This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Governance Of A Free Society

Tyler Durden's picture


The next in a continuing series (most recently: The Transition to a Free Society).

Submitted by Free Radical

The Governance of a Free Society

That government is best which governs not at all. – Henry David Thoreau

Because the state is inherently antisocial, we make a distinction between government and governance. We distinguish, that is, between an overarching entity on the one hand and an underlying process on the other, answering Thoreau’s question by asserting that the next step “towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man” will be taken via the latter, i.e., via the self-organization that is but another term for the spontaneous order by which human society came to be in the first place and has evolved ever since, concomitantly evolving the rules necessary for its governance.  And the fact is, all one really need do to know that this is true is to look around:

Those of us residing in the United States or any of the British Commonwealth countries live under an extremely sophisticated and subtle scheme of rules, very few of which were created by government. Since almost none of the rules that bring peace and order to our existence were created by government, little argument should be required to establish that government is not necessary to create such rules. On the contrary, it is precisely the rules that were created by government that tend to undermine peace and order.

If looking around does not suffice, of course, one can explore the matter in depth, mindful, however, that to whatever extent rational argument and empirical analysis fail to persuade, the fact remains that actual experimentation is prohibited.  That is, the state does not allow free societies to be attempted for the simple reason that the state depends on the legalized theft of taxation for its existence.  And simply put, a successful experiment in a free society would therefore threaten the state’s chokehold (for that is what it is) on humanity.

But as its chokehold is already being threatened (again, look around), we assert that the time is not far off when the state will be unable to prevent the necessary experimentation, including that which is based on the implementation of an actual social contract. For while “persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society,” the fact is that no such contract exists, nor has it ever existed, at least not in the sense that any of us in the Western world would understand and accept in the way that we normally do.  Thus is the question raised as to whether a legal contract – i.e., one based on “an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy – might provide the means for genuine consent to prevail and thus for the process of civilization to unfold without the endless intervention of the state. That is, rooted in the negative golden rule, and thus the non-aggression principle, the question arises as to whether the signing of such a contract, being required of every would-be citizen, could adequately serve as the legal underpinning of a free society. 

Before we examine an example thereof, however, let us first contemplate the events by which a genuine social contract might become possible.

As I concluded in my last submission, “as order returns within and among the [newly independent American] states, the devolution of power will be able to continue such that, in Tennyson’s words, Freedom slowly broadens down / From precedent to precedent, and genuinely free societies begin at long last to emerge.” 


Understand, first of all, that the fifty American states are under the jurisdiction not only of their national government and their particular state governments but of their county governments, which are contiguous not only within each state but among them.  That is, not only is the land mass of each state under the jurisdiction of one or another county; the entire land mass of the United States of America is under the jurisdiction one or another of 3,143 contiguous counties.  Granted, all of these counties are denied home rule to one extent or another, both by their state governments and (far more perniciously) by their national government; but no matter, as each is institutionally capable of governing itself.  Not just the fifty states, then, but their constituent counties could conceivably govern the entirety of the present United States of America.

Let us imagine, then, that as nonviolent protest leads to the secession of, say, California (which, with the whole world watching, Washington would be helpless to prevent), not only does Northern California subsequently secede from Southern California, but, say, Inyo County subsequently secedes from Southern California and is “taken private” by a group of investors (some, most, or all of whom are landowners within the county’s confines).
What then? 

A countywide referendum having paved the way, the investors themselves begin by signing the following social contract, which is then offered to all (other) county residents for citizenship in the “Free Territory of Inyo”:

I, (name in full), hereby affirm my agreement that all human beings are endowed with certain absolute rights; that these rights are to life, liberty, and property; that all human beings should be equal under the law with respect to these rights; that individuals cooperate among themselves to secure them; and that they do so freely and of their own accord.

Therefore, as a mentally competent adult over the age of 18, I hereby agree to the terms of this contract for citizenship in the free society of __________ – on my own behalf as well as that of my minor dependents – consenting to be guided in my affairs by the Ethic of Reciprocity, which I state as follows: I will not do to any other citizens of __________ what I would not want them to do to me. Beyond so restricting my actions, it is agreed by my fellow members of the Free Territory of Inyo that I am free to conduct my affairs as I please, engaging in such activities with my fellow members as may be mutually agreed upon, either formally or informally.

Furthermore, insofar as I might accuse others members of violating my absolute rights or others might accuse me of violating theirs, I agree to conflict resolution under the auspices of a firm chosen by coin toss or similar means from a firm certified by the Association for Conflict Resolution. I also agree that should the parties enter into arbitration, the loser must pay the legal fees of both parties; that insofar as either party refuses arbitration, the protections afforded that party by his citizenship are forfeit; that the forfeiting party is thereby placed in a state of nature vis-à-vis the citizens of the Free Territory of Inyo, who are thereby entitled to take such actions as they deem necessary to protect themselves from the forfeiting party.

Lastly, it is understood by all citizens of the Free Territory of Inyo that I have the absolute right to cancel my citizenship, and to the rights so granted, at any time for any reason and that, should I in fact choose to do so, I will submit my cancellation so as to be available for examination and verification by the citizens of the Free Territory of Inyo.

Signed this _____ day of ___________, in the year ______ of the Common Era, as witnessed below by (name in full), who, as a citizen in good standing of ________, has signed a replica of this document, both of which are available for inspection and verification by any other citizen of _________.

Signature of witness _____________________________

And what of those county residents who didn’t want to become members of the Free Territory of Inyo?  Their choices would be two: (1) they could continue to live there but without the legal protections of citizenship – i.e., as “resident aliens,” they would live in legal limbo, running the risks of doing so – or (2) they could move elsewhere.  But insofar as virtually all Americans are aliens today – alienated, that is, by an empire over which they have no control and even less standing – the above choices are nowhere near as irksome than those they increasingly face, to say nothing of the choice: that of citizenship in a truly free society.

Needless to say, this is but an initial “thought experiment” at which many will of course scoff.  But not as many as would have scoffed only a short time ago (a decade? a year? a month? a week? yesterday?).  And, in any case, one has to begin somewhere, so why not with the above – i.e., with a “devolution revolution” in which one or another experiment in stateless society is attempted, succeeds, and takes root, crowding out the state to the point of its eradication and ultimately merging into a worldwide continuum of freedomStranger things have happened, after all, and surely stranger things will happen, as we will examine in my concluding submission.

But not yet, as we must first confront the fact that far from a continuum of freedom,  the world remains embroiled in the interregnum of the state and the insecurity that is the daily fare of its security.

So to it we turn in my next submission: “Security in a Free Society.”


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:31 | 1107284 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

But anonymous is trying to rally the citizens too, this is too complicated for them.  This uses big words, and concepts that are quite difficult to grasp.  Can you put this in a 30 second youtube video with rage against the machine music bed?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:55 | 1107346 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

Anonymous junker, I support your effort and your concepts to entice change, but you get an F for what you pulled in the US.  At least give it the same creative effort, planning and strategic timing as you did when you went after Scientology.   That was well done, provoking and moved people to action and rethinking their positions.  I appreciate the need to speak to a diverse and common denominator audience, but you cannot expect to target 14 year olds and get traction.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:00 | 1107741 Michael
Michael's picture

We need to enact a "Nanny State Control Freak Law Abatement Act of 2011".

We must means test and odds test every nanny state law based on a benchmark with say the number of teens(10,000) killed on our nations highways in car accidents each year, or something like that. 

If your odds of being killed by drinking something like "Four Locos", as an example, are less than being struck by lighting twice in the same year as it is or being killed by terrorists as it is with those odds, there should not be a law made against it or a new cabinet position like the DHS created to improve those odds. I like those odds.

