkbear, I would also challenge your assertion that everybody in the Bible had proof. Did Abram have proof, initially? He heard voices (I’m being a little sarcastic, but I think you get my drift), at first. It wasn’t until much later that he saw manifestations of God and his power to deliver on his promises.

                    But, the point is that your “proof” is inadequate for many people. And, Jesus did perform many miracles, yes, but many who saw them still did not believe. Know why? Because Jesus said it was not given for them to believe.

                    That just covers the people who could have had first-hand knowledge. What about believers down through the ages? Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen, but believe.” So, not everybody gets the kind of evidence you’re describing. Even if they did, it still wouldn’t be enough to break their stony hearts.

                    The main problem I have with evidentialism is that it puts the Christian and his world view on equal footing with the unbeliever and his world view. If you are a believer, you know that this is not a tenable situation, because you know that the unregenerate man’s world view is not equal to that of the God who made everything, whether they believe it, or not.

                    So, I prefer to say, “Thus sayeth the Lord.” Worldly evidence does not demonstrate God’s power and it certainly doesn’t have his power behind it. Only his Word, faithfully proclaimed with no reservations, will result in the salvation of souls.

                    So, go ahead, if you must with worldly arguments and evidence. Sometimes they are useful, but if your primary weapon is not God’s Word, you are going to be frustrated. Someone will always come up with a better argument and a question you can’t answer. When that happens, and it will, what will go to, then?

                • Antonio, if I may join in this discussion: “… the preponderance of the evidence suggests that God exists, or that Christ rose from the dead.”

                  I hear this argument by Christians all the time but in reality there is no preponderance of evidence that A god exists let alone the Judeo-Christian god in particular.

                  I will listen to an argument for a god but I think it is reasonable to say that the bottom line for believing in the Judeo-Christian god is whether or not the bible is actually the word of that god.

                  I have read several books that try to prove the bible is the word of that particular god and none of them come close to withstanding cross examination.

                  But if it brings comfort and purpose to anyone’s life I wish them well so long as they do not try to force it onto me.

                  • As I have said repeatedly, there is no evidence that will satisfy everyone. There is always a possibility that they have other doubts and questions that weren’t addressed by whatever evidence is presented.

                    I’m not interested in “winning” this argument. That’s not my purpose. I am simply relaying the message that I believe Scripture reveals, and that is that nobody can believe unless God grants it. Nobody can be saved apart from a gracious working of God’s Spirit. All attempts to convince someone of the truth of God’s existence by “evidence” still leaves room for doubt. I also believe the Bible teaches that the evidence is all around us but man, in his wickedness, suppresses that evidence and knowledge.

                    So, it’s not about evidence; it’s about bending your will, and no man dead in trespasses and sins can do that. He is spiritually incapable of doing so. That’s why, after many years of trying to argue people into heaven, I simply preach the only message that God has promised to bless and let God do his work.

                    And, to put your mind at ease, I am also not interested in forcing my beliefs on others. I used to be a Moral Majority type, until I realized that we can’t remake the world as we would like it to be. That’s not our mission. So, I stopped trying.


                    • …if you think you are in an…”argument”… then by definition, I believe you are trying to…”win”. Something to think about.
                      RJ O’Guillory

                    • No harm no foul. Except that learning to bend the will is what the elite tax cattleman require too.

                      Even if God’s word was spoken. He doesn’t speak with the tongues of men.

                      So you’re trying to translate the untranslatable and then you’re playing telephone with the possible message that goes from aramaic to greek to latin to vulgate latin to english german spanish or whatever common rabble language you happen to speak.

                      It’s better to have someting than nothing, but don’t be so sure you have what you think you have.

                      Maybe Gods just the loudest voice in a choir of voices that speak in atoms and cellular processes.

                      Life is their language. Not tongues of babbling babylonians.

                      First they were a life amid dark energy. And lo the dark energy became dark matter.

                      And that was good. And the dark matter multiplied and became galaxies and now they were multitudinous and ever expanding.

                      Galaxies have black holes at their center, and these black holes began to cool and become hadronic matter and suddenly they were suns.

                      And these suns were sucked into other galactic black hole centers and now their was a kind of material war.

                      Light and dark in a struggle. And the suns cooled and became planets. Planets became moons. Moons further dried out and became asteroids and comments and finally just cosmic dusst.

                      And we were that cosmic dust pulled into this planet, cradled inside our yellow submarine sun’s heliopause.

                      From a distance we are just part of a single star in a smallish galaxy in a local cluster.

                      We all live in the living light and energy of this stellar We all live in a yellow submarine
                      Yellow submarine, yellow submarine
                      We all live in tjos yellow submarine
                      Yellow submarine, yellow submarine.

                      And in this submarine on this planet In the town where I was born

                      Lived a man who sailed to sea And he told us of his life In the land of submarines

                      So we sailed up to the sun Till we found a sea of green

                      And we lived beneath the waves

                      In our yellow submarine And our friends are all aboard
                      Many more of them live next door
                      And the band begins to play

                      Full speed ahead Mr. Allah Jesus Yahweh Boatswain, full speed ahead
                      Full speed ahead it is, Sergeant.
                      Cut the cable, drop the cable
                      Aye, Sir, aye
                      Captain, captain…

                    • Dear Antonio,

                      You wrote:

                      “And, to put your mind at ease, I am also not interested in forcing my beliefs on others. I used to be a Moral Majority type, until I realized that we can’t remake the world as we would like it to be. That’s not our mission. So, I stopped trying.”

                      The fact that you “used to be a Moral Majority type” is what makes many “non-theists” leery of devout religionists.

                      It isn’t so much that they can’t tolerate your choice to believe.

                      It’s that they fear you will succumb to the impulse to impose your beliefs on them, by force, the way Sharia Law zealots do, or Medieval era Catholic Church Inquisitors did.

                      The fact that you overcame that impulse however, is a hopeful sign for humanity. It means that peaceful coexistence is not impossible.

                      Actually the biggest threat today comes from “secular religionists” known as “Champions of Democracy”, who are determined to convert everyone to Democracy, even if they have to bomb them back into the Stone Age.

                    • Hi Antonio,

                      The only evidence that matters – in terms of establishing a fact – is that which is independent of feelings, belief and hearsay. It does not matter whether “everyone is satisfied” that 2+2=4. It does equal four, regardless of anyone’s belief or feeling to the contrary.

                      The existence of a god (which one, or several, I’ll leave aside for the moment) or of gnomes and trolls or UFOs, on the other hand, is a different matter. There is no fact to establish the truth of these assertion. There is assumption, feeling, opinion. Belief and faith. An assertion of some epiphany/experience. Which imposes no obligation on others to acknowledge the veracity of the assertion made.

                      It is entirely reasonable and logical to not believe or have faith absent facts that are independent of how one feels or believes. The non-believer occupies the high ground when he expresses skepticism about gnomes and trolls and UFOs … and gods, too.

                      Conversely, it would imbecilic to deny that 2+2=4 or that gravity isn’t real. Faith/belief are irrelevant where facts can be adduced.

                      Belief/faith in the existence of the Abrahamic deity is, moreover, no more or less valid than the belief/faith of the ancient Egyptians in Ra and his pantheon.

                      You may be right – the Egyptians may be right.

                      No one knows – or can prove otherwise.

                      Religious belief is just that. Belief. Based on faith. Clover

                      I understand that people of faith are sincere and really do believe. But that is not the same as knowing. (And it should be born in mind that the Muslims and Hindus and all the others are also sincere about their faith; being sincere doesn’t make one right.)

                      And here we come to the impasse. If the rules of evidence that ordinarily apply to any question are not admitted as the basis for the discussion, then all that is possible is conjecture over opinion. You feel this; believe that. I like chocolate ice cream; you prefer strawberry. We each think the flavor we like is the best flavor.

                      Which is fine. We all do this to one extent or another.

                      But I think it is important – for the sake of sanity – to acknowledge that when we “just believe” and claim certainty about something we can’t really defend with facts independent of how we feel and believe that we may be a little tetched in head on that question and take ourselves with a grain of salt and a little bit of humor, too.

                      Hail Hiutzlopochtli!

                      He’s my favorite god… 🙂

                    • Antonio, I am not trying to be argumentative here but I am only asking you to provide the “preponderance of evidence” you claim exists.

                      Again, I hear this claim from Christians all the time but they never produce this “preponderance of evidence”.

                      I can accept the argument that one’s beliefs are based on intuition more than actual evidence (including my own). What I cannot accept though is anyone making the claim that there is evidence yet refuse to present that evidence for cross examination.

                      FTR I am not anti-Christian any more than I am anti other religions. It is just interesting to me what people believe and why.

                    • SB, I don’t think any evidences will be forthcoming from Antonio, since he is an admitted suppositionalist- and thus does not even claim to base his own belief on any evidence.

                      I’m still waiting to hear why it is, if we need no evidence on which to base our faith, that a belief in Allah or the Tooth Fairy, etc. would not be just as valid to a suppositionalist?

                      Personally, I can not see believing just based upon nothing more than one’s acceptance of a proposition without any evidence to substantiate the validity of that proposition- for to do so is really not a belief in an extant superlative being, but rather, just the acceptance of an idea, which in essence makes one their own god, as they can enthrone or dethrone any such idea they so choose merely based upon their own emotion about that idea.

                      Atheists and agnostics are correct to reject that sort of belief.

                      When I became a Christian, it was because I had set about to determine whether there really was a God, and if so Who He is and where He is manifested.

                      The clarity came with nuclear physics and the fact that matter is not eternal. The claim of creating matter really isn’t even contested- there is really only One who even makes the claim, in a record which is several thousand years old, and yet contains what physicists have only very recently discovered.

