- “Our government”
“Our” is the possessive form of “we.” This phrase assumes that a collective exists and has ownership of the government, which is another collective. To exist is to have a concrete, particular form in physical reality. To say that abstract objects exist is to beg the question of where they exist, to which there is no answer because there is no empirically observable entity. To say that collectives exist is beg the question of what physical form they take, as all available physical forms are occupied by the individuals which are said to comprise the collective. Thus, there is no “we”; there is only you, I, and every other individual person. By the same token, the government does not exist; each person, each building, each gun, etc. exists. As such, the phrase “our government” is meaningless. Additionally, to own something is to have a right of exclusive control over it. Part and parcel of this right is the right to physically destroy that which one owns. As governments use force to stop citizens who attempt to physically destroy the state, the citizens are not the de facto owners of a government.
- “We are the government”
This phrase confuses society with government, which is as serious an error as confusing an entire human body with a malignant tumor growing inside of that body.
- “The social contract”
A valid contract must be presented honestly and agreed to voluntarily, without duress or fraud. The social contract does not meet this standard because the state will initiate the use of force against anyone who does not voluntarily enter into the social contract. The state is also not automatically dissolved when it fails to uphold its obligations under the social contract, so the presentation is dishonest if it even occurs at all. Therefore, the social contract cannot be considered a legitimate contract.
- “Our leader”
In the case of the state, we are not speaking of just any kind of leader, but a ruler. No one owns the ruler, and the ruler falsely claims to own those who are ruled, as the ruler claims a right to exclusive control over the ruled and has no logically defensible basis for doing so. Thus the leader is not “ours.”
- “The leader of the free world”
“The free world” does not exist; each individual person exists. Again, we are speaking of rulers rather than all types of leaders. Free people do not have rulers; they rule themselves.
- “You don’t have to like our leaders, but you should respect them”
Respect should be a response to virtue. Ordering the use of initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, therefore it is unworthy of respect.
- “You don’t have to like the president, but you should respect the office of the presidency”
The office of the presidency, like any part of any government, is a violent criminal institution. Violent criminality is unworthy of respect.
- “Our military”
If the military is “ours,” then “we” should be able to exercise exclusive control over it. But “we” neither command the military nor have the freedom to destroy it. Thus it is not “ours”; it is a tool of the ruling classes used to make it very difficult for citizens to violently overthrow the government, provide a last line of defense for the state in the form of martial law should the citizens succeed in violently overthrowing the government, and present a deterrent to other rulers elsewhere in the world who might seek to take over the state and capture the tax base for themselves.
- “We need to make the world safe for democracy”
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who gets eaten. This sort of behavior should not be made safe; it should be made dangerous by giving the sheep means to resist the wolves. Some will say that this is what a constitutional republic does, but this is false. A constitutional republic is three wolves and a sheep voting for a representative among them to decide who gets eaten. To claim that establishing a constitutional republic counters the negative aspects of democracy is to claim that simply by making a chocolate cake double-layered, one can magically turn it into something that is not chocolate.
- “You don’t have to like what the police/military are doing, but you should support them”
Again, respect should be a response to virtue. Just as ordering the use of initiatory force against people to control them is not virtuous behavior, carrying out said orders is also not virtuous. Therefore it is unworthy of respect.
- “The homeland/Our nation”
As only individuals are capable of action, only individuals may rightly own property. There is no such thing as public property; there is only privately owned property and property which has been stolen or otherwise interfered with by agents of the state. Thus, there is no homeland or nation because these require collective ownership.
- “National defense/security”
There is no such thing as national security apart from each individual person’s security because there is no such thing as a nation apart from each individual person.
- “It’s the law”
In a statist society, the laws are a collection of opinions written down by sociopaths who have managed to either win popularity contests or murder their competitors and enforced at gunpoint by thugs in costumes. The implication of the phrase “it’s the law” is that this state of affairs is both necessary and proper, rather than inherently illogical and immoral. Also implied is that the law is somehow sacrosanct and immutable, which is clearly false because the aforementioned sociopaths both frequently alter the laws and routinely disregard the laws they make for everyone else.
- “Voting is your voice in government”
This statement assumes that there is no voter fraud, that votes are counted correctly, that vote results cannot be altered by courts, and that politicians will do what voters tell them to do. Each of these assumptions has an unfulfilled burden of proof at best, and is demonstrably false on several occasions at worst.