Do you get what I'm saying? No need to punish an entire country for stupid shit that doesn't improve your odds of survival and it's too costly in terms of sacrificed money and personal liberty.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:43 | 1107791 Broken_Trades
Broken_Trades's picture

I couldn't read it all... Too many big words. 

This guy has some interesting ideas, although I think he's missing some massive realities n some of his thinking.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 07:35 | 1107950 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil. – Thomas Paine

From this remark the author deduces that Government in essence is "antisocial". I challenge this concept. The Welfare State was not anti-social, anti-economic maybe, to the extent where economic efficiency, exemplified by Entrepreneurship and Free Markets, is in the industrial world the dominant paradigm...the holy grail of "pursuit of happiness". This paradigm invented in Capitalist England (Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Ricardo's Comparative advantage theory), enhanced in an empty, resource rich continent by the USA, is now coming to an end under the double constraint of world raw materials resource limitations and the realisation that markets are not "free" but "manipulated", oligarchic, even monopolistic, (as Marx predicted). When the Scions of this Capitalism, WS and its capital class EN MASSE, break with the trust of the people and overtly JUNK the model their forefathers created, we know that the USA has crossed a Rubicon. This is irreversible now. Like for ancient Rome. The model is dead as no plutocrat will EVER let you break his stranglehold on society. Indeed, he is now the ROLE model for the ages to come, as in Rome. The current world has therefore opened TWO PANDORA's boxes concomitantly in it's mad quest for finding 'chimeral' outlets to defeating the thesis of resource limitation : 1) Fukushima, which proves that MAN does not CONTROL the ATOM; it is the ATOM that now controls MAN. 2° WS : The Market is not the image of man's Esperance but of his addiction to greed and self destruction. Power corrupts so absolutely, when the markets represent Oligarchy, Tarquin's hold on Rome.

This is a terrible, FACTUAL double indictment of this current model playing itself out in front of our very eyes.

One that will lead its promoter to hurtle down the path to irremediable decadence. 

The World community needs to URGENTLY move out of this double calamitous situation, this double edged sword of Damocles over our collective heads. It may already be too late for our generation and the next. But we cannot give up hope. We must first learn to recognize the facts, NEVER junk them and then find a solution. In energy terms it has to be solar and renewable. Lets stop playing at devil's disciples and learn to be humble. In geo political terms it means going back to more stable sustainable geo political and financial-economic models. We have the knowledge to formulate them but do we have the will...?

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:53 | 1108206 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

wow.... how depressing to think it may be too late for our generation and the next...


In geo political terms it means going back to more stable sustainable geo political and financial-economic models. We have the knowledge to formulate them but do we have the will...?



I don't think this will ever happen in a peaceful manner but only through violent revolution...unfortunately.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:03 | 1108231 falak pema
falak pema's picture

I am extrapolating a "black swan" scenario from current news about Fukushima and what the dominant player does today in USA; what that implies for this and future generations in  the geo-political sense.

I sincerely hope my extrapolations are wrong! But still food for thought.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:14 | 1108268 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Yes  indeed food for thought.  I enjoy reading your post not always agreeing but always learning!  thanks

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:31 | 1107285 Nobody special
Nobody special's picture

This might be possible, in a free society that recognizes liberty and the rights of citizens.  Freedom in the US has been collapsing since the late 1800s.  I suspect a few genuine attempts at leveraging one's freedom would make its absence quite apparent.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:54 | 1107343 bonderøven-farm ass
bonderøven-farm ass's picture

"We are strictly confined to our men to whom we give liberty..."  ~H. D. Thoreau

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:36 | 1107608 TemporalFlashback
TemporalFlashback's picture

Inadvertent junk... Apologies.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:07 | 1107556 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

It is possible and, in large part, already exists. All of society is inherently anarchistic (it's unavoidable). As Hasnas said in "The Obviousness of Anarchy" (+Lots to Free Radical for linking it), it's all around you. It always has been.

The state is just a social fiction, it's not really "in charge". The people who make up "the state" are subject to the same anarchistic characteristics that every other member of society is. Even with all their guns, the state controls very little. Sure, the state may kill and steal with impunity but that is not the same thing as control. In fact, the state controls so little that once enough people stop believing the myth that the state is legitimate, it will just fade away.

As Anna Morgenstern said...

Anarchism, truly, is simply the understanding that the state is merely a social fiction and has no legitimacy. When you live that truth, you will not follow the law simply because it is the law. You will let your conscience be your guide. At that point you are no longer being ruled, though you might have crimes committed against you by the "government" and its lackeys. When the Mafia forces someone to pay protection money, that guy isn't being ruled, he's being robbed.

Start here: Introduction to a Stateless Society

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 04:48 | 1107894 Clampit
Clampit's picture

Even the most die hard anarchists (deciding whether or not to capitalize that word just makes my head hurt) seem to agree society needs some means of establishing law and inflicting justice for the violation of others rights. Arming everyone and dismissing the cavalry, is a very, very hard sell [perhaps unfortunately]. In a stateless society how can society violate the rights of those who would do the same? Lew describes DRO's, which near as I can figure are just mini-states without immunity, and certainly the world would be a much better place if states were simply scaled back so as not to pool enough resources for real harm. But do this function autonomously without a king (elected, anointed, or appointed CEO of a DRO) ... then you have a beast worthy of the anarchy title. Something out of everyone's control individually.

My feeble brain can't work out all the intricacies of how this craft would fly, but I've used a hand helicopter and looked at steam powered spinning gizmos - it ain't rocket science to guess what will transpire. And what I see of younger generations so freely embracing Orwellian networking online, and how effective civilization has been at reducing nearly every injustice to a dollar amount (FWIW, the rich don't do the time) all while the currency stands as possibly the most convoluted clusterfuck creation I've yet to stumble upon ...

Think ~2050 Facebible coins wiki-currency with a personal exchange rate determined by your propensity to violate rights. That's as close as I can convey my hand waiving guess as to how it will transpire, but one day our Taylor series of tubes will be complete. Internet will topple government. And as states have correctly surmised, there will be no stopping it.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 07:53 | 1108053 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Freedom in the US has been collapsing since the late 1800s.


Yep. In 1898, the last bit of Indian land was transfered to US citizens. Hence a collapse in freedom as Indians were the source, the generous volunteering patron of the US quest for freedom, justice and liberty.


I like your type. They remind any of the intellectuals like the author of the article the reality and debunk the efforts of propaganda in a trice.

See, the man puts a whole page to propagate and you, with one single sentence and the behaviour going with it, you debunk it.

Thanks for being a US citizen.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:37 | 1107299 decklap
decklap's picture


Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:44 | 1107324 jimijon
jimijon's picture

hey I resemble that remark

highly recommend a National Rainbow Gathering.. it will be held in the state of Washington this year.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:37 | 1107303 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

the Bill of Rights in our Constitution was not demanded.  It was asked "as a matter of honor"--and James Madison put it there.  Perhaps they were just "peculiar people" with their "peculiar institution"--but how does a slave holder like Thomas Jefferson create one the greatest testaments for the need of freedom in human history?  I have no professional expertise in this matter but i would say "because he knew something about freedom as a slave owner."  In other words "the yearning."  I still read that Bill of Rights and i really have a hard time imagining anything better.  this is in no way saying that this "bill" has been anything other than eviscerated over the past decade or so.  kind of sad when you "look to Egypt" for inspriration on how to actually "effect" a legal right.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 07:57 | 1108066 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Equality is concrete, straightforward. that is why US citizens are ill at ease with it.

Indeed, Jefferson knew freedom not by himself but through proxies he owned, the yearning of it.

Freedom is vague and is never better illustrated than when people are given to see examples of slavery.

That is why slavery was so important in the US. Very hard for a bushwacker to figure out what freedom is, how the King was oppressive. But, the illustration of slaves and what deprivation of freedom should mean...