                      Hebrews 11:3 says “] Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”

                      And it is also interesting to note that that is just one example of what the Bible means by faith- not blind faith in some in something for there is no evidence, but rather a faith which is a result of an understanding of the physical universe. [Or just believe the things Stephen Hawking imagined happened 80billion years ago, because he thought of them as he sat in his wheelchair! 😀 ]

                      Even the most ardent evolutionist and atheist has a god- they just call their god “Nature”.

                    • Hi Nunzio,

                      I should be writing about the Prius… aber…the religious debate draws me in. Isn’t the case that matter and energy swap forms but neither pops into or out of existence?

                      I still prefer Hiuxtlopochtli.. obsidian knives…

                    • Huxtablepotluckwhat? Does this have something to do with Bill Cosby? 😉

                      Ahh, my friend, but neither matter nor energy are eternal. Energy is spent; matter decays. They can change form, or even swap form, but they have not always existed (The decay of radioactivity proves it) and they will not of themselves continue to perpetually exist.

                      Although some branches of theoretical “science” may try and hint otherwise, the fact is that all observable provable laws of science affirm the above, and those who would speculate otherwise without any recored history/witness, and nothing but their own speculations, are in-fact just evangelizing for another suppositional religion.

                    • Nunzio, I am enjoying this discussion here at the adult table.

                      Just for the record I do not believe in evolution. Many Christians reflexively think that if one is an atheist one must be an evolutionist (not saying you are doing this).

                      The definition of “god” is important to the discussion. I have no belief in any “god” as generally understood.

                      But I do believe in, for lack of a better word, the “Divine” which, admittedly, is hard for me to define.

                    • I respect that immensely, Skunk B.

                      If someone does not find the evidence for the existence of a god, nor proof of any revelation as to who he is, then they would be a hypocrite to believe.

                      Someone such as yourself I can greatly respect, because at least you are consistent, and apply the same standards/requirements/logic across the board.

                      What I find distressing, is when an atheist/agnostic says that they reject belief in God for lack of evidence, or for supposed contradiction of science, etc. …but then accepts evolution- for which there is far, far less evidence; and which truly contradicts the laws of observable science, etc. (And for which the narrative can change every few years- while ours has remained the same for millenia…)

                      Or worse yet, when you have people who are selective as to which rantings of the theoreticians they will accept or reject- like: They will rightly reject “global Warming”…..but then accept the evolution or cosmology or medicine or anthropology which are all based upon or form the basis of the very thing they reject.

                      Even many Christians do this: They may reject evolution, but then embrace the same cosmology on which evolution is based!

                      So kudos for being logical and consistent. Such is evidence of a sound mind and intelligence!

                    • “… this Hutchtulopslips guy has a lot of worshipers in DC!”


                      If you want to know why Detroit has gone all to hell, perhaps this had something to do with it.



                      The unveiling and literal worshiping of a gigantic Baphomet Statue is therefore disguised as an event about “rationality” and touted a necessary step towards a more progressive society. Even if the concept of Satan is deeply theistic, the event was praised by atheists groups everywhere.

                      In short, the unveiling of this 9-foot tall Baphomet statue is a perfect example of deceiving the masses into accepting and welcoming the cult of the occult elite. Even if media spins the issue and pukes out paragraphs over paragraphs of pseudo-political diatribes to rationalize what is happening, the symbols do not lie. A statue of Baphomet was unveiled.

                      Baphomet has been the idol of secret societies for over a thousand years – since the time of the Knight Templars. Today’s secret societies descend from the Knight Templar and literally rule the world. They are behind the biggest atrocities humanity has ever committed, from unjust wars to underground child abuse rings to blood sacrifices to MKULTRA to things we don’t even know about. The occult elite is a product of multi-generational Satanic families and the philosophy they embrace allows them delve into their sadistic obsessions with any repercussions.

                      So, no, this is not about “rationality” and women’s rights. It is about unveiling a statue of Baphomet and making it acceptable to the masses.

                      NB: not an unconditional endorsement of Vigilant Citizen positions

                    • Kind of appropriate, eh, Bevin, for a place that has gone “all to Hell”! 🙂

                      Perhaps Baphomet is the god of grape Kool-aid and Newports…..

                      Now if we could just get them to sacrifice their kids to him/her/it, we might get the welfare rolls reduced!

                      You know, I continue to be amazed at what is taking place as of late.

                      When I first started reading the Bible in the early 1980’s, I’d read the prophecies which spoke of people worshiping literal idols in the last days, and of the mass mixing of the races and the infiltration of the nations by the very lowest sort of immigrants who would literally destroy them; and an international governmental control of commerce/money it seemed incredulous that such things could EVER happen in the modern world, and yet within just several decades, here we are, seeing the very establishment of all of these things right before our eyes.

                      This is truly mind-blowing to me. To have lived during this particular time period and to see such a transformation.

                    • Nunzio, when I call myself an atheist I mean it in the classical sense i.e. I simply do not believe in a god or gods.
                      This does not mean I am anti-theist. I can understand how humans can believe in gods. And I can tell you from my own experience that most of us classic atheists are disgusted by the anti-theists like the Freedom From Religion Foundation types.

                      As for evolution, I have asked every evolutionist whoever tried to sell me that bridge two questions:
                      1. What is your starting point? Followed immediately after their answer with, “And before that?” x infinity.

                      I have no idea what the answers are but I do so love trying to get them all.

                      Respect, right back atcha.

                    • Ah! Exactly, Mr. Bear!

                      I learned quite early on, that when debating with evolutionists (biological or cosmological) that as you say, cutting right to the “Where are you starting from?” saves a lot of time. Although I may not actually come out and use those words, I will posit a question that forces them to a starting point; and then one just need deal with the fundamental assumptions and beliefs upon which the rest of their rest of their system is founded, rather than having to deal with every triviality in reverse order, leading back to the beginning point. (Although, if doing so for the benefit of others, the trivialities can be quite revealing, also!).

                      So it would appear that both you and I both realize that evolutionary biology and cosmology are religions- just like “global warming” and democracy.

                      I must say that the vast majority of atheists and agnostics I’ve encountered over the years, accepted evolution. Some, out of ignorance; some out of spite (Because they think it is the opposite of religion…) and some because they refuse to accept any moral dictates that would go along with the acceptance of the Creator.

                      I often look down upon standard atheists- not because they are atheists- but rather because most of the accept evolution, without demanding the same proof for it that they would for any other religion. (Talk about faith; it takes a whole lot more faith to believe that your great great great great great great grandfather was a rock, than it does to believe he was Adam…)

                      I would think that one would have to be pretty courageous too, to go through life not knowing where matter and energy and life came from- and to admit, to one’s self and to toehrs that they don’t know- but at least one thing is certain: That such a person is intellectually honest, and not kidding themselves nor others, as so many others on every side often do.

                    • Hi Nunzio,

                      Micro-evolution – variations over time within a species – is observable but macro-evolution, the transition of one species into an entirely new species, a complete change of type, is – as far as I have been able to determine – speculative, a leap of faith. The argument put forward, as I understand it, is that these changes take place over immense, unfathomable spans of time and are so slight (each one) as to be unobservable at any given moment in time. It is not an argument without some legs, but I agree that absent something testable, objective, it remains a speculative thing and should be so qualified.

                    • Nunzio, this thread is getting too narrow so I will start a new one above to carry on the conversation.

                    • Precisely, Eric!

                      But even the term “micro-evolution” is misleading- as evolution implies an improvement or an increase in genetic information which adds some new capabilities.

                      But in reality, in every case, the changes and adaptations seen within living things, are always a decrease in genetic information.

                      What the evo-loonies do essentially, would be the same as if we started being born without arms, and then saying that it was an improvement because it made us impossible to be handcuffed!

                      It always involves a reduction in complexity; a reduction in genetic information- It’s devolution, really. or, like in some cases, where they’ll say that an insect “has become resistant to a pesticide”- but what really happens, is that the weaker stock of that insect all died off from the pesticide, and only the strongest ones or the ones who may lack a particular feature upon which that pesticide works, etc. are left to reproduce- but still, there is no new genetic info introduced….only that which was already present.

                      So even micro-evolution is somewhat of a misnomer…..but then they extrapolate that into macro evolution, even though there has never been one single case of such being observed…and in fact, the evidence for such is so lacking, that they had to come up with something called “punctuated equilibrium” to try and account for the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever- and punctuated equalibrium is equally absurd, as it states that new species just sprang into being all of a sudden…like a frog just somehow gave birth to a chicken!

                      It’s truly comical, the machinations they have to go through to try and legitimize their religion and to convince people that it is somehow “science”- but if this is the best they can do…..

                      Or they’ll find a tooth and build a dinosaur around it and display it in a museum; and then when you ask where the real bones are, they’ll say that they’re stored away somewhere for safe keeping, because exposure to the air and the public would damage them. Hmmmmmillions of years [supposedly] buried in the dirt….but displaying fossilized bones in a museum will destroy them?

                      Maybe instead of Pokemon Go, they should have a game where people look for dinosaur storage warehouses! 😀 😀 😀

        • I won’t waste my time trying to convince you. All I can say is that an encounter with the risen Christ changes everything.

          Christian doctrine teaches that one is either enslaved to sin or a slave to God through Christ. No man is truly free, in the cosmic sense. We are created beings who act according to our natures – the sin nature or the Spirit nature. There is no in between.

          Of course the natural man resists this. That’s what he is supposed to do, because all he has is the sin nature. The natural man is incapable of even discerning the spiritual reality because of his sin nature.

          So, believe it, or don’t. I can’t convince you. Only the living God can do that. If you haven’t experience Grace, you can’t possibly understand.


    • To add to my previous reply, of course you are correct that there is a war going on within each believer’s soul – the war between the carnal and the spiritual – that will not be completely over until the Resurrection and the believer receives their glorified spirit body. The external wars are simply a reflection of the internal one.