- “Voting is a civic duty”
A legitimate duty can only come from a legitimate right or contract. There is no such right or contract that could create such a duty. In addition, there can be no legitimate duty to perform an immoral act. Voting is immoral because it helps to impose violent rulers upon peaceful people and gives the appearance of legitimacy to institutions which deserve none.
- “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain”
This is exactly wrong. People who do not vote are the only people who have a right to complain. Those who vote for people who win elections are endorsing politicians and their minions who will engage in activities under color of law that would be punished as crimes if you or I did them. Those who vote for people who lose elections may not be vicariously responsible for the crimes of state agents in the same degree, but participating in the system helps to create the appearance of legitimacy for that which is inherently illegitimate.
- “The public good/The good of society”
Society, or “the public,” does not exist. Each individual person exists. As such, there is no such thing as the public good or the good of society. There is only what is good for each individual person.
- “For the children”
Those who wield state power subject children to forced indoctrination that leaves them with few marketable skills and restrict the ability of suitable guardians to serve as their parents. They do not care about children as anything other than a means to shame and guilt people into handing over more liberty and property to the state.
- “Government is necessary”
This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence.
- “Anarchy is chaos”
The word “anarchy” comes from Greek ???????, meaning “without rulers,” or more accurately, “without beginning to take the lead.” It does not mean an absence of order, rules, or structure. The state, on the other hand, is chaos plus organization.
- “Taxes are the price for a civilized society”
This is exactly wrong. Taxes are the price for failing to create a civilized society based on voluntary solutions, and the degree of taxation corresponds to the degree of failure.
- “Paying taxes is a civic duty”
Taxation is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle, private property rights, and freedom of association. There can be no legitimate duty to comply with immorality.
- “We owe it to ourselves”
This would make one both a creditor and a debtor in the same transaction. This is a contradiction, therefore it is false.
- “We’re going to hold them accountable”
This is contrary to the nature of the state. The state apparatus allows some people to do what is ordinarily forbidden for anyone to do. Thus, the objective is to avoid responsibility for the commission of crimes. Avoiding responsibility is the opposite of being held accountable.
- “Who will build the roads?”
If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton? It does not matter. What matters is that slavery is morally indefensible. So it is with government and who will provide services in its absence. Also, it is not necessary to know the correct answer to a question in order to know that a particular answer is incorrect. And who will build the death camps? The state also provides intolerable disservices which would almost certainly not occur in its absence.


Eh... "Fair Share"?
"White Privilege"?
"Social Justice"?
My "fair share" is 0; I also don't feel too privileged right now, and always thought that "social" and "justice" are totally different sciences...
"Money is created as Debt"... Oh really?.. You fucking liars!
If I grab a pick and make a hole in the mountain, am I in Debt for the Silver and Gold I take out?
Face it, the parasites have brainwashed you.
Money is created as CREDIT!
And the ZIONIST's are printing themselves money with OUR printing press.
Well, at least you've finally exposed yourself, I knew you could do it if allowed enough rope.
"Money is created as CREDIT!"
Just let that puppy sit right there ;-)
If I grab a pick and make a hole in the mountain, am I in Debt for the Silver and Gold I take out?
Interesting analagy... ther are several gold miners who might answer YES to that question right about now.
Money As Debt - Full Length Documentaryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqvKjsIxT_8
Money (real money) has no counter party risk, no liabilities and is not encumbered in any way. Its free of all obligations, past or present.
Thats not what he said, forget his stupid zionist rant, here is what he actually said...
"And the ZIONIST's are printing themselves money with OUR printing press."
...with our printing press.
As if PRINTING paper money (on ANY state owned printing press) amounts to the value, he discarded the notion of money and what it really is and compounded it by saying money is created by credit.
Its not, money stands alone in time always increasing in value, relying on nothing or no one and certainly not any governments printing press.
In a strict sense you may be correct. But give up just a millimeter and look at it this way..... I work, I get a convenient medium of exchange in the form of "credits" magically apearing in the thing called my bank account. I can then exchange those credits for food, shelter, etc. So does a 21st century human living in the "westernized economies" really care what the definition of money is? Barter a vote for an obamaphone. Spend some time standing in line and get an EBT Card. Paper or plastic or electrons appearing as objects on a computer monitor. Who cares?
I now yield the floor to older and wiser men:
The lack of money is the root of all evil.
Mark Twain
When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is.
Oscar Wilde
If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.
Aristotle Onassis
'I work, I get a convenient medium of exchange in the form of "credits" magically apearing in the thing called my bank account. I can then exchange those credits for food, shelter, etc. '
Now let's look at that statement in 1923 Reichsmarks on the 1st Jan, and compare it to the same Reichsmarks on 31st Dec same year.