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:39 | 1107308 Dooud
Dooud's picture

Just like New Hong Kong in Snow Crash, that book gets more relevant everyday!

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:38 | 1107311 Raymond K Hassel
Raymond K Hassel's picture

We own it, or we don't, our choice. Our choice.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:39 | 1107314 jimijon
jimijon's picture

I have been taking the tact that the Internet obsoletes many industries, why not governance. My meme of Socialocracy moves regulatory bodies back to the people via a Yelp type system. In other words, enforce the publishing of data and let the savants comb through it and present their case to their peers and to the judicial system.

I have about three or four writing on this topic at my blog

I believe that this will put a stake through the heart of the regulatory capture and hypocrisy that we both feel, see and witness one way or another, especially when it concerns big business and finance.


Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:50 | 1107336 Oligarchs Gone Wild
Oligarchs Gone Wild's picture

You're on to something there, I would certainly add big education to that too.  Internet changes the game.  Decades ago, you needed the resources which you received through a great mentor (hopefully) at a university in order to work your lifelong career to provide for your family.   Technology is now obsoleted in less time than it takes to obtain a degree.  The model is broken.  A college should be reworked to leverage the power of the Internet, and really so should all schooling supporting it. 


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."


Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:43 | 1107320 jimijon
jimijon's picture

I was over at Rense today, I know reptilian shape shifting, et al, but this was very interesting and something I never knew that surely gives a bit more credence to the "birthers."

This little research was one of those things that made me go hmmmm, on this matter.

cheers and goodnight from ChiTown

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:45 | 1107325 prophet
prophet's picture

In addition to its self preservation characteristics, government provides those who have or seek priledge, power and wealth (ruling class/elites, TPTB) a mechanism to assert their control over the broader population in what amounts to a protection scheme.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:54 | 1107339 pods
pods's picture

Absolutely correct.  And that is why the sovereign individual can never exist within a system of government.  Because sooner or later, the mob will become powerful enough to usurp the rights of the individuals.  The mob could be the government, or from a privileged class created by the government (corporations), but they will always win.  


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:03 | 1108078 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

You have a very loose definition of government.

The US government has always been as big as it could be.

Yet, as it started from scratch, some actions were left to the general populace, like patrolling the plantations to keep slaves in check and settling without permission on Indian lands.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:10 | 1108430 pods
pods's picture

Well my definition can (and I think should) be looked at as a loose one.  A government is simply a group of people who exercise power.

In modern amerika I would say that corporations act as governments.  In fact, governments are corporations.

What I will not do is go back throughout history and look for this or that fault and only be satisfied when all previous wrongs are righted.  Like slavery, indian genocide, etc.  Those are valid points, but are we going to go back thousands of years and start there?  Because if we are to go back 100, or 200, we should go back further.  And where is the correct stopping point?



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:39 | 1109089 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

No. The stop back in time is clear for anyone wishing to assess a system by its own merits. So the stop is put back to 1776, the day one government rises to promote freedom, truth and justice, when those values became the goals.

Why one should expect freedom from systems that proclaimed outrightly slavery? I agree it might be tricky at this point as some of these systems performed better in the freedom, individualistic, justice departments than the US, but it only exhibits what the US is. 

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:45 | 1107327 Dr. Porkchop
Dr. Porkchop's picture

We need a reasonably educated public that is able to recognize when they are being screwed and by whom, and to be able to act upon it by articulating their grievances in the public sphere, along with their peers. We can't simply have people vote and then walk away from politics for a few years. Obviously politicians, left to their own devices, are liable to get up to all kinds of shenanigans. People attracted to offices of power are usually mediocre, narcissistic, or at worst, sociopathic. Whether you are liberal or conservative, none of the current parties can be trusted to uphold your particular viewpoint. 

An aware public is what keeps them honest. The question is how to get back there. The national hologram (apologies to Joe Bageant), is what keeps people rooted in the belief that they are doing fine when they aren't. Only a major shakeup is going to change things now. The educational system has failed more than a few generations of youth.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:01 | 1108071 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

We need a reasonably educated public that is able to recognize when they are being screwed and by whom, and to be able to act upon it by articulating their grievances in the public sphere, along with their peers.


Just like the Founding fathers who were slave owners and ignore the Indians' right to property.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:18 | 1108454 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I think the desire to "educate" the populace is exactly the basic underpinning and contemptuous view held by the purveyors of the nanny state.  In the end, even the most well educated people can still be completely oblivious to the destructive and immoral actions of their government.  This need for education is not really something that can be taught per se, but something that must be evolved...  as so long as there are humans, there will be humans taking advantage of others, including demanding power and control.

I think mostly what you're advocating is diligence and a real desire to learn, know, and participate.  Well, that's not how humans operate...  we are naturally prone to boom/bust cycles.  We lay everything on the line, set up our utopia, and then take a nap...  forgetting in our slumber that the only way the system continues to function is through our diligence and willingness to continue participating...

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:45 | 1107328 NonAggressionPr...
NonAggressionPrinciple's picture

Isn't is much simpler than this?


If more people would just acknowledge that no one, including governments, has the ability to initiate violence (kidnap or steal: ie take from anyone without consent or threaten to do so) then all of the above is making things more complicated than they have to be.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:19 | 1107417 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Any system that requires everyone to subscribe to a given philosophy is destined to fail.  One can, however, design non-aggressive social systems that cause all involved parties to recognize natural law by default.  

Characteristics of such a society are the separation of church, law, and militia (where what we now consider to be the "state" is the combination of "law" and "militia"), as well as the existence of social insurance providers of some sort, whether they are family based, or provided by a company.  See my post below for more detail.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:14 | 1107658 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

Any system that requires everyone to subscribe to a given philosophy is destined to fail.  One can, however, design non-aggressive social systems that cause all involved parties to recognize natural law by default. 


WTF are you talking about? 

I've just read through all your posts in this thread and I'm utterly astonished that someone could actually believe that your version of society would be a workable and better alternative to what we have today.

Anyone who reads through this thread, just substitute "gang" every time you see "clan" if you want a better understanding of mosely's bizarre, "natural law" universe.  It is difficult to imagine a worse version of society than one ruled by an infinite number of "gangs."


You have truly outdone yourself, mosely.  This is clearly your most ridiculous series of posts, to date. 


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:20 | 1107686 tmosley
tmosley's picture

DO you notice how you never actually REFUTE anything, but rather just laugh off realities you don't want to think about?

No, a "gang" is not a clan.  A gang is a militia.  It is a group of armed people.  They don't make the law, they protect an area from outside aggression.  They can't commit aggression against those inside their territory simply because EVERYONE IS ARMED, and everyone is a member of the militia.

Your inability to see things for what they are is...normal.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:30 | 1107694 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

You call it a "clan" because it sounds better than "gang." It's the same fucking thing, just spelled differently.  In reality, you're promoting a society that would lead to constant gang warfare.  

Your society is just a bunch of self-ruling "gangs," where the individual - should he choose to leave the "gang" - is protected by some sort of car insurance-like company. 

Holy Fuck!  *LOL*

WTF are you talking about, mosely?  FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST!

This is truly, truly the most absurd series of comments that you've ever posted.  You are in outer-fucking-space.  

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:36 | 1107711 tmosley
tmosley's picture

In any event, you are ignoring the point of my post.  The use of clans as social insurance agents has held back this system from spreading beyond the few areas that use it today.  This function should be carried out by insurance companies.

And again, you have made no attempt to understand, and instead simply deride an idea you do not understand, and have no interest in understanding.

Don't you have some books to burn?

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 03:24 | 1107831 CH1
CH1's picture

Don't waste your energy, tm; that's what these guys want.

God only knows whose payroll they may be on.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:33 | 1108787 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Let me guess, you deny this basic reality, but will be cheering for your favorite Politician, or your favorite sport's team later on.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:30 | 1108103 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

They can't commit aggression against those inside their territory simply because EVERYONE IS ARMED, and everyone is a member of the militia.