  25. Mr. Peters, You have every right to speak out, but I have an equal right to say your column is utter nonsense.

    Theocracy? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was adopted to prevent a federal establishment of religion. The implied separation was an institutional separation, in which the church doesn’t serve as the government and the government doesn’t serve as the church. It was never intended to prevent churches and pastors from speaking out about the issues of the day. In the American colonies, pastors regularly gave “election sermons” in which they spoke at great length about what the Bible has to say about law and government and its application to specific issues.

    Fatwah? Muslim Sharia law is based on the premise that there is no separation of church and state; religious laws and governmental laws are one and the same. This is a far cry from the Christian Two Kingdoms concept by which church and state are separate but the church is free to speak out on civic concerns. Your comparison of this law to a fatwah suggests that you either know nothing about Sharia law or don’t care in the least about the truth.

    Civil liberties? What about my right to use the public highways without having to worry about drunk drivers? This column does a disservice to the important libertarian causes advanced by this website.

    And Utah? I am neither Mormon nor a Utah resident, but I love visiting Utah because it is a great state, has marvelous people, and with this new law will be safer for driving. But if you dislike Utah that much, I’m sure Utahans wouldn’t mind a bit if you stay away from their wonderful state.

    • Hi John,

      C’mon… do you really believe a person with a .05 BAC (a level that can be reached after as few as two beers/glasses of wine) is a “drunk” driver? Or even meaningfully impaired? What evidence – other than the BAC test/level – is there to support the assertion of “drunk” or even “impaired” driving?

      Do you think having East German-style checkpoints – Fourth and Fifth Amendment-free zones – comports with what it used to mean to live in America?

      This business is exactly like dumbed-down speed limits which criminalize conduct that is by no means necessarily unsafe. And which do so on a ridiculous, least-common-denominator basis.

    • “What about my right to use the public highways without having to worry about drunk drivers?”

      What about my right to be safe from fabricated, false charges? I have a misfortune of having a PhD in chemistry, and from this point of view (even though my drinking does not exceed half a glass of wine maybe twice a year) I say: lowering the limit of the detected BAC contents to 0.05 (interestingly, the imbeciles who crafted the “law” omitted the unit; half-competent defense lawyers will have a field day with this half-baked statute) has shaved the already slim buffer that protected us from false positives, and hence false charges. The bad science compounded with the government’s eagerness to fabricate charges (speaking of Utah, please kindly google “trooper Lisa Steed”) is indeed a huge problem from the point of view of civil liberties.

      While driving on I-15 (yes, I am a Utah resident), frankly, I much more worry about dangerous situations on the road caused by aggressive revenue collection operations than about people with the BAC above 0.05.

      • WOW…I did google Lisa Steed…that’s crazy. I read somewhere that actual imparement in a skilled driver with routine experience with alcohol usually occurs much higher than this (approx .10 and above), and as Eric says, dependent on the person.

        Accident statistics in the 1980’s-90’s improved significantly when drivers were removed from the road with an approximate BAC of .15 and above. If any screening tests (Breathalyzer) were accompanied by a legit impairment determination (of which few officers are actually trained in administering…evidence in the link below), and a blood test was administered as a mandatory (optional, at officer discretion in CA), and the preponderance of the evidence supported the charge, then most reasonable persons would agree that a legitimate arrest occurred. Common error in reading of the Breathaliyzer is +/- 0.2 for equipment in good operating condition, recently calibrated. Blood test machines must be calibrated and maintained regularly as well.

        Not the normal behavior of a pull over for speeding, or a check point arrest, a manufactured or not probable cause of “I smell alcohol or slurred speech”, followed by implied consent breathalyzer(or pot swab) and handcuffs

        DUI for caffiene? DUI for Adrenaline/Steriods/?

    • The prohibitionists often come from religious origins. For instance the women’s christian temperance union which resulted in the prohibition amendment. To pretend there isn’t religious background to the modern version of it is silly.

      Safer how? Dangerous BAC levels are above 0.1%. The science is clear on this going back decades. Anything lower than that and we begin to talk about people not being as good as they could be. “Impairment” Competing with one’s self but not to the legal standard of acceptable motoring. However no other form of not being the best driver one can be is criminalized. If someone gets behind the wheel with a splitting headache that’s just fine. A good driver with 0.08 BAC would at worst shift to below average side of the distribution hump.

      As we drop below 0.08 we’re now well within the hump of the distribution of driving skill. That is we are within two standard deviations of the average. It becomes impossible to tell if we have a slightly below average driver with 0.05 BAC or just a below average driver. In other words we’re dealing with levels of “impairment” so fine it becomes impossible to tell them from the normal population. That is two people can operate their automobiles exactly the same and if one has 0 BAC he’s just fine and if the other is at 0.05 he’s illegal and faces severe penalties. It’s absurd.

      So who’s safer? It’s the demonstrated ability of controlling the vehicle that’s at question going this low, it’s merely the moral issue of not being as good as one can be. But even the 0 BAC poor driver can be better if he would make some effort to be. Why is his lack of effort not sending him to jail? We’re back to the religious aspect of it. Considering some people’s personal choices bad but not that of others.

    • Sigh….. There always has to be ONE….

      John, so since you don’t live in Utah, anyone in your state can drive around with a .05BAC and it’s perfectly legal and there’s not a thing you can do about it- but as soon as you cross some imaginary line and are officially in Utah, now you’re a criminal for having that .05BAC.

      If you think that such nonsense constitues “safety” and “justice”, maybe you’ve had a few too many.

  26. Your articles are usually pretty well thought out and reasonable. But your accusation that this is due to a “Mormon Fatwa” is illogical and off the mark. Utah happens to have a high percentage of Mormons, but as is often the case, correlation does not equal causation. If it is, then is the .05 BAC a result of a “Mormon Fatwa” in dozens of countries where the Mormons are imperceptible percentage of the population, such as Australia, Austria, and Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, and Israel.

    BTW – Here is the whole list of countries (and a Canadian province – Manitoba – another hotbed of Mormon extremists) that have a .05 BAC laws:

    Aruba, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Coral Sea Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Dhekelia, El Salvador, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, French Guiana, French Polynesia, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Guadeloupe, Guinea-Bissau, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Holland, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Macau, Macedonia, Manitoba, Martinique, Mauritius, Mayotte, Micronesia, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Korea, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Reunion, Saint Barthelemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, States of Micronesia, Swaziland, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor Leste, Turkey, Scotland, Venezuela, Wallis and Futuna.

    • Hi Jason,

      I made the reference because the pol pushing this is, in fact, a Mormon. I doubt his actions are unrelated to his personal/religious views.

      And – more broadly – this is a religious crusade. It is not so much anti-“drunk” driving as it is anti-alcohol.

      In other words, a crusade against “sin” – disguised as a public safety measure.

      • Last time I got a solicitation call from MADD, I politely asked what the annual death rate from alcohol was. (in 2014 it was just under 10,000).

        I offered the opinion that MADD has succeeded in eliminating the “scourge” of drunk driving and ought declare success and seek out a new target.

        Medical mistakes claim about 250,000 lives every year. (John Hopkins study)

        As a bonus, MADD could keep their acronym and become Mothers Against Dumb Doctors. I thought it was a great idea. She hung-up on me….

    • Religion is a sub-category of superstition, i.e., an irrational belief system. Since it is difficult to sell an illogical belief it is necessary to use force or fraud instead of reason. Furthermore, if one person can be deceived, 7 billion can be, and a majority opinion is no guarantee of truth. The world population is infected with the superstition of authoritarianism/collectivism. It is destroying our species.

      • Hi Voluntaryist –

        Yes, and the worst part is we’re expected to defer to religious belief as somehow in a different category from, say, belief in the Easter Bunny…

        • Nobody ever tried to force me to believe in the Easter Bunny, but the socialist public school system tried very hard (but failed) to force me to believe in Darwinian evolution.

          • What govt. schools teach overtly can be accepted by youth and later corrected in adulthood. But the covert teachings, the brainwashing of young susceptible minds, is longer lasting, and therefore insidious.

            Govt. “education” is child abuse.

            • Dear voluntaryist,

              “Government education is child abuse.”

              100% true.

              Not that it should surprise anyone, since anything the government does is a crime if anyone else does it.

              Extortion: the crime of demanding payment for unsolicited “protection” from real or hypothetical threats from other parties. Governments refer to their extortion as “taxation”.

              Intimidation: the crime of threatening someone with physical harm or physical confinement unless he obeys one’s commands. Governments refer to their intimidation as “law enforcement”.

              Government is all about threatening or inflicting violence upon anyone who fails to obey its commands. That is its defining characteristic.

          • You got that right, John! Evolution meets all of the criteria of a religion, and apparently it is O-K to propagate religion in the pooblik skools, just as long as it’s not Christianity. You can teach evolution and multiculturalism and socialism and self-esteem; you can teach all about the Koran; you can have prayer rooms for Satanists- and why? Because these are all just aspects of the authoritarian-collectivist globalist “one-world” religion…. Just don’t dare even mention the God of the Bible/Jesus Christ, Who is the enemy of the god of the state.

    • Jason –

      Eric’s assertion that Utah’s enactment of the .05 BAC standard constitutes a “Mormon Fatwa” is not “illogical and off the mark.”

      That the prime sponsor of the legislation is Mormon himself immunizes Eric’s assertion from illogical liability. I note that you did not advance any evidence to support the proposition that Representative Thurston’s Mormon faith played no role in his motivation for pushing the legislation.

      Given the avalanche of historical fact, why would any rational person discount the role religion plays in the support for temperance statutes? If anything, given reality, the presumption should be that a religious zealousness animates any proposed law which seeks to either limit or curtail altogether the use of alcohol or any activity the exercise of which generates pleasure.