Does your statement still stack up or can we agree that credit in a bank account is not money?
Thank goodness for Common Core........huh amigos?
This article is about "propagandistic phrases".
You trolls just took the cake.
We all know it's imperative to keep the sheeple brainwashed and conformant.
But that can be better accomplished under Hitlers model, where money is created as CREDIT, NEVER NEEDING TO BE REPAID.
So suck on that you parasites.
and you're obviously so smart you can talk complete fucking bollocks, and still sound stupid.
You're brilliant yourself. The difference is, you're an evil parasitic troll. That's about the extent of it...
Tosser.
Hey, don't insult the tossers by calling someone who doesn't know the fact that credits cannot exist without debts, and that currency is not the same thing as money, a tosser.
What some seemingly fail to grasp, is that a definition of 'money' as nothing more than 'credits' fabricated by the government/bankster partners - is nothing more than a tool for slavery. ( Some even naively cite 1930s Nazi Germany as being something to emulate financially.)
They are slaves to their mental conditioning.
To the contrary, we are not slaves to YOUR mental conditioning...
Technologists and the gay community mightl not agree with Aristotle.
Best definition of bitcoin I've read so far.
Bitcoins....electronic air....I'll just take gold.
Add an ionizer and get the Ionic Breeze, actually a product I used and liked untill the maid service broke it.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/02/sharper_image.html
Only parasites can print themselves money for free in the form of Bitcoins. They should call the fake money "parasite coins"...
OK, I'll admit that reading this comment reminded me of MillionDollarBonus. You should be proud. Troll.
IMHO that has to be MDB, you're right...
Hell, I'm the only intelligent person still on this idiotic thread that ISNT a parasitic troll...
BitCoin has the very real liability of needing the internet or a device that needs electricity, accounts and passwords, its inhibited (held hostage) and has to work through those issues to perform as a credit system.
Its completely encumbered (at the mercy of) by all of that, so its not money, not even close.
Yes it is. Look at it from this angle, it takes energy to remove that silver and gold out. There really is one universal money constant and it is not debt free. It is called a joule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule
It can also be converted from electric to mechanical to food based energy consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie
That silver and gold is joule neutral unless you use it some energy generating application so you wind up being in energy debt unless you can leverage that energy spent in return for the same energy inputed in the first place.
Those 1s and 0s cost joules to generate and store just as much as printing paper money or pulling metal out of the ground then refining it and turning it into coins.
Cost and value are not the same thing. Value is subjective, cost is not when priced in energy aka joules. A gold bug may value the gold bug more than a non gold bug but the energy cost to mine that gold is the cost regardless of value. The only way to bring down costs is to make the work process more joule efficient. That is why ultimately globalism will never work because it can never overcome those efficiencies, global trade based on strong local individual economies (niche or otherwise) will because it does, which in turn creates excess to be traded with other localities.
When Nixon ended the relationship of gold and money, money became debt and debt became money. As you increase the creation of money, you also increase debt.
Modern money is not CREDIT but DEBT.
Perhaps what you said was just sarc or had a few too many shots.
Miffed
It was Roosevelt who ended the relationship of gold and money. The policies he instituted resulted in the US running out of gold 40 years later. Nixon slammed the gold window shut just before the last bars left the vault.
Supposedly it was the French and Vietnam war that busted the Bretton Woods system. The story as I've heard it was the US was picking up the military tab for France in French Indochina fighting the Viet Cong including the continuation afterwards of the Geneva Convention of 1954 to prop up South Vietnam sucked the majority of the gold reserves out of the system and into Asia. That pretty much forced the US into South Vietnam directly to try to recoup their monetary investment moreso than anything else, stopping the advance of communism aside. Obviously it didn't work since we all know the outcome and can look back in hindsight now.
This also explains why Nixon really opened up relations with China. It was the recoup all those gold reserves spent on Vietnam since by default with China being the biggest player in Asia a big chunk of that gold eventually wound up in China through the equivalent of bioaccumulation.
Money IS created as credit.
Not according to any central bank in the world it isn't. And to those who do not accept central bank fiat currency as money, money is a liquid asset, such as a gold coin, not a credit or a debt. Credits and debts are two sides of the same coin. You can't have a credit with someone unless sthat person also has a debt to you. One cannot exist without the other. Assets however can exist without any such counterparty risk.
Miffed, Armageddon, and Dewey are ALL correct (sort of).
I state that the creation of the Federal Reserve System was the ACTUAL beginning of the demise of honest money (at least, in the United States).