Made me laugh. Where does this come from? From the very same location that the problem was the Indians not respecting property rights and the big bully US not respecting them?


Quite a number of gangs, be them street gangs or gangs like frats, have violent initiation rites. The violence does not stop there because in gang governance type, a release outlet is required. Gangs work on the principle that hitting the same within the gang is a factor of stability.

Anyone with memories of a US military boot camp knows what it is all about. Usually, there is a guy who is going to serve as the release outlet. The sergeant instructor barks orders, pressures and to avoid rebellion, others can release their hatred and their resentment on a specially chosen guy, ordering him to tasks, beating him, humiliating him. Anyone who does not side with this kind of gang organization is in for a wild run.

The second big fallacy is that weapons are for protection. Nope, weapons' primary design purpose is to kill people or intimidate people in order to build up coercion schemes.

The evidence of it is that groups of people  that reject use of weapons are a target for gangs. If indeed, gangs were armed for protection only, they would not go on aggression against unarmed people.

As US citizens can not cope with what they are, they are very prone to developp kinds of reverse thesis.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:33 | 1108323 tmosley
tmosley's picture

So you're saying that Indians never stole anything, and were just nice, happy, magical people who never killed each other or white settlers?  Give me a break.  If your family got scalped by Mohawks, I can guarantee you you would be first in line for revenge.  The only way to avoid such violence is to have law respected, not just within a group, but among all groups.

But you know, you're right.  It'll never work.  Someone had better call all the religions in the world and tell them that they can't coexist peacefully either, and that each state should have only one religion.  Uh-oh, you mean there is exceptionally little religious violence in America, where there are a truly maximum number of religions co-existing?  And any place that has state sponsored religion has much more violence (Ireland, Israel).

Come on.  You aren't paying attention.  The social insurance providers are SEPARATE from the militia, just as church and state are separate now.  

And your "purpose of weapons" diatribe is laughable.  It's like saying that a hammer is for removing nails rather than driving them in.  Yes, most hammers have both functions, but 95% of the use is for driving them in.  Similarly, 99+% of weapons are never used for aggression, but are kept as a deterrent.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:55 | 1109157 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Never said that the Indians never stole something. I underlined the very fact that their relation to private property is irrelevant in the US citizens behaviour.

The US citizens were the ones tieing private property to the human condition. They were the ones who hold the belief and they were the ones who showed their support to that belief.

Their support to that belief was so deep actually that to put in line their actions and their beliefs, they started the trend of dehumanization, that, yep, human rights existed but they only applied to humans, not to non humans. The non humanity philosophy and all its consequences.

Come on, in the US, there are truly maximum number of religions co-existing? Since when? The US started much more diverse in terms of religions. Since the inception of the US, it has been forced march to monolithic religion.

US religious make up: in the US, more than 80pc Christians, 10 pc unafilliated, rest judaism, islam and the rest.That is indeed a maximum number of religions co existing.

Ah, US citizens, unable to picture themselves as they are... The US is highly monolithic when it comes to religion.

Hammers are for driving nails in. Not to remove them.

Tools to remove nails: a nail puller or a claw.

Deterrent of what? If indeed weapons'primary use was defense, no use for weapons.

It is cheaper not to invest into weapons. People buying guns and using them for defense waste money when they do not use them for their primary purpose. It is the main divider between gun owners: there are those who put their weapons to use and get the benefits going with and the others, those who sit on their weapons, for defense.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 05:33 | 1107895 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture



As usual, your comments best apply to yourself.  This need not be a problem as long as you do not act based on your criminal tendencies or support the same in others by paying "taxes". Your expectations are a reflection of yourself.  Free market defense is much more competent at handling aggression than a monopoly that insists by force that you pay for it,  thus being a contradiction. And this same comment equally applies to "justice" services. The free market is always better than a criminal monopoly of force ever could or ever will be. When you can understand that, you will be starting to develop antibodies to your mind "virus".

"A Virus of the Mind" -

You appear to be so limited by your statist thinking that you seem to not understand that "order" and "security" do exist outside a "state", and in fact, will exists far more so when free people who respect natural rights are not being continually "raped" or murdered by the continuous predation of the biggest gun gang in town.


Good luck as our future arrives.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:19 | 1108106 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Free market defense is much more competent at handling aggression than a monopoly that insists by force that you pay for it,  thus being a contradiction. And this same comment equally applies to "justice" services. The free market is always better than a criminal monopoly of force ever could or ever will be. When you can understand that, you will be starting to develop antibodies to your mind "virus".


Please quote examples so people can draw comparisons by themselves.

What are the examples of free market defenses, justice system.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:18 | 1108108 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Inflicting violence, extortion, is the very basis of tribal law, then feudal law. We are going back there when we deny the emergence of the nation state. There is no universal anarchistic Utopia..never will be... History has proven that. The only way forward compatible with man's history is more rule of LAW and more effective enforcement of governance against the Oligarchy now firmly entrenched in the global NWO.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:37 | 1108151 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Why stop at feudal law? The US type of law (aka modern world) is also based on coercion, save it is much more efficient at it and a much larger scale.


rule of LAW


The rule of law is scam. The exercize of authority does not generate revenues by itself and therefore authority holders side naturally with players generating the biggest revenues.

The rule of law is just a machine to favour the rich and cripple the poor. 



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:39 | 1108343 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You confuse law, which exists on its own, with legislation, which is what happens when you conflate judicial authority with the militia to create the state.  When they guys with guns get to pick the "neutral" arbiter, then the arbiters always find in favor of the state.  Under the system as proposed here, you get a panel of three (or more) judges, with one knowing and being associated with the defendant, one with the plaintiff, and the rest are agreed upon by both parties as neutral.  This system favors the rich in no way save that they are more able to pay fines.  Every other way, the imbalance is reduced greatly.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:35 | 1108484 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

When they guys with guns get to pick the "neutral" arbiter, then the arbiters always find in favor of the state....

That's fucking NUTS.

So defense lawyers never win?


Under the system as proposed here, you get a panel of three (or more) judges, with one knowing and being associated with the defendant, one with the plaintiff, and the rest are agreed upon by both parties as neutral.

Um....  that's exactly what we have now!  A lawyer who represents the defendant. A lawyer representing the plaintiff.  And an independent lawyer who mediates the whole thing (a judge) and/or a jury. 


Give it up Mosely!  You're NUTS!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 13:05 | 1109220 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The exercize of authority does not generate revenues by itself. It derives its revenues from its actors.

It is not about the state or anything. It is all about authority and the exercize of it.

Eg: in the US, the sports scene is totally rigged with competitors chosen on their financial merits first. So the side is hidden.

But lets take a look at football when small and poor teams are allowed to take on big and rich teams.

Referees do no generate revenues by their exercize, they derive their money from the money generated by football.

Now lets take a tournament: two small teams, and two big teams.

Potentially, the various matches are unequal, it is better in terms of money that the two big teams face each other in the final. This is when the big money will be. Lots of viewers. Lots of supporters. Lots of advertisements.

It is natural for the referees (authority) to favour the outcome that will allow them to gain the most money possible. So the ref whistles in favour of big teams.

The more money in football, the richer the authority is.

It has little to do with the organization. It has all to do with authority and the exercize of it not generating revenue by itself but deriving it from actors.

Your point, all organization, does not address the issue. Better to ask the libertarian maestros about their thoughts on that issue.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:47 | 1107331 pods
pods's picture

I speak often of self-ownership at work to others.  The biggest issue that comes back to me is that most people NEED security.  Even if it is the current false security that is offered by our government.  Many simply cannot fathom being sovereign (to be honest, me included, although I welcome the thought).  