      Moreover, your comment appears to overlook the fact that nearly 90% of Utah’s solons are……… the words of Marvin Dorfler…….”take a wild f….ing guess”…….MORMON. Your adduced exactly ZERO evidence to negative the proposition that Utah’s Mormon legislators were not influenced by their childish cult.

      Furthermore, the fact that so many other nation states have adopted the .05 BAC standard does not have any relevance to Eric’s position. That France and Zinoland have the same law does not thereby mean that Rep. Thurston and his coreligionists were not influenced by their Mormonism.

        • Check Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), in which the Supreme Court said the fact that the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition on abortion funding coincides with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church does not, without more, constitute an establishment of religion.

      • ….Jason is the kind of person who steps in a dog turd and claims he’s found a new form of chocolate mousse….

      • How things NEVER change! It was the establishment religionists 2000 years ago who called Jesus a winebibber! Goodc thing He didn’t turn water into wine UT…..He would have been crucified that much sooner!

    • Yes, Jason we have 0.05 here in Australia. Very few drunks on the road now, but a whole lot of druggies, like 3X more than the alkies. But the worst ones are the PIGS, who harass innocent motorists the most. We had a driver on ice who went through 2 scameras, hit 3 cars, killed 3 people and did not have to pay the fines. And got a light term of 7 years in jail. We have ultra low speed limits on some of the best roads in the world, sparsely traveled and lots of vacant space in this continent. Our justice system is being run by a private company called Tenix, who probably has operations in the US on toll roads. Very unethical company, who no doubt jail innocent people in order to profit the shareholders.

  27. Ayn Rand predicted this 60 years ago in Atlas Shrugged….
    “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ” ~(paraphrased: Page 406 of Ayn Rand’s, Atlas Shrugged )

    *** We need to get rid of ALL DUI laws. They are being used to trample our rights just like the war on drugs is. We should be concerned about how people are driving NOT some arbitrary level of some substance in their blood.

    • There’s no way to rule a society who don’t want to be ruled. Those who do want to be ruled want to force everybody else into their lifestyle. That’s follows from their desire for an authority over themselves; it’s part of the collectivist mentality that the initiation of violence or threat thereof is necessary and moral.

      When the majority are statists (authoritarians) worldwide, there is no country for escape. And the violence will escalate. The only solution is to change public opinion about being ruled. It is not protection, quite the opposite. It is exploitation of the many for a few. It is a parasite/host relationship. And it is achieved by fraud. The teaching of a myth to children which continues all through life as the MSM takes over from the govt. schools with propaganda perpetuates the delusion that we cannot live without being controlled by an elite. It is anti-individual, anti-life, anti-rights. And it always ends in collapse of society.

      The alternative is self governance by non-violence, just as we interact in the private sector. It works there to provide all of life’s necessities and it will work in the political sector as well. Only a voluntary society works for humanity because only it respects our nature as thinking beings who need freedom of action to fully function.

      • Voluntaryist, you are on to it. Almost all of the problems of the world are due to everyone wanting to tell everyone else how they must live their lives – or else!

        That is why whenever I am asked my opinion about politics or world affairs I simply reply that if one is not a NAPian then one is part of the problem and will never be a part of the solution.
        I rarely get asked my opinion anymore though.

        • The first step is not trying to be part of any solution that involves sacrificing yourself to others.

          Including following the NAP to benefit others to your detriment.

          Steal bread as peacefully as possible if need be. Starving to death isn’t noble. Secure food properly as soon as you can. Compensate your victims even. But live dammit, live.

          Follow the NAP only if it benefits you.

          I would use any available means to keep Islamists away from me.

          Live and Let live must be mutual.

          It is not a noble ideal worth suffering and dying for.

          Never Aggress Against Yourself. This is the first iron law of a thriving existence.

          • Tor, the very beauty of the NAP is that it does not require one to sacrifice oneself to/for others. “Do no harm but take no shit” is not a suicide pact.

            It is the only moral code that can promote Justice and Liberty which are the basis of a civilized society. Everything else is simply the Law of the Jungle i.e. “might makes right”. And that is the problem with the world today- everyone wants to gain the upper hand, the might, to harm others.

            So I must disagree with the notion that one should follow the NAP only if it benefits oneself. To do so is to cancel out the morality of the NAP all together.

            As with all things there are exceptions to just about every rule. For instance, if one is on a plane with two other people and it is going to crash and there are only two parachutes then, yes, one can certainly justify their aggression against the other two to preserve their own life by using force to make sure they get one of the two chutes. Self preservation is a fundamental human right for all three passengers and therefore such actions can be justified in such a situation.

            But I fully agree that “Live and let live” must be mutual. And this is what separates the civilized from the barbaric. This is why I think Libertarianism cannot work for most of humanity. The Stupid and the Cruel are simply not capable of enjoying the such benefits.

            And I fully agree with keeping the Islamists away. They are a savage people following a savage philosophy. They are not even close to being civilized. But that does not mean we should attack them. Just keep them outside the gates.

            (But, frankly, I am more worried about being a victim of the other savages already here i.e. blacks and Hispanics.)

            The NAP does not require one to sacrifice against oneself. Indeed, following the NAP denies others any moral authority to aggress against others. Never underestimate the power of moral authority. It is what separates man from beast. And it is the difference between the civilized and the savage. That is the vital difference between thriving and merely surviving.

            • Where is this civized society? All I see are hierarchies of brute servitude.

              There is material prosperity. But we are denied fully enjoying the fruits of our labor.

              In many ways we are lower than the beasts.

              They are often freer than us to do as they please.

              I’m not talking about freedom to do violence. But to do everything else that is peaceful.

              • Tor, “All I see are hierarchies of brute servitude.”

                Cannot argue with you on that except to say that I’d rather be in servitude where their is some material comfort and at least some attempts at manners than to be in a hell hole without them. For now anyways.

                  • Aww, gee, Skunk, Don’t start agonizing over every typo, ’cause it’ll make ME look bad; and if I have to start correcting all of my mistakes, I’ll have to sit at this ‘puter 24/7! 😀

                    • Nunzio, LOL. Most of us would too. I am hardly a grammar nazi but the misuse of “there, they’re and their” makes me feel ignorant even in typos. Same with “your and you’re”.

                    • Oh, I know what you mean, Skunk- I can’t believe it when I see that I’ve somehow interchanged a “their” for there”- as no one would believe it was a typo….they’d just think we were oblivious.

                      The day I put in a Craigslist ad “I’m saling my car”, is the day I shoot myself though!

              • What civilized society, Tor? For the NAP to work, people would have to be free to practice it. We are not- so instead we have coercion and violence and injustice, not so much perpetrated by civilians, but rather by those who take our protection money and do their dastardly deeds “for our own good” while preventing us from defending ourselves against them and the civilian variety of criminal.

                • What you say is surely true.

                  But I reject the very word criminal, which is to say lawbreaker. Because I know there are no criminals among the other higher mammals.

                  To know what is crime, means a vast library of statutes. Rules that must be followed altruistically.

                  Codified Law is based on a lie. That some authority knows what is a better way for humans to behave.

                  And that our lives must be subordinate to this decreed better way.


                  This has never worked and never will.

                  The proliferation of all these writings has made it so we are 1% free. At any given moment, 99% of what we might be doing is prohibited.

                  Only a very few violent aggressive things need be prohibited.

                  All of history and literature and poliitics. It has all been a devolution. Not a progression.

                  The man in 1917 was 5% free. In 1817 he was 10% free.

                  NAP is something you must evolve and aspire to. It is no something for us to haggle over and codify.

                  It is not some new gleaming better way. It’s a reclaiming of our nature as human beings.

                  A nature that has never been about killing and enslaving other human beings.

                  Look at old National Geographics. When primitive men were first contacted they had little in the way of property. But they were nearly 100% free.

                  And usually, they were less violent and aggressive than the supposed civilized men who “discovered” them, and conspired to place them in the long conga line of conformity with altruistic diktats and commands.

                  • Hi Tor,

                    Without side-stepping the brutal things done to the native people of this continent, I question how free they actually were. These were tribal societies and my understanding is they were both collective and authoritarian. The individual was not sacred; far from it. The head man – the chief – ruled absolutely. His medicine man kept the tribe enthralled as the priests (secular and religious) do today. If the chief or council decided to flay you alive, they could and did.


                    It’s true the individual brave could take off into the woods and attempt to live “free” on his own. But neither his person nor his property was secure; either could be violated by whomever had the physical power and the desire to do so.


                    With all its many admitted flaws, our current society has witnessed a very significant moral turning by acknowledging both property rights and the sanctity of the individual. The NAP systematizes this – and is the kernel of a future awakening – much like the Enlightenment that led to the emergence of natural rights doctrine and the founding of the United States.

                    • I don’t think that is photo documented in any magazine.

                      I have read of Columbus four expeditions to the Americas.

                      Those islanders live peacefully in a communal building with hundreds of people each.

                      These buildings had clean sands for floors, and the people took several baths a day.

                      The violence was only against other tribes.

                      Their concept of property was such that if another tribesman asked for what you had.

                      The honorable thing commanded was that you must give it to him, but that you too may request what he has and he must give it to you.

                      I would say they were more like bonobos. Less violent for sure than Europeans.

                      It is not the complex rules making property sacred that frees us directly.

                      It may be that such laws enslave us, but also force us to be more productive than we would otherwise be.

                      Consider that all these Christians say they follow Jesus. Yet the entirety of his laws could be understood simply and easily by anyone.

                      What is great is the evolved minds that can conceive of articles of confederation and proclamations of independence.

                      Not the written words themselves.

                      Both Jesus and the founders ideas were mostly sound.

                      It is in the forced execution of these ideas that the whole thing becomes a failure.