The definitions of 'debt' and 'credit' are often forgotten when commenters who are too 'edumacated' try to grasp these basic terms.
A LENDER is a 'creditor', and a BORROWER is a 'debtor', for example.
The United States Government BORROWS 'money' from the Federal Reserve System; and tells the people that it is 'money'. IT IS NOT. It is DEBT. the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM is the CREDITOR (the group to whom CREDIT is owed).
BOY! Talk about 'statist propaganda'...
It wasn't Nixon and it wasn't FDR who removed the relationship between gold and dollars. The markets did that. The FR printed too many dollars for the amount of gold in storage and that blew the relationship.
I have engaged him before.
He responded as the socialist, statist, which he is, as his post demonstrates on this thread.
National Socialism is socialism after all.
National Socialism.....we use to call those guys Nazis.
We brought them here with Operation Paperclip......the results have been spotty at best.
NAtional ZIonism
NAZI
fixed
1) When We the People rightly print Money, it is created as CREDIT, and when used to create jobs it does not benefit the parasites. Because they're lazy and prefer to steal rather than work like the rest of us.
2) When the parasites have possession of the money printing press, they lie and tell you that money is created as debt and that YOU need to slave to pay them back FOR THE MONEY THEY SPENT ON THEMSELVES.
3) See "Hitler"
Ah . . . the Bill Still, Ellen Brown, etc idiocy.
"All we need is for The People" to control the printing press." they say.
So who is 'The People' under such a scheme ?
The completely bought off congress ?
All such schemes are taken over by influential special interests. The only way to avoid that is to take away the capacity to game the system and let exist a true free market in money. Though, a PM based currency would be a very positive step.
Good luck with that.
Oh, but 'The People' actually controlling the printing presses is more realistic ? How so ?
What I'm talking about has actually occurred successfully in history, what you parrot has not.
'Credit' and 'Debt' in a fiat out-of-thin-air Ponzi scheme, are merely the two sides of the same coin.
The 'education' system has sure done a helluva job on the thinking ability of Americans over the last hundred years.
If I grab a pick and make a hole in the mountain, am I in Debt for the Silver and Gold I take out?
I guess you could consider the broken fuckin' back you're gonna have from years of chipping away at the side of a mountain with a pick axe some sort of debt.
Labor is a cost, not a debt.
Money is CREATED AS CREDIT.
Have you seen his wife lately, quite the knockout, him, not so much.
I wouldn't junk that comment. What you said, SHOULD still be how an economy works. Money at one time, was a store of our labor.
It looks like people are a bit confused here. Money is used by the layperson as if it is credit, but central banks that create fiat money create it in response to debts created by banks. If you ask an accountant, everything is merely journal entries, where for every credit there is a debt.
The only time money is not simultaneously a credit and a debt is when the money is comprised of a commodity such as gold, where it can be melted down and sold for its commodity value. Since all government money is paper however, and since they create it proportional to the issuance of bank loans, it is first and foremost debt, regardless of how it is used.
More confusingly, the word "money" does not mean the same thing as "currency" to all people. Traditionalists accept only things like gold and silver coins as money, and recognize paper/fiat money as currency.
So, you really need to define your terms if you're going to talk about such core concepts in any meaningful sense.
Oh, they're not a science... but to those who pull their strings.
"The office of the presidency, like any part of any government, is a violent criminal institution. Violent criminality is unworthy of respect."
Lol wut?
War, state sanctioned murder, is still murder.
The Congress has abdicated the responsibilities. The President signs EOs that take us to war.
Murder is a crime, immoral,and garners not respect but garners disrespect and is worthy of rebuke.
Statist!
Money is NOT created as DEBT.
Try and keep up ml8
Income inequality, etc. He missed most of the statists arguments.
Ask my friend Lola the lawyer, she knows them by heart.
Where is LTER?
A dialouge between you lovers is always entertaining.
Well said:
"Social Justice"?
From this seemingly innocuous phrase comes so much damage!!! If one person does more work than another, there is no "justice" in trying to make sure that the two have an equal share of the wealth created. But this is the heart of our modern world philosophy. Every government claims to try to give "the governed" all that they want with zero accounting for what is produced. By focusing on what people "want" and "need" rather than what people can contribute, we are destined for exactly the result we are seeing: a fucking disaster. And this is what passes for morality and philosophy. This deep level premise behind modern government is truly the base of the ponzi pyramid we are being forced to live. And the sociopaths at the top love it. They've never found a better excuse for theft yet. 98% of the 99% don't see that it is exactly what they are demanding that is the base fuel and the excuse for the theft that is being extracted from them.