Reminds me simply of a line in the Matrix where Morpheus states that they will not free a mind after a certain age.  People are indoctrinated in the system that we live in.  They need the system.  And they cannot even imagine living without that system.  They are institutionalized, to borrow another movie line.

I really like the idea of self-ownership, and of common law.  But there is not a snowball's chance in hell that we would ever be able to get there without a complete collapse beforehand.

I look forward to the next article.  As most sheep I talk to are obsessed with security.  Even down to health insurance.  One girl (she is from Spain) simply cannot think of a society where we do not have health insurance.  Not health care, insurance.

Long uphill battle for sure.  Better to see if old Ted's cabin in the mountains is up for rent.


Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:15 | 1107402 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Security should be provided by both family structure and social insurance companies.  WIthout that vital component, every person is an outlaw, and that is a scary place to be.  In societies that have adopted a (somewhat primitive) version of a free society, to be a person without a clan (the method by which social insurance is provided) is UNTHINKABLE.  The prospect of losing clan affiliation and thus becoming an outlaw by default keeps people in line (ie no killing no stealing no fraud, obey the judgement of the mediators selected by their clan and the clan of the other party).

With the incorporation of this one aspect, you remove the greatest barrier to the adoption of a free society, the possibility of unpunished arbitrary violence by ANY party.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:28 | 1107446 pods
pods's picture

But would one not relinquish self-ownership to the clan?

I agree that decentralizing power is the key to maintaining freedom, but decentralizing always loses out to organization.

The highest law enforcement officer in my county is the sherriff, but that is never how it is.  Feds trump states, who trump counties.

I would love for it to work, but you always need the structure to maintain the rules.  Certain people gravitate to that, and many are corrupted.

The same will hold for any organized collection of individuals.


Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:37 | 1107477 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Do you relinquish self ownership when you purchase insurance?

There's your answer.  The "clan" does not have the power to do anything except kick you out, and even then, you are a sovereign individual.  Of course, as a sovereign individual, you are indeed liable to all the horrors that are portrayed by everyone who hates and fears the freedom of anarcho-capitalism.  This is why such a thing is unthinkable.  You can also change "clans" in current incarnations.  

A modern version would have such a procedure be as simple as changing one's car insurance provider, though the process the insurer goes through to determine your rates might be a bit invasive.  But this is the price we pay for freedom.  That is eternal vigilance institutionalized.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:25 | 1107590 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"Do you relinquish self ownership when you purchase insurance?

There's your answer."

No, it's not! It's a total strawman!

Anyone silly enough to read my posts knows that I'm a hardcore ancap, but you did not address the question at all.

Insurance is a service that can be (or should be able to be) purchased from competing service providers, whereas a clan is [initially] one's birthright. Changing insurers is as simple as signing on a different dotted line. Changing clans is similar to, or even more difficult than, changing states (emigrating) ... it might even require you to change religion or make a suitable "donation" to the chief of the clan.

The clan, in your examples, is identical to the state and is simply another euphemism for imposing a hierarchy over the sovereign individual.

Please don't confuse the issues.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:24 | 1107696 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You didn't actually read through all my posts.  I said that in their current incarnations they use clans as social insurance agencies.  In a modern version it would be actual companies, which would compete against each other in an open marketplace, just like any other form of insurance.

And no, it is actually not hard to change clans in areas that have this form of governance.  It does NOT require moving, as they do not control a geographical area, but rather live among each other.

And the clan is NOT identical to the state, because it does not have any ability to force anyone to do anything, except by the threat of no longer taking responsibility for them.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:36 | 1107709 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

XEER?  !!




You want to convert the United States into the social structure of SOMALIA?  

SOMALIA??  !!!!

It's one of the WORST SPOTS ON EARTH!!


This has turned into the most HILARIOUS thread in the history of this website!!



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:43 | 1107713 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes.  This is as opposed to the social structure of a group of barbarians in loincloths, which was also used by pirates, ie Democracy.

Somalia is war torn because external forces continually attempt to impose a government on the local population, which does not want it.

Your instant dismissal of a concept developed by blacks, because they are black, is what's really funny here.  If you paid any attention, Somalia leads Sub saharan Africa in many ways, especially telecommunications.

In any event, I have proposed modifications to the system to make it fit our culture.  But you ignore those and focus on the fact that it is from an African nation.

Edit:  I'm sure you won't read this, because of your apparent hatred of book learnin', but others who are surprised by my assertion of a superior social system in a place like Somalia should read this:

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:46 | 1107719 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

RACIST ?????

Oh my fucking GOD!!  Where did that come from???


I swear, I have tears in my eyes right now from laughter.

This is utterly hilarious!!!




mosely, I knew you were whacked-out.  But I never realized the true depth of your lunacy.  You are one of the most prolific and out-spoken libertarians on this website, and you have just 100% confirmed my suspicion that libertarians are truly........... NUTS!



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:47 | 1107725 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yes.  You are a racist, collectivist person.  I'm sorry if you can't process that.

Also, I know that you are RNR.  It is abundantly clear from your writing style and your use of *LOL* all over the place when you are dismissing unfamiliar ideas out of hand because of their source.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:06 | 1107751 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

What the fuck is RNR?  Operation, "Rest 'n Relaxation"?

Without even knowing, I'll guess that RNR is some sort of government program or operative, right? Not too long ago, you posted that the government is most likely tracking your posts, and will kill you for them. *LOL*

I use *LOL* for emphasis, and I'm not the only one.  You can find that style on forums everywhere. 

Paranoid much?   


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:07 | 1107758 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You know who you are, Red Neck Republicant.

I'm not paranoid.  I just know an asshole when I see one.  Your brand of Libtrolling is identical to another whom I, along with some others, soundly thrashed right off of this board.

Seriously, get out.  You aren't wanted.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:11 | 1107762 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

good night, mosely.

And watch out for those bed bugs - they probably have government cameras on their backs. 

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 07:59 | 1108072 Trillax
Trillax's picture

And watch out for those bed bugs - they probably have government cameras on their backs.


Yes, LOL mosely. Common internet meme is common.

Perhaps in Somalia these are spread via tribal councils and shamans licking toads then passing it down.

*shakes head*

Xeer.. too funny.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:45 | 1108355 tmosley
tmosley's picture

You would do well not to conflate all "libertarians" together.  We aren't all paranoid crazies.  Look through my posts.  I have never once complained about any "secret government organization", unless you count the Fed.  I have never complained about "surveillance" save perhaps where it was known.  I don't believe in "black helicopters" or any such nonsense.  

Rather, I am a thinker.  I think about how to make things better for EVERYONE.  Unlike you, who simply bows down before the authority presented before you, no matter how extreme their demands.  

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:22 | 1108463 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

We aren't all paranoid crazies....

Maybe not, but you certainly are.  You said a few weeks ago that you had no doubt the government was monitoring your internet posts and that you'd probably be killed by the "State" because of them, as if you're some sort of self-proclaimed martyr for libertarian goofballs.  

That's what's typically considered.....NUTS.  Cuckoo for fucking cocoa puffs.  

Rather, I am a thinker....

oh my god - whatever! In the ultimate display of lunacy, you propose to convert the social structure of the United States into an indefinite number of fully armed, gang-like "clans" - using the world's most dangerous (and poorest) country as a reference point. Your society would be one of endless gang warfare like the bloods and crips of South central LA. 

That is fucking NUTS, from start to finish.


You call this being a "thinker."  I call it being an idiot. 


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:00 | 1107743 i-dog
i-dog's picture

You equating the MSM view of Somalia with a "free society" is the real joke in this thread!

Somalia is a battleground between islamic extremism (ie. CIA-backed insurgency) and regional indigenous warlords. In the meantime, the people of Somalia enjoy a relatively peaceful and prosperous existence (when compared to neighbouring African states) based on village and clan level self-determination.