                      As Ayn Rand said America was the first nation that believed you can make money.

                      All other governments talked only about redistributing what already existed.

                      You and I are so free because of our belief that we can write on this blog and create something of value that never existed anywhere before.

                      We are filled with the holy American can do spirit.

                      You can bring the founders or Jesus into our spirit because they are part of our shared culture.

                      It is only in saying that the founders wrote true laws, while Jesus inspired superstitions that I disagree.

                      All the writings of Thomas Jefferson too are entirely non-essential just like Jesus.

                      It is only his deeds that matter.

                      As are the deeds of Jesus, if he ever even existed in the way claimed.

                    • Exactly, Eric! The Indians may have been “free”….from us….but they weren’t free, because they certainly did not embrace the NAP or the Golden Rule or anything like them; instead they warred amongst themselves, practicing violence, robbery, plunder and all of the other things which the PC crowd seems to romanticize away……and they probably did so more so than the Europeans who in-turn conquered them.

                      Pretty much, anywhere you have people or animals, you have beings who will use whatever powers are available to them to their advantage, and to the detriment of those around them, unless they have a motive, such as a religion or philosophy which restrains such behavior.

                    • …as this is an Auto Site, I am simply interested in knowing when someone will manufacture a JCA car? Or…at least name some car The JCA. You see…I never work on my own car…(except to hold the flashlight)… as when I was young I endured that experience with my abusive Father… who every five seconds would scream…”Jesus Christ Almighty !”… before he degenerated into more cursing and frustration at his inability to do the repairs! Ha! I say… pay for repairs and leave religion out of it! Ha!
                      RJ O’Guillory

                    • Dear Eric,

                      I almost never disagree with you, but I feel compelled to speak up here.

                      If some Indians violated other Indians’ rights, does that mean that all Indians’ rights are forfeit, and that non-Indians have carte blanche to declare open season on all Indians and deprive them of their land?

                      I have to believe you would never say “Of course it does!”, because such an answer would fly in the face of reason and justice.

                      That is the logic that Neocon warmongers invoke as a matter of routine. They point to some dictator who is “violating the human rights of his own people”, as an excuse to invade. They then proceed to slaughter the victims of the dictator right along with the dictator himself. “Collateral damage” they say. “Too bad. Couldn’t be helped”, just before helping themselves to the nation’s oil reserves.

                      The fact is that European settlers in North America knew what the right way to acquire land was. Buy it. William Penn did just that in the Pennsylvania region.

                      But others simply saw what they wanted, and robbed the Indians of it at gunpoint.

                      Many of these were Northerners who first victimized fellow whites in the South, then went on to victimize the Plains Indians as well.

                      Whether it is possible to compensate the Indians is a separate issue. The point is that robbing them of their land was flat out wrong. No excuses. Denying what happened back then does not change that.

                    • Hello, Bevin,

                      I don’t think that Eric (nor I) was implying that Indians deserved what Colonists did to them because of what they did to each other. The statement Eric made (and I affirmed) was that Indians were not so free before the arrival of the Colonists, because of their treatrment of each other.

                      Although, now that you mention it, maybe there is a certain “justice” to it- Much like the US- after all we’ve done, if some other power whom we’ve never messed with conquered us even though we may have done them no harm, they may have no right to do so, but yet would it not be fitting punishment on behalf of those whom we have wronged?

                    • Dear Nunzio,

                      I have to assume that neither Eric nor you actually meant to imply that European stealing of Indian land was “not so bad, after all Indians weren’t all that free to begin with”.

                      The Indian population was not that large, so it is reasonable to say that they did not own all of the land.

                      Some indians were nomadic. That adds to the difficulty of determining ownership.

                      But some Indians were not nomadic, they homesteaded and settled clearly demarked regions of the land.

                      Nevertheless when European settlers realized there was gold on the Indians’ land, they violated previously signed treaties that acknowledged Indian property rights.

                      This happened to the Nez Perce Indians in the Dakotas region.

                    • Correct, Mr. Bevin,

                      It’s not that we’re saying that the stealing of Indian’s land and the killing of Indains “wasn’t so bad, because they were not that free”- but rather, we were just emphasizing [in opposition to a point Tor had made] that the Indians were not all that free, despite their lack of formal government, because of the fact that they did not practice a NAP-like principle, and thus used force/violence/aggression against each other.

                      [Of course, I speak for myself here, but i think I know Eric’s views well enough to know that he is most likely in agreement with this]

                    • Dear Nunzio,

                      I believe we’re on the same page.

                      Just to be clear, the admission that some, not all European settlers stole Indian land, does not mean that current property owners must “give the land back to the Indians”.

                      It’s probably not possible at this late to sort out who owes whom what.

                      I’m merely saying that instead of repressing this “collective guilt” and projecting it on to Russia re: Ukraine, or China re: Tibet, American policymakers ought to simply let the matter be and mind their own business.

                      Hawaii is a far more clear cut case. The geographical parameters are crystal clear. The entire nation of Hawaii was annexed at bayonet point. The Hawaiian islands in their entirety, are not American territory.

                      Several recent POTUSes have openly acknowledged the wrong done to the Hawaiian people.

                      But has Hawaii been restored to its rightful state of independence?

                      No it has not.

                      Instead, the USG continues to act on fabricated MSM narratives about Ukraine, Tibet, and other matters, risking WWIII in the process.

                      “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”
                      — Thomas Paine

                      People of any nation must willing to connect the dots.

                      The wrong that the USG inflicted upon the American Indians, the Hawaiians, and even white Southerners, has far reaching consequences.

                      The police state/national security state that all Americans currently endure, is part of a long chain of cause and effect. This unbroken chain dates back to the War of Northern Aggression, the Indian Wars, the annexation of Hawaii, and the colonization of the Philippines.

                      The consequences are exactly as Paine warned. The precedent established is reaching to America itself.

                    • I agree completely, my dear Bevin [<– Read in Dr. Smith from Lost In Space voice].

                      Funny, how Hawaii isn't even "an issue" for most Americans; not even on the table, or talked about or even thought about, except perhaps for some who live in Hawaii; and then only because the natives are openly making their contempt for the invaders known lately- which of course, is portrayed as somehow being a character flaw of theirs. Funny how the media narrative seems to always portray the invaders of our mainland and others who are here but hostile to us, as having legitimacy; but in the case of the Hawaiians who actually do have legitimacy, and where we are the invaders, the Hawaiians are portrayed as the bad guys. (Or has this changed as of late? I don't know; I don't partake of any mainstream media sources.]

                      Funny things, speaking of the War of Northern Aggression: I now live only about 50 miles from Lincoln's birthplace. I had to go right through the town where it is, to pick up a riding mower I was buying. I cursed [dis]Honest Abe as I drove through his town on the way to where I was going. Coming home- it was on a Sunday when nothing is open; I have a single axle trailer, and no spare for it, plus one of the studs on one of the wheels is stripped, so the lug nut wouldn't come off anyway. No joke, the tire on that trailer blew out right about the time I was passing where Mrs. Lincoln made the best pro-abortion argument of all time (on the side with the stripped stud, no less!)- so I had to drive home at c. 15 MPH with the tire flapping all the way. It took HOURS!

                  • Well….”criminal” in the sense of a violation not of some codified law penned by men, but in the sense of doing gratuitous violence or damage or tresspass to someone’s person or property……..

                    • Nunzio, the word “criminal” is at best an abstract meaning. A criminal is one who breaks The Law and therefore is one who is, allegedly, “evil”. But this fails to consider whether The Law itself is morally correct. It more often than not is not. Hence the soundness of trial by jury which is based on not just whether one is guilty of “breaking” a Law but whether or not The Law is itself justified.
                      I propose not just replacing the word “criminal” with the word “aggressor” but also basing all laws on whether or not aggression is used against another. IOW Mala en se laws only.

                  • )(^^%**(^%^!!!! Darn! Ya had to say that, Skunk B.! I was just going to conclude by saying “I know you are, but what am I” :p 😉

                • The NAP works fine within all societies even in N. Korea. Do the civilians there practice daily force/fraud against each other? No. In private daily life the NAP is their chosen code. It is so everywhere.

          • Ayn recognized that there are instances where it appears following her moral code would seem to be a sacrifice. She reminded us to keep the full context of our lives in mind, i.e., to see the big picture. We might not benefit immediately by our actions, but we do in the long run, if we conceptualize the future.

            She also warned against using “lifeboat situations” as a guide to morality. These rare and maybe never to be experienced by us situations should not serve as a paradigm.

            It is not the collective that should worry us. We do not directly confront it. We deal with individuals and their immediate actions. If a statist is humane/honest in his personal interactions, but a libertarian cons others or uses emotional blackmail to manipulate, I would prefer to deal with the statist.

            • Voluntaryist, “It is not the collective that should worry us. We do not directly confront it.”

              Have to disagree. The collective directly confronts us every day. It does so through the use of force based on false authority.

              Individuals can only do so much harm to other individuals because an individual has limited power. . But the power of the collective – which is made up of individuals, humane or otherwise – is unlimited.

              As an individual Stalin was an inhumane beast but he could never have caused the massive harm he did without the power of the collective – individuals who followed his collective “authority” to do evil to their fellow man.

              Now according to those who actually knew Hitler he was said to be a real gentleman, a statist who was humane/honest in his personal interactions. And yet he, like Stalin, was able to wreck massive harm via the collective only.

              • I have never been mobbed, attacked by “the collective”. I have been injured by an individual who had the protection of the collective concentration of power which created a monopoly on power. So, who do I say “got me”? The individual or the collective? You say it’s the collective. I say it is the individual. I say that because I have been in danger of from authority before, without harm. They had the collective behind them, but no harm came to me. Why? It was an individual decision, not a collective. And that is how I arrived at my conclusion that we change the collective “one individual at a time”. That is where my focus is. I can’t change the collective, as the collective, only one person at a time.
                Maybe I’m just a small minded person with small goals. I’m certainly open to any suggestions on how to reduce or eliminate the “unlimited” power of the collective. Or should we just redirect it, one person at a time, to a more productive paradigm?