The only similarity to a free society is the fact that it has no [functioning] central government ... but this is only a temporary state of affairs until the US/UN can militarily impose a central authority under the guise of an islamic republic. They have been trying for 20 years, so don't hold your breath.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:08 | 1107759 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

Somalia is peaceful and prosperous?


In the prior sentence, you call it a "battleground" with islamic extremism and warlords!

Oh....god....   libertarians!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:20 | 1107765 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Outside of Muq Dishu it is quite peaceful.  That city is the center of the islamist insurgence as well as the efforts out outside governments to impose a central government by providing strongmen with weapons.  The fact that all the governments in the world have tried and failed in this effort is testament to the resilience of this form of governance, just as the inability of the British to topple the United States in the Revolution or the War of 1812 was testament to the relative superiority of the Democracy adopted by the spear chucking pedophiles three thousand years ago, or the pirates of the same time period.

But hey, you continue to belittle that which you do not understand.  That is your right.  For now.  Enjoy your police state.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:32 | 1107776 Mark McGoldrick
Mark McGoldrick's picture

You may want to check your facts again, Cliff.


In 2009, Forbes called Somalia, "The World's Most Dangerous Country."



In terms of poverty, it's tied for fifth in Africa, which, might I remind you, is the poorest continent in the world.

In short, Somalia is one of the poorest, and most violent spots on Earth!  There are around 200 countries in the world, and you picked one of the top 5 worst!



You guys are so clueless!  I couldn't possible fathom a more ridiculous conversation for the evening. This has been hilarious!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 03:03 | 1107807 i-dog
i-dog's picture

"*LOL* ... most HILARIOUS thread ... Oh my fucking GOD!! ... *LOL* ... I have tears in my eyes right now from laughter ... This is utterly hilarious!!! ... *LOL* ... *LOL* ... I use *LOL* for emphasis, and I'm not the only one.  You can find that style on forums everywhere ... *LOL* ... lol ... *LOL* ... *LOL* ... OMG!!!!"

I know they teach you repetition in Disinfo-101, but don't you think you have taken it a bit over the top? Your instructor won't be impressed!

Methinks thee protesteth too much ... and so would any other 3-year-old reading your contribution.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:54 | 1108387 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Most dangerous for outsiders, perhaps.  I explained this.  Those not within the system are automatically outlaws, and are subject to the unrestrained violence of anyone who wishes to assault them.  THIS IS WHY I PROPOSE CHANGES, NOT A DIRECT ADOPTION OF THEIR CURRENT SYSTEM.

Also, how on Earth did they measure the "poverty" levels of that country?  It's the most dangerous place in the world (for them)!  Simple--they made it up.

If you judged Democracy by the dangerousness of the pirates who were the first to adopt it in modern times, or by the moral failings of the pedophillic Greeks, you would have a similarly low opinion of it.  Indeed, the monarchs of the era were similarly dismissive of democracy as you are of Xeer--until their heads started rolling in the streets, and the US emerged as an industrial superpower.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 06:36 | 1107934 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture



You, as usual, are either ignorant or just a tool. Regarding Somalia try:


By the way, being a "man" turns out to be much more satisfying long term than being a tool.  It is "men/women" who respect the life, liberty, and property of others. "Beasts", (a group that can include "tools"), is an appropiate term for those who can't follow mommy's basic advice:  "don't hit", "don't steal", "don't lie"  (assuming they had a loving mommy who was not a beast)! 



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:44 | 1108169 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

By the way, being a "man" turns out to be much more satisfying long term than being a tool.

Nice, by the way, whilst monkeys practice usury and whilst greed and fear rule their little monkey minds, human beings will be figuring out how to reach our potential, live peacefully and prosperously and oh, by the way, clean up the monkey's mess.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 02:00 | 1107738 i-dog
i-dog's picture

. (deleted ... wrong place)

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:25 | 1108121 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Insurance is a service that can be (or should be able to be) purchased from competing service providers


What competition has to do with that? Competition is eliminating the concurrence. It has a start and an end.


Self ownership is such a scam. Invented to fill a gap. As it is all about capital, back in the days, people without capital could help raising their hand to ask about themselves. Hence the self ownership scam: everyone starts with a capital as they own themselves. So the system does not exclude people before the start of the game.

You dont own yourself. You are yourself.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:30 | 1108774 pods
pods's picture

Sorry for the late reply mos, seems that there was a flame war overnight.

I would say that you would indeed cede your sovereignty to the clan.  At least to some degree.  Purchasing insurance I dont think is the proper analogy to this.  Clans may be looked at as being synonymous with a mafia style protection system.  They do work, and can work well.  But you are not really free.

I think that the system as set up here originally was pretty good.  A loose federation of states.  But it is easy for power to be consolidated, with a fully supportive populace, and end up right where we are now, where the Feds tell you how much water you can use to flush your toilet.


Do you relinquish self ownership when you purchase insurance?

There's your answer.  The "clan" does not have the power to do anything except kick you out, and even then, you are a sovereign individual.  Of course, as a sovereign individual, you are indeed liable to all the horrors that are portrayed by everyone who hates and fears the freedom of anarcho-capitalism.  This is why such a thing is unthinkable.  You can also change "clans" in current incarnations.  

A modern version would have such a procedure be as simple as changing one's car insurance provider, though the process the insurer goes through to determine your rates might be a bit invasive.  But this is the price we pay for freedom.  That is eternal vigilance institutionalized.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:14 | 1107569 worms eye view
worms eye view's picture


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 05:48 | 1107931 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture


Such people in that frame of mind ought to be able to handle a possible transition by being instructed to "vote" for their desired "government" by paying the fee, (or "tax" to them as they might think of it), to the specific entities they support, (and thereby always "voting" for the "winning" candidate as expressed in their voluntary "vote"), and using those entities if/when they have a "law" or "police/defense/sercurity" problem they can't handle through their own self-sufficiency. 

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:41 | 1108836 pods
pods's picture

Well VE, this brings up a very vexing point in my trying to educate certain people. Many people are incapable of thinking in the way that is needed for self-ownership, so I am not sure I even want them on my side.  That is the kicker.  Is it better to have the ignorant on your side or on the other?  They are still ignorant, even when on your side. I would rather be around other like-minded anarchists.  But to implement anything like that, you need the support of the ignorant to be able to implement your ideas.  

Tough spot indeed.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:39 | 1108155 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The biggest issue that comes back to me is that most people NEED security.


What a big surprise. People who thieved an entire continent need to their theft to be securized.

Old saying: thieves naturally distrust.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 12:03 | 1108925 pods
pods's picture

So we are back to the white Europeans stealing all the land?

How far back must we go to get this straight.  Just gimme your starting point, and then we can work from there.




Mon, 03/28/2011 - 13:37 | 1109360 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Accessorily, they were white people. They were not Europeans as they were Americans. An appropriate denominer is US citizens.

The starting point is self obvious to anyone who wishes to assess a system by its own merits: the starting point is 1776 when the US citizens hijacked the human nature/condition to push for their selfish best interests.

Noone should be surprised that systems promoting slavery had actual slaves. A bit more when it comes to systems promoting freedom. And yet, one has to admit that some systems not based on freedom, human right to property, performed better in those departments than the US system. It tells about the US citizens and their eternal nature, one of thief.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:48 | 1107332 reader2010
reader2010's picture

Late George Carlin's take on the issue,

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:45 | 1107501 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

George wasn't always funny and he wasn't always right. This tirade isn't funny but was and is spot on right. Time to figure out how to withdraw as much as possible from aiding our enemies to carry on business as usual.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:45 | 1107505 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

George wasn't always funny and he wasn't always right. This tirade isn't funny but was and is spot on right. Time to figure out how to withdraw as much as possible from aiding our enemies to carry on business as usual.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:51 | 1107337 Madhouse
Madhouse's picture

Obama: Again where the fuck are you man. We should be dumnping concrete all over that site, Japanese fucking approval or not. Why do you think they located this thing on their east coast - so any accident would take most of the radiation over the sea. Yea, right to our food supply in California. Now that is "National Interest". Get a grip. Every indication is that this idiot utility company is not in control.  This is not the BP oil spill - IT'S RADIATION ya frikin dingbat !!! Get on it for Christ's sake (sak e) !!  My fucking Red Peppers are gonna be Orange from that weapons grae plutonium. One thing is for sure is that the Tepco execs are west of Japan and gonna stay there.... Thai Surprise any one..

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:58 | 1107352 wisefool
wisefool's picture

Facinating read. will stay tuned. I am thinking about the age of sail and the tall ships like the constitution. First sailing ships had one sail. Twords the end ships had hundreds of very specialized sheets in the wind. Steam comes along and reduced the complexity to 0 sails.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 22:57 | 1107355 Destinapp
Destinapp's picture

I think as prices rise, the average man will get it.  My video here simplifies it a little:


We all need to laugh sometime

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:02 | 1107368 Fix It Again Timmy
Fix It Again Timmy's picture

If most citizens do not realize the extent that their savings and the purchasing power of their currency are being ravaged by inflation, then what hope can one have that they are aware of more subtle methods of theft and control?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:06 | 1107381 TheDuke
TheDuke's picture

"Those of us residing in the United States or any of the British Commonwealth countries live under an extremely sophisticated and subtle scheme of rules, very few of which were created by government."

Many/most of the "rules" were created under Common Law precedents - as the judiciary is an arm of government I find this claim to be dubious. The linked manifesto has no references to back this up so it is merely opinion, not fact.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:09 | 1107382 worms eye view
worms eye view's picture

From the view of a worm it seems that such a simple system of county governance would require (nod to pods and porkchop) a population of citizens who are capable of 1. conceiving of such a plan and 2. of understanding the relationship of right and obligation. Good luck finding a population as advanced as this. This worm's view.  Back to eating dirt...

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:07 | 1107383 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Free societies exist, and can work, even when under constant attack by governments worldwide.

Much like the light of democracy could not be snuffed out once it had taken hold in America, so too could such a system, with minor modifications, spread throughout the world, and render government obsolete.

The primary modification that would be required would be for the "clan" based social insurance aspect to be replaced by a company-based one.  Clan based social insurance would still be possible, but many people don't want to be tied to the one they were born into.  This will also allow for much greater mobility (this is the major failing of the Somali implementation--they are not friendly to foreigners, who, without social insurance, are all seen as outlaws.  Those vessels which are taken by pirates could avoid their fate by signing up for social insurance on a temporary basis.  

With no taxes or regulations, and protection provided by such social insurance agencies, any place that implemented such a system would quickly attract investment, and would quickly become a Mecca of world trade.  We just need to plant the seed of "modern" Xeer, and we could kiss brutal governments goodbye.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:20 | 1107421 worms eye view
worms eye view's picture

I read 'clan' as mafia, and it can be run as a business and also be as brutal as any tyrant.  Whatever system we wish to replace the current with must first be gamed sufficiently to understand the worst case senario we can imagine, and then some.  To rely on the good nature of leadership is to invite disaster.  Just how a worm sees it.

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:38 | 1107486 tmosley
tmosley's picture

That is not the way it works in reality.  These clans do not have their own militias.  Everyone is armed in and of themselves.

Is your car or life insurance agency run like a mafia?  No.  But your government is.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:03 | 1107540 worms eye view
worms eye view's picture

Understood, however, my life and auto insurers do not make social policy or enforce law.  How can a county governance given authority be effective without power.  Once authority is given then power must be displayed.  Secondly, if a clan (comprised of each clan member) is armed in and of themselves then the clan itself is a militia.


In the end I agree with you, but the stand for the rights of each county citizen is made by the clan as a whole, and the clan can be just as mislead as we are now.  The verbage of the accord can be used to alienate dissenting voices and lead to abuse.  It seems that this system could closely resemble Feudalism.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:28 | 1107699 tmosley
tmosley's picture

These organizations do not need to make social policy nor enforce law.  They merely need to negotiate on a level playing field with other organizations with use of a neutral mediator, and pay up any sum that is agreed upon in those mediations.  If the group decides that it is too expensive to keep a given member, then he is either kicked out, or in the case of a social insurance company, his rates are raised.

This system does NOT resemble Feudalism in ANY way.  You'd best elaborate, because I suspect you either don't know what I'm talking about, or you don't know what Feudalism is.  No one is a slave in this system.  No-one is tied to land.  The people own the land as usual.  There is no king.  There are no taxes.  There are no nobles who give military service to the non-existent king in exchange for rights to the land.  Come on.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 03:32 | 1107839 CH1
CH1's picture

Some of these guys want this to not be possible. They NEED it to not be possible.

The reason is generally this: If it WERE possible, they would have to face a choice: To embrace that possibility... which would be dangerous... or to reject the possibility, which makes them a coward.

It is very seldom about the merits of the argument, and usually about the consequences of the argument.

Sat, 04/16/2011 - 00:56 | 1175369 worms eye view
worms eye view's picture

Your lack of patriotism is evident.  The crux of the question is how does the non-hacker take advantage of the system?  We all want to believe in a system where everyone participates.....what historical evidence to you have to indicate that your utopian ideal will all of the sudden take place?  Economics dictates that an individual will only participate in the process as much as it suits the individual.  Grow up. Philosophy is the proving ground, but it takes time; and time is money…and ethics get left behind.  Just look at your own response.

Sat, 04/16/2011 - 00:41 | 1175354 worms eye view
worms eye view's picture

Please explain how the worker is not subject to the land owner.  The land owner needs hands to work the land, the worker needs the proceeds of the labor to eat.  In a post shtf situation (which is the only plausible application of this line of thought) how does this situation differ from the lord of the manner and land (feudalism) and outright slavery?

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:11 | 1107392 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

what are we waiting for, lets get it started

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:11 | 1107396 mdwagner
mdwagner's picture

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


I do not consent, therefore, government does not have their just power.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:50 | 1107729 FIAT_FixItAgainTony
FIAT_FixItAgainTony's picture

well put.  sheeple consent all the time and thereby stand under.  i learned the legalese.  most of the key words mean the opposite of normal english interpretation.  i am 1 for 2 in the courts using admiralty or common law.  i kind of expected the first time trying it to be a fail, but, i did accomplish the necessary "notice" to county.  this made attempt number two to be a win. 

now i am on attempt in admiralty number three, my fraudclosure case.  so far very interesting results as the case progresses.  the first judge reclused herself after my answer and counterclaim.  the re-assigned magistrate has granted 3 of my 4 motions.  i learned why the one was a fail, hence learned what NOT to say.

now i have noticed my affidavits have caused the attorneys to avoid the court completely, sending in another attorney from the same firm to try and continue the dirty work.  i added him to my claim.  any other attorneys want in?

i don't recommend the common law / admiralty approach to anyone unless they have the time to research, study and verify fact from paytriot fiction.  certain elements are correct, many are bs being sold for profit.

a real learning expirience for sure.  americans have a very bad habit of interchanging the terms attorney with lawyer and vice-versa.  a big no-no.  they are far cries from each other. an attorney is an officer of the court and a lawyer is one skilled at law.  most attorneys are not skilled at law, they are skilled at standard court proceedings.  i bury them with my firm, quick and unrefutable affidavits.

one of the hardest things to fully comprehend for most people is who we really are.  that being said, some should just remain sheeple.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 09:55 | 1108400 Pseudo Anonym
Pseudo Anonym's picture

most of the key words mean the opposite of normal english interpretation.  i am 1 for 2 in the courts using admiralty or common law.

what is your source?  Similar concept discussed here:

Sun, 03/27/2011 - 23:47 | 1107508 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

The fact that any reasonable person with a functioning (brain) Would even waste his or her time contemplating reading that worthless diatribe is testament in it's self. I guess I speed read!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:29 | 1107702 tmosley
tmosley's picture

If centralization of power is good, then perhaps we need more.  Let's go back to having absolute monarchs who rule by the Mandate of Heaven.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:49 | 1107727 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Weak! Very weak! Centralize what?