                • Voluntaryist, do not disagree at all. In fact one of the reasons why I question the holocaust is because I just have a hard time believing that none of the guards/their inmate cappos at these “Death Camps” had any sense of basic human morals on such a scale.

                  But there are the snowflake and the SJW anti-White lunatics out there now so maybe I am wrong.

                  • The numbers claimed in the holocaust are definitely greatly exaggerated. They just don’t work out. In order for 3 million number to be true [formerly 6 million…] they would have had to have had the gas chambers going 24/7 for quite some time; and a constant stream of Jews several abreast constantly feeding them- which, for technical and logistical reasons would have been impossible.

                    Not to say that it didn’t happen entirely though…..

                    • Nunzio, I am not aware of any book which demonstrates exactly how the six million figure is true.

                      If anyone wants to take a trip down the rabbit hole google “six million Jews”. That six million figure thing had been around way before WWII.

                    • ‘Zactly, Skunky.

                      First it was “6 million”. The last few years, it seems that “3 million” is now the “accepted number”. My…..3 million victims magically disappeared without any explanation…… I guess it’s easy to change the numbers when they’re dealing with fantasy.

                      And even for the 3 million number…the logistics would be impossible; they can’t even find mass graves for a fraction of that number…. (Unless they’re in the ashtray of someone’s VW Bug… :D)

                      Not to minimize the monstrosity of the attrocities that were committed…but why embellish them?

                  • Hi Skunk,

                    I have no difficulties accepting that humans are capable of such – and on an even larger scale. Witness events in Soviet Russia during the Stalin era – or even during the early revolutionary era under Lenin and the evil Felix Dzhersinsky. It is almost unimaginable – but it did happen. The Soviets were worse than the Nazis. This fact is not generally know, though – and I find that fact interesting.

                    • So true, Eric- and the good ol’ Jew.S.of A. chose to wage war to save the Soviets from Germany….. And every year we have a holy day to thank the mercenaries for “fighting for our freedom” instead of refusing the draft notice and going to jail….

                      The collective just emboldens the individual- Mainly the psychopathic and evil. Just witness what a lone cop or two will do, even out in the middle of nowhere.

                    • Eric, sadly, you are right. One should never underestimate man’s inhumanity to man.

                      But while I have seen Nazi documents that forbade mistreatment of the camp’s prisoners I have yet to see a book that shows exactly how the number six million was arrived at.

            • Right. Awn. Skunk!

              It’s like we have the NAP as neutral ground: We can live our lives as we choose while not abusing others, and everyone’s happy; no one has a complaint; all goes well.

              If we move to either side of the NAP….

              Off to one side, we become an aggressor- abusing others to achieve our own goals.

              If we move to the opposite side, we become a door mat- tolerating abuse by others.

              But neither has to be the case- and that’s the beauty of the NAP- we can be/do what we want, at our own expense; and yet unlike pacifism, we have the power to resist and repel those who would not abide by such principles.

              Even those of us who are Christians need not be doormats. We are commanded to love our neighbor as our self…not more than ourselves!

    • Hi AW,

      I’ve been beating that drum for years! If a guy’s driving is poor – for whatever reason, including lack of skill, senility, etc. – then that’s the relevant criteria. My ex-mother-in-law is a wonderful lady but a terrible driver even when absolutely sober. She’ll sail through a checkpoint – even though she is a menace to everyone in her orbit. But a person who is a superb driver, causing no problems, goes to the clink solely on the basis of an arbitrary “BAC” number…

      • And what about the dominican bitch who forged forensic results in Massachusucks? 24000 people gone to jail on forged results. Austin Texas had a municipal lab that was so crooked it had to be shut down. And other states are now having he same problems with state forgeries.

        • Ditto Nassau county, NY- one of the richest counties in the country. Had to release about a third of the inmates because they had no idea who was “guilty” and who was not, as the forensics lab would say that anything was drugs; or the DNA matched, etc.

  28. Eric, you only briefly mentioned the true problem here: the “inaccuracy” of breathalyzers. They are not only inaccurate. The sensors can react to things other than alcohol (ketones in the breath, caused by either diabetes or diet). The uniformed robber can also manipulate the reading to elevate the “detected BAC” – by ordering its prey to “keep breathing”, so the air from the bottom of the lungs, more saturated with compounds that trigger the sensor, has a disproportional impact on the reading. With that .05 threshold it becomes possible to arrest for “drunken driving” even someone, who didn’t drink at all (but happens to be on a ketogenic diet), or just ate a chocolate with a cherry in alcohol.

      • My advice: a couple of fast, deep breaths before the test, and then stop blowing into the tube before completely emptying your lungs.

        Anyway, this is an actual, well founded scientific issue, and once defense lawyers (and their expert witnesses) smell blood, the ignorant mullahs may regret pushing this new “law”.

  29. To give you an idea how outrageous DUI laws are, an acquaintance of mine had been out drinking with some friends from his Army deployment. After a fashion, he knew he was sauced, and, wanting to do the responsible thing and chose not to drive home.

    Instead of driving, he got into the BACK seat of his car, put on a blanket and went to sleep. Couple hours later, he was awoken by a Heroic First Responder — and arrested for DUI because he had his keys in his pocket while he slept in the back seat!

  30. If this becomes law, EVERY establishment that serves alcohol should respond by refusing to serve anyone whose driver’s license shows a body weight of less than 150 lbs. Since even one drink would make such a person “above the limit”, they would claim this policy protects them from liability. I know it would almost seem like cutting off one’s nose in spite of your face, but after a short time I’ll bet the do-gooder politicians would start to feel some heat!

    • JD I say we have the death penalty for the 12000 motorists killed last year by illegal immigrant drivers, who can’t bathe much less drive a car. The gringos have wiped out the gains made by improved medical procedures and safer cars.

      If they hang them all they get the guilty
      if they hang them all they cannot miss
      If they hang them all they get the guilty
      But remember they are going to hang you too.

      From Hang them all by Tom T. Hall

  31. In the 70’s and early 80’s, cops were generally not looking to generate revenue and were reasonable on DUI. I had at least a half dozen times where a cop asked how much i h ad to drink and i answered honestly…in one case even saying an astonishing number like 10 beers…..and they told me to be careful and prob need to go on home.

    • Hi Steve,

      So true.

      I remember one incident – circa 1987. I was out with three of my friends; all of us high school friends. My buddy was driving his POS Nova; he’d had a couple beers. We got pulled over for chirping the tires. The cop asked whether my buddy had been drinking and he said yes. The cop let me drive the car home (I had not been drinking) and didn’t arrest my friend or even give him a ticket.

      Craziest damn thing. The cop protected by having me drive us all home. No harassment or collection involved.

  32. Utah’s been a theocracy since the beginning. It was only recently when a state legislator finally outright admitted that the LDS Corporation (pretending to be a “church”) outright told the Mormon legislators how to vote. The corporation basically dictates what bills are passed and which are shot down.

    One of the more recent ridiculous nanny state bills is that every eating establishment put up a sign to state “This location is licensed as a RESTAURANT, not a BAR” or vice-versa all in the name of “protecting the children.”

    One great political cartoon that appeared after this went into effect had, “This location is licensed as a CHURCH, not a GOVERNMENT” and vice-versa on the LDS Corporate HQ and state capitol building.

  33. Mormonism is a cult not unlike Scientology. Founded by a convicted fraud, Joseph Smith, an illiterate who could barely write his own name, infamous for committing acts of fraud from New York to Ohio some how managed to obtain secret ancient Egyptian tablets with which he alone could only read using special golden spectacles given him by angels managed to pull off one of the greatest frauds in American history, the creation of the Mormon religious sect. An unscrupulous religious order that continues to live in the 12th century,whose leadership has ties to the drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia, also has more than its share of political power in Washington. A religion run by dottering old cranks, who come up with with what one can only describe as the worst kind of delusion such as being one of the lost tribes of israel.
    Is it any wonder they were once driven from the states into Mexico.
    Mormonism like Scientology were both created by con men. Losers from the very beginning who could not make a living any other way except to defraud unwitting people. Smith with his so called ancieint tablets, L. Ron Hubbard, a shyster and huckster, failed science fiction and self help writer, remember ‘Dianetics? Both of these cults and that’s what they are enjoy the protection of the first Amendment while enslaving their victims.
    These types of hucksters and their so called religions could only gain ground in America.

        • Sadly, there are more “Christian” Zionists in the world today than Jewish ones. Ditto “Christian” (and especially Mormon) Freemasons……. People sometimes ask me “If Christianity is so great, how come this world is so messed up, despite there being so many Christians in it?”- to which I reply that if all of those adherents were truly following Christ and the Bible instead of various man-made systems, the world would truly be a different place. As a Christian, I find my biggest enemy is the organized Christian church.

  34. Any alcohol above .0% is grounds for drunk driving conviction where I live (Japan). You lose your license, any passenger in the car loses their license, and if you work for the government or certain large corporations, you get fired. Fortunately, there’s no random checkpoints, so you have to actually get in an accident to get tested. In rural areas where public transportation isn’t so good, this system has put many restaurants and bars out of business as people feel its better to drink at home rather than risk draconian penalties. Bottom line is that this system is seen as fair because of the lack of random checkpoints. You have to actually make a mistake while drunk driving to get caught.

    • Hi Andy,

      Yeah, I’m hip to that. Ridiculous. But at least, as you say, you have to wreck before it becomes an issue. As it always ought to be. Otherwise, you are prosecuting people for hypotheticals; for harm they might cause. And that is an open-ended invitation to punish/control people for no reason at all. On the basis of feelings and fears. Which can be anything.

      I much prefer the possibility (slim) of harm caused by a “dangerous drunk” to the absolute and inescapable certainty of the harm caused to my liberty by government.

  35. The government has no problem sending 18-21 year olds to kill strangers in far off lands, often getting maimed and addicted to alcohol or prescription drugs in the process. They also gladly count their votes to usher in the puppet of their choice every 4 years.
    However, god forbid these kids should have a beer before getting behind the wheel of a civilian automobile.

  36. But other states – and the Feds – soon realized what a cash (and control) cow the .08 standard could be potentially be for them and – shazam! – the whole country adopted .08 as the universal standard.

    This is the fatal flaw in Jefferson’s design. He envisioned a country of experimentation, where instead of a central power issuing decrees and then trying to deal with the bad ideas, the states would attempt legislation on a small scale and over time the best ideas would bubble up. He never anticipated the nanny state, nor the temperance movement, and I imagine never ever thought people would willingly give in to mass hysteria (read between the lines if you wish…).

    When limits on freedom in all forms are tested, they get the fast track to national prominence. From the War on Drugs™ to national speed limits and RomneyCare becoming Obamacare, any idea that comes along to keep the marching morons in check goes right to the head of the class. But any attempt at opening up the barn door a little, even just to let someone consume a plant, forget it. That’s just a bunch of scofflaws trying to get into your daughter’s skirt. Except that one of the best uses for cannabinoids is hand cream for little old ladies who’s protective fathers are long dead. They use it to relieve their arthritis.

    • 20 years ago a large number of people my parents age made their own liniment from pot leaves since few knew how to make hash from the leaf and would give it away. It did work. Don’t know what all it had in it, mostly rubbing alcohol which would melt the oil and put it in solution. I knew others who used WD 40 and that works too. I just applied some DMSO to my big ol swelled up hand but it ain’t magic.

    • Jefferson and the other Founders knew exactly what would happen if people became lax enough about the preservation of their own freedom to tolerate the gross amassing of power by government. We reached that point well over 100 years ago. There was no sense in anticipating or planning for dealing with anything of the scope of tyranny we now have, because once we let our freedom and power slip away, mere words on paper can do nothing to restore it(just as the Constitution is powerless to protect us now that we do not have the will nor the force to see that it is abided by) and a people who would allow such tyranny, will always have tyranny, because they allow it; and get the government they deserve.

      Even if Superman appeared and delivered them from the present system, they would just erect, cooperate with and tolerate another one just like it. Our great grandfathers dropped the ball, and our fathers and grandfathers let it roll into the sewer. Some men who have been dead for 200 years can not save us- and it was not their failure to anticipate this, but rather the people’s failure- as they allowed it, cooperated with it and even bolstered it. They warned us, that if we were not diligent, what they tried to leave us would vanish away- and it has. If we have failed to maintain the basic minarchy which they gave us, why would you think that if we only had more precepts prescribing the conduct of the government, that they would be any more observed?

  37. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the down-stairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur-what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed
    machine would have ground to a halt!“.

  38. It is the state with the infamous “zion curtains” in bars. Bartenders cannot be seen by the public when they mix drinks. You also can’t see the liquor bottles. It’s for the “children” of course.

    The state of Utah also owns all the liquor stores, beer can’t have more the 3.2% of alcohol in a bar (probably no higher content microbrews like the rest of nation has gotten at all). And there weren’t “public” bars until 2009. They had to be membership clubs up to then.

  39. All government is theocracy. It’s just a question of what god they serve. Any law which goes beyond the natural laws of a man’s right to exist; to contract; and to maintain private property, is in essence the imposition of a moral code or value system, whether it be derived from a human potentate; a sacred scripture; or “the will of the majority”.

    I embraced many of the ideas of libertarianism when I was but a child- without knowing such a thing as Libertarianism existed, or that others had observed or believe in the same things I did. I even more fully embraced Libertarianism/anarchistic ideas when I became a Christian in my early 20’s, because it was glaringly obvious that if are subject to the decrees of men, whether written 200 years ago or today- or the “will of the majority”, we then have another authority “before God” (As in “Thou shalt not have any gods before Me”) and we can not truly be Christians (or anything else) if our first obligation is to abide by another moral code/value system. Thus the state is a competitor to God.

    The state also decrees that one have no other god before it- which is why virtually every authoritarian government ends up persecuting practitioners of exclusive religions, such as Christianity- because ultimately, the god of state will not tolerate anyone having any god before it. Just like in ancient Rome. You can worship any diety you want to, so long as you acknowledge Caesar as supreme first.

    The noose just keeps tightening. We’re already way past anything Hitler or Stalin ever imagined. We’d better find some remote place in the third world to go, where once you’re off the beaten path, the gov’t doesn’t even exist…..because one day soon, we won’t be able to leave, and we will all be in cages.

    • Amen, Brother, Preach it!!

      One thing I’ve learned after being saved after 30 years of a-theism, Caesar ain’t changed a lick in 2000 years.

    • As they ( the government and the power institutions) give more importance to the so called laws, therefore we have to deal with much more criminals “Lao-Tse.
      The three(3) pillars of any Power, doesn’t matter the ideology/religion are; Ignorance ( institutionalized!!), Fear and Guilt sentiment.
      This is a looting industry !
      The leaders can not offer to us nothing at all as long we are happy… Tao Meng !

      In such society we can not be happy, whatsoever !

      • So true!

        When I was young, I never understood (for just one example) the “logic” of anti drug laws. You criminalize drugs because “they may destroy the lives of those who use them”- and the penalty is: Destroying the life of those who use them + their families + the innocent public.

        Then, after you see how the state operates and what the nature of their game is, you realize that it is all about control (Hence, why it doesn’t matter if you’re taking LSD or ground up raspberry seeds as vitamin B17)- what matters to them is that you kneel at their altar, and look to their official system only, for all of your needs.

        Something which may distract it’s user from the official state-sanctioned and taxed methods- and especially if it is something which is in a part of the economy that is not yet controlled by the state, can not be tolerated….

    • So then….you’re OK with Muslim communities putting Sharia law above civil/Constitutional law, by that same argument??

      • What’s the difference? Whether a law is a reflection of the “will of the majority”; the invention of a man or men to further some agenda, political or otherwise; a precept written by other men who have been dead for 200 years; the ranting of some judge; or the decrees of someone else’s god/moral code/value system, if it is not the law that YOU subscribe to and practice, or the law of the God whom you worship, what possible difference does it make? If others are forced to comply with anything more than to not perpetrate violence against others nor their property, then they are being forced to submit to a god not of their own choosing.

    • Very true. I’ve never understood, since my own conversion to political anarchism (though I am also a Reformed Christian) why my brothers and sisters so willingly bow down to the State. They must somehow think that the State and God are partners in redeeming the world.

      I can’t, for the life of me, see from where they get that. Certainly not the Scriptures.

      The State is anti-God; it thinks it is God. A lot of Christians better start understanding that.

      • It’s SO ironic….those of us who worship the ultimate enemy of the state…..see so many who also claim to worship Him worshiping the very state which crucified Him! (They may not worship Rome, but all manifestations of the state are essentially derived from the same ideals, and are just a perpetuation of former states).

        Since all government is essentially theocratic, they must either outright compete with the god(s) of their citizens, or become the god of their citizens. So they do like Constantine: Seeing the popularity of Christianity, he just marched his soldiers through the river and said “Your baptized! Now you’re Christians!”- and then proceeded to give Christian names to all of the various heathen festivals and practicies- the pagan Saturnalia became “Christmas”, old pagan gods became “Christian saints”, etc.

        Make it easy for the masses- no overcoming human nature; no abstaining from the fleshly pursuits…..just feel good and have a good time and be lulled by pleasant words…and before you know it, you have most mainstream Christians worshiping the very state which crucified the object of their adoration- and even fighting in it’s armies, and persecuting the “heretics” (real Christians) who would not go along with the program.

        Poorly translating and misapplying a few verses of the Bible to make it sound as though God Himself endorses submission to the state, helped them out too!

        “God and country”- even the Nazis had to have it, ’cause no one fights for bankers and politicians. No one willingly gives up 60% of the fruit of their labor to some entity, unless they worship and adore that entity, and consider such their sacred duty (And for those of us who see through the BS, they guns and cages….)

        I always found it interesting from my earliest days of Bible study, that it is prophesied that the nations and their armies will be assembled against God (at Christ’s return). And these nations so many professing Christians devote themselves to, and will even be among those armies!

        Or how about how so many “Christians” work/fight to further the cause of the modern-day nation of Israel, when it was their God who kicked the Jews out of the land of Israel because of their disobedience and refusal to accept the Messiah?! But yet these Christians see themselves as doing God’s work by firthering the agenda of the enemies of Christ, and the state which makes their very existence in that land possible. (Such is actually a great witness to unbelievers- the fact that there can never be peace in the Mid-East, because those Jews are there in definace of God!)

    • It was Larken Rose who made the connection between religion & government. He showed in his book “The Most Dangerous Superstition” how govt. is based on a myth which is maintained mainly by deception but also by force and fear.
      Any superstition is harmful, even one that “appears” to provide an ethical system, e.g., Christianity. An ethics based on reason, not superstition needs no “leap of faith” or promise of immortality (fear of death) to be accepted. The appeal to reason glorifies the humanity in us because it is our mind and its ability that makes us unique from other species, human. That is what Objectivism does. It gives us the NAP as the first rationally based ethics, an ethics consistent with our nature as human.

      • I owe a great debt to Larken Rose. He is the one who finally pushed me over the edge.