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:53 | 1107734 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Any and all power.  Including that over what happens to you in the hereafter.  And of course get rid of that pesky congress and the facade of separate political parties.

That would be good, wouldn't it?  No more of these endless debates over crap that doesn't matter, just a pronouncement and done.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:00 | 1107531 gall batter
gall batter's picture

Yen, I agree with "worthless diatribe".  

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 00:51 | 1107638 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Thanks! and take the JUNK  as constructive criticism.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:19 | 1107688 onlooker
onlooker's picture

Taking California as an example of a secession state is off the mark. Texas, when it joined the Union, reserved the right to leave the Union and the right to divide itself into more states within the Union.
Texas could leave the USA. Would it damage the USA? No. Would it damage Texas? No. Would there be a war? No. Could Texas support the massive dept of Social Security? No. Would the Texans want it? Yes. Would that be a problem? Yes.


So there you have it. Social Security debt and commitments are the ties that binds us. The gift that keeps on giving.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:51 | 1107731 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

I will get junked. California is the most disfunctional  waste of Beauty!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 01:56 | 1107740 FIAT_FixItAgainTony
FIAT_FixItAgainTony's picture

absolutely correct.  the socialist security number is the tie that binds.  unless you resign as trustee for the socialist security account, you are in the govt's eyes, an employee.  employess of corporate must follow corporate rules.

what is legal is not what is lawful and vice-versa.  amazing what you can learn with a black's law dictionary!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 03:39 | 1107846 CH1
CH1's picture

Yes, secession DOES damage the State!

In specific, it damages the legitimacy of the state. If the state is not the noble and final evolution of all human society, people will be less eager to obey it without any thought... and give the state everything it wants, willingly.

All states ultimately survive by taking advantage of people who become willing to give it money. Thugs are expensive, after all; you can't place on in every household.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 03:23 | 1107828 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

We ARR on the same page? I DON'T SMOKE POT.

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 04:42 | 1107892 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Anther excellent article as usual from "Free Radical". Have collected and am keeping his previous article links, as he/she says things so well!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 05:57 | 1107938 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Come on   bitches? Lets  fire this ( globe)  up!

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 06:13 | 1107945 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

Cash out, buy gold.

Think for yourself.

Stop TV worship.


Mon, 03/28/2011 - 08:43 | 1108166 snowball777
snowball777's picture

All the people I know wanna be left alone
Some people, I don't know.
They wont leave you alone
You gotta be just - be just like them

Biggest gang I know they call the government
And a gang is a weapon
That you trade your mind in for
You gotta be just - be just like them

The gang
And the government
No difference
That makes me 1%

Trouble comes down
Like a foot steppin heavy
Shake your fist at the bitch
Or wave your money
You gotta be right

Don't be no
Supper for a big fish
With the big lip
And the over -
Bite - bite

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:44 | 1108820 rufus13
rufus13's picture

Thomas Jefferson was a good and decent man, of any era. He had human slaves, like I have a Briggs&Stratton lawnmower. He took better care of his charges than I do.

People who dismiss TJ's thoughts (and the founding documents) are missing out on one of the most brilliant thinkers of the past 500 years. He was INSIDE a social and political system that was not mechanized, but he anticipated how great it would be to have a nation of free people who cooperated and competed to become better/wealthier/more-free from the Hobbsian nasty-brutish-short existence that non-royalty had.

Bring me some living American Citizens who are legally Slaves and I will apologize and arrange for pensions for them. Don't tell me about their offspring who have failed so spectacularly because of some fault of mine. Working for a low wage doesn't make you a slave (they belive they are "trapped", but can hit the road at any time). Are basketball players with $70M 5 year contracts "living on Massa's platation"? If they quit, do they go to jail? My people showed up indentured for a decade, and have been free for as long as the United States has been. I don't owe, and I won't pay. My rifle and boots may have to enforce this at some point, but the current delegation of power/duties can be worked with.


Oh yeah: deportation is not a punishment. It's corrective action to save this nation.



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 13:44 | 1109392 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Bring me some living American Citizens who are legally Slaves and I will apologize and arrange for pensions for them. Don't tell me about their offspring who have failed so spectacularly because of some fault of mine.


I underlined this extract because it sums up well the spirit of US citizens.

So the comment is about the past, inheritance, how good the men who started this nation were and how good it is to live in the nation they built, how good it is to inherit from them.

But when it comes to foot for the damage they did, no one is on the deck anymore. It is the past etc

It embodies perfectly the relation of US citizens to responsibility, when it is good to them, they step to claim, when it is bad, to some others to clean the US made mess. So US citizenish...

Mon, 03/28/2011 - 14:18 | 1109546 rufus13
rufus13's picture

I don't have a responsibility to BECOME a slave to those who claim some ancestoral grievance .  I've gotten close enough to that by being subject to the UCMJ for 6 years, before I began to understand the nature of that contract.


You are correct that "no one is on deck" concerning that Curious Institution where some men legally own others. They are all DEAD.  Let's move on with things that really matter, like rooting out corruption in our current .gov and downsizing it to 5% of the economy.


I am an American Citizen, not a US property. I love my country, not necessarily my Government. 


It sounds like you might be speaking as anAnon from the position of a disarmed comfortable subject, or an enforcer for the Crown.



Mon, 03/28/2011 - 13:01 | 1109203 tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

Quite an interesting read.  Well thought out and articulated.  No doubt such a scenario is a philosophical "reach" for most folks, but so were concepts such as the fall of the Berlin wall, women's rights and habeas corpus.  Keep an eye on Texas if you want know how the story unfolds. 

For what it's worth, I used this same title about six months ago (Devolution Revolution - and I have been working on a very lengthy article along these same lines for months.  The thing that has held me up the most in put together the article was when Ron Paul and Ralph Nader found some common ground under what has been described by Cass Sunstein as libertarian paternalism. 

It's a complex issue, but it essentially co-opts "free will" through choice architecture.  In other words, you're free to choose between Coke/Pepsi, UPS/Fedex, Verizon/AT&TMobile, etc.  Concepts such as Facebook's default opt-in approach to social networking and proposals for manadatory organ donation are all driven by this same "Big Brother knows best" attitude towards government based on technology, data and the common good.  It really fuses the progressive side with the libertarian side and is very, very crafty deception. 

The movies Inside Job and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward both had this same paradigm and I sense it is somewhat consistent with the article above.  What caught my eye more than anything was the mention of "The Common Era" as the date for the contract.  You see most people don't realize it but every computer posting, every check you write that is dated, every email that is automatically dated, every letter you send that is dated, all proclaim the same thing.  The year of our Lord, 2011.  Whether you agree with it or not, you sign it that way.  Most people don't realize it, but outside of the Anglosphere, that's not always the case when it comes to determining what year it is. 

I'm still working on my Devolution Revolution article, but after the Tea Party had their big party in November, the progressive forces went to work full-time in an effort to co-opt that movement (I'm no big fan of the Tea Party), because they think that the rank and file aren't smart enough to see that the common ground that they're proposing is the shakey ground of your life's meaning based on "a posteriori" rather than "a priori."  In other words, your life has no meaning and as Sartre proclaimed, "Hell is other people."   

Here's a review of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward that helps to explain my point for those interested:


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!