        I disagree with you in the sense that Christianity is not about compulsion. You may find it unreasonable and superstitious, but it is not, in its true nature, compulsive. Genuine faith is not coerced. If you think Christian belief requires a “leap of faith”, then you do not understand the word “faith”. It’s not defined, in Scripture, the way you apparently think it is. Read a good translation of Hebrews 11:1 for a good description of faith.

        As I can testify, anarchism and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Take a look at for why this is true.

        I understand your attitude – I really do. This is why Christian faith is a supernatural faith. It is a work of God, not a work of man. A leopard can’t change its spots; an unregenerate man can’t change his heart. Only God can do that.

        Read the reply that I sent to Eric elsewhere in this thread. It lays it all out for you.

        May God grant you a heart of flesh.

        • So, if I have no faith (an unregenerate man), I can’t change? “Only God can do that.”?? And the leopard? Only God can change his spots?

          And I have believed since I was 8 (for 66 years) that I was the decider of my fate, the master of my soul, responsible for my actions. As such I rejected faith and used my mind to reason things out. All my beliefs I developed, not God. From experience I gained confidence in those beliefs, and have no faith, no trust, no confidence in the supernatural, which is just a word used by those who “feel” their beliefs out, e.g., if it “feels” right, it must be so, no need to question, no way to convince except by righteous testimony.
          I’m convinced you feel your beliefs deeply. I don’t question that. I question the validity of your epistemology.

          • You can’t give yourself spiritual life. You can change, outwardly, in human terms, certain behaviors and beliefs through human effort. But, Christianity is not a self-help religion. And, no, the leopard cannot change his spots, nor the Ethiopian his skin. That’s Scriptural teaching.

            I can’t comment on your journey through life. I can only say to you, frankly, that the man who is the decider of what’s right based on human understanding, who is the master of his fate, is the man to whom the Gospel message is specifically given. It specifically calls on such men, but all men, everywhere to submit to God’s will. But that will can only be discerned when God grants spiritual life, through what is known as the doctrine of Regeneration, being born again, the New Birth. It is a Spiritual birth, the emergence of a nature that was dead before.

            Read Ezekial 37, the vision of the valley of dry bones. Though that vision is has primary application to the bringing back of Israel to the promised land after the Babylonian captivity, it also accurately describes the conversion of men. The story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead is also applicable. The point of both of these passages is that dead men do not respond to the call of Gospel, unless they are first made alive. That is really what I want to leave you with.

            I can’t convert you, but God can. The book of Romans also confirms that the natural man cannot please God, cannot respond to God, does not understand spiritual things. But, if anything I have said stirs something within you to reflect on your life and to consider how you have ignored God, then you have the beginnings of a possible working of God in your life. Don’t ignore those feelings. Read Spurgeon’s All of Grace. Seek out a faithful minister who can explain these things to you in more detail. God can take the most humble beginnings and work them according to his purpose.

            It’s real. Peace.

            • Your contribution to research is much appreciated Antonio. You are in the majority of the world’s belief systems, any help you could provide to appeal to these authorities to desist persecuting and restraining our behavior and labors would be greatly appreciated.

              I’m sure you are great asset and powerful friend to our cause.

              May peace also be with you. The entire spectrum of peace. Not just one narrow band of peace that shines from a prism of Moral Authoritarianism.

          • That certainly would render so many verses where it says “Choose ye this day who you will serve; The Lord or….” kinda meaningless, if we had no choice, eh?

            I disagree with the guy in this video on many aspects of theology- but he does have some good stuff occasionally- and his refutation of Calvinism is basic:

            • There are problem verses, of course, but I think that taking everything that’s said about this topic leads me to conclude that it is a work of God, from start to finish.

              One thing I have been thinking about is that a believer is given spiritual life at the very moment he truly believes. Where does Scripture ever say that spiritual life is taken back by God?

              The Holy Spirit is given to indwell the believer at the very moment he truly believes. Where does Scripture ever indicate that he is ever taken back?

              It’s all well and good to test yourself and not take the promises of God for granted. At the same time, both views have unavoidable consequences. One idea follows from another. One path leads to the conclusion that God’s promises are not worth much, if it really depends on us in the end. The other path reinforces the idea that the “gifts and calling of God are without repentance”. “Salvation is of the Lord”, not man. “…He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the Day of Christ Jesus.”

              I am well aware of Steven Anderson. He is a KJV-Onlyist who is also a virulent anti-doctrines of Grace preacher. I don’t think much of his views, and they have been refuted many times throughout Church history. They just never seem to hear the answer.


              • Hi Antonio,

                If I were to remove every reference to “god” or Jesus” or the Holy Spirit” in your posts and substitute Hiuxtlopochtli, would you come to believe in him? Regard the case as having been made?

                • Hi, Eric,

                  I grant that if I was raised in a different culture I very well might have believed in a different god, or maybe no god at all. But, as in my case here in America, in a Christian milieu, even though I was raised in a different faith tradition (Roman Catholic), it was still possible for me to have my eyes opened. Believe me (no pun intended), I was as obstinate and hard as anybody could be, but God broke through my rebellion and hardness.

                  I think the better questions is, why do missionaries who go into an area with nothing except the Word of the living God in the language of the culture witness conversions to a God the people have never even heard of? Why would those people leave everything that is familiar to them, and risk being ostracized from their own people, or worse, just to follow this “god”? The answer is the same as it was for people in the Roman/Greek world to which the original Apostles witnessed and preached. The Spirit of God opened their minds and hearts to receive a message that, in that culture, was foolish and unbelievable. It has been said that the proof of the supernatural nature of the Christian faith is its widespread acceptance in that culture, which had every reason to reject the message.

                  I find it very difficult to give concise answers to questions like this because the assumptions and implications are far-reaching. By all means, keep the questions coming, and I’ll try to answer them as honestly as I can. I’ll even admit that I don’t know the answer on occasion.

                  • Antonio,

                    Those missionaries today rarely make converts of the quality the Apostles did.

                    With most, it just comes down to words- “Do you accept_____?” BANG! You’re one of us! True converts in heart and mind and whose deeds bear witness of their obedience to God (as opposed to a group of men/corporation/cult/etc) are truly rare.

                    And then to whom or what are they converted? The Catholics and the Muslims and the JWs and the Scientologists and the Black Hebrews and the Mormons all make converts too.

                    Basically, go to some third-world country and invite largely ignorant people to a meeting, and some are going to accept/believe whatever is proffered.

                    A minister whom I knew was relating a story to me once about missionaries in Nigeria. The Nigers [ 🙂 ] love tea [I must be part Nigerian! :D] and it seems that a lonmg time ago, someone figured out that if you set up a tent and invited the Nigers to tea, and then preached whatever to them, they would gladly agree with whatever you said. So it came to be where you had all of these missionaries down there from different religions and different churches, all having tea parties. They’d invite the Nigers in for tea…say a few words…..tghe Niger would go along with whatever was said, and trhe missionary would put his name down in their book as a convert and send a letter back to the states to be read in Chruch “Keep on sending money! We made 53 converts this week alone! Praise Yallahwehsus!”. Then the next week, the same Niger would go to a different tent and have tea there and be their convert! (Sometimes it makes you wonder who the truly ignorant ones are!)

              • Hey, Antonio,

                I don’t want to clog-up this site with a lengthy debate about Calvinism, as it likely would only be of interest to you and I- but just one question: Why then, the Great Commission? Why did Jesus command to evangelize the world and preach the Gospel to every person, if only a select few who were predetermined could respond, and would do so regardless of anything else?

                That kind of inefficiency and waste is something only big modern governments would engage in! 😉

                • There used to be a Calvinist here with the handle David here. He “inspired” me to research Calvinism.

                  If you can imagine centuries ago there was the one great Holy Roman Caliphate. And along came Martin Luther and created a haven where it had less power.

                  Calvin built upon the window of respite Luther provided, and made it into a juggernaut of productive labor and frugality of living expense.

                  The Jews would be far less sinecured with their NFLs (National Faith Leagues) if they didn’t have the capital accumulation workhorses of Calvinists.

                  • Protestants are like Republicans. They just want to try and reform something which is corrupt and perverted; not by returning to the foundations, but by just kinda practicing a somewhat more moderate version of what the Democrats(Catholics) do.

                • I think that’s an easy one. God has chosen to use the instruments of human beings to do the work of evangelism. In fact, I just listened to a sermon by Paul Washer, who said that angels are jealous over the privilege we have in participating in God’s plans. The angels can only watch what happens.

                  The Apostle Paul said in a few places that God has chosen to use human means to accomplish his purposes. He (God) uses the foolishness of Gospel preaching, using fallible humans, no less, to accomplish his purposes. But I believe he knows who his people are, which is a great encouragement to those doing the preaching. All they have to do is preach what God has told them to preach, no more, no less. God will draw and open the hearts of those he has chosen (yes, I know what a hard thing that is to believe).


                  • Yes, using human agents/means is obvious; but I think you missed my point, which was:

                    If, as Calvinists believe, only a select few are destined to believe; and will come to believe, no matter what; and all others will not believe, no matter what, then it would seem rather silly [if Calvinism is correct] that the Gospel should be preached to the entire world.

                    Hey, I could make a good cartoon out of this: A Calvinist missionary who doesn’t preach; he just sits there waiting for someone to knock on his door, and then says “I’ve been expecting you”! 😀

                    (How come my emoticons aren’t working lately? They turn into square boxes instead of smiley faces….)

                    • If it were “irresistible” and destined to be, no matter what, what difference would it make?

                      And talk about inefficiency! Preach to the whole world, just so the few who are destined to be saved “no matter what” get the message? Only big government is that inefficient!

                      In reality, the preaching of the Gospel is commanded for 2 reasons: So that some might be saved; and for a witness- against those who reject it. -which, of course, flies in the face of Calvinism.