Anarchy is social justice. Realistic? No. But philosophically the only truly defensible system.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://goo.gl/ezLA00
Tylers, spam alert. Get this shit off the board.
"Also, it is not necessary to know the correct answer to a question in order to know that a particular answer is incorrect."
The most cop out statement ever, which summarizes anyone who identifies themselves as "anti-statist." The answer is that there is no answer, other than balancing competing interests. By identifying oneself as "anti-statiist," you are by definition identifying the answer as "no state," even while you admit that you don't know what the answer is. Rather than rallying against something in favor of "I don't know," how about instead having an intelligent dialogue about how the answer is not black or white, and that human beings tend to devolve into warlord and/or King/Queen environments without some kind of self-governance (e.g., state)? But that would require too much effort, I suppose.
Anti-statist == against an OMNIPOTENT, UNACCOUNTABLE State.
Anti-statist =/= Anarchist.
I have had endless arguments here on that point. Plenty of posters here advocate for no organized government of any kind.
FAIL, LTER!
you took a quote out of context. the point he was discussing, is: if slavery is abolished, who will pick the cotton?
do we need to know the answer to that to know that abolishing slavery is the right thing to do?
no, of course not.
instead of trying to muddy the waters and confuse the issue, and take things out of context like you usually do, address the point he is making directly.
but, i know you won't, because you have no leg to stand on in in that case.
LTER
You've had numerous ramblings of idiocy.
Here's the solution: You live under the government you want, and I have nothing to do with it.
I have asked you before why you think you have to force your beliefs on others. I don't want ANY part of your beliefs.
You have never answered.
be•lief
n.
1. something believed; opinion; conviction.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3. confidence; faith; trust: children's belief in parents.
4. a religious creed or faith.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief
Most individuals I know that are big proponents of government generally have a vested interest in its presence. Either they benefit directly from having a government job or they are reaping the benefits of a law(s)passed by the government. My guess is LTER may be in one of these categories.
Miffed
LTER i understand your point, and respect your opinion on many things, but the kind of government you seem to want does not, and has not, ever existed. I didn't, and don't downvote you, as i would rather have a dialogue. This country was founded on what most would consider a minimalist, limited govt, and it didnt even make it one whole generation before it started devolving into what we have now with the alien and sedition acts. You say that without governemnt, we will go back to king/warlord status, but I say thats what we have now. violent sociopaths who take half of what you earn, give a nice slice to their friends, waste the rest on pointless wars and ineffective, counterproductive social programs, and use their own brand of warlords(DHS/police agencies) to keep people in line, even goign so far as to dictate their versions of morality, even against behavior that doesnt harm others. you are living in the state of being you warn against, and its called governemnt. All of them
This article merely advances ideological talking points which is why it is irritating to me. It is just red meat.
You being hard-wired to function as a social insect is deadly to millions.
Maybe you should join the US Army Ants.
BTW, besides forming armies, some ants enslave other ant species.
Hey Rand - can you tell me exactly how much government should exist? I can never get a straight answer to this question so maybe I'll be surprised and receive one from you. Absent you being able to tell me precisely how much government is acceptable I'll be on the side of no government at all and take my chances.
Right now the US cost of government is over half the year's output and there are 2+ million laws.
Not enough for the control freaks evidently.
No more gov. than can get by on trade tariffs. Government was all about trade tariffs, to protect it's citizens, before the nation became a tax slave plantation in unlucky (19) 13.
There is no such thing as a solitary man. This guy should live on Walden pond. If he does not like government he should try a clan or perhaps a tribe.
Then your not a proponent of the allod?
It's not about solitary, it's about voluntary.
Of course, those who are against voluntaryism are wired that way - like ants.
Good sir, you are yet another boring armchair socialist who supposes to have all the answers whilst championing a manipulated, corrupt, thug enforced government that robs the people of at least half of everything they earn, whilst creating the problems they pupport to solve.
In crisis situations what happens ? Does everyone go hell for leather killing each other, or do groups organise themselves to help the sick, weak, elderly and maintain a reasonable dignity ?
Even wolves manage to organise a social structure so they can hunt and breed without it causing disruption. Bees make a hive, whale pods swim thousands of miles and none of them have a single law, never mind an army of lawyer inbeciles producing thousand page documents that can be interpreted however the corrupt interest of the day sees fit.
Today we have the most incredible world wide communication network that gives every single human a potential voice and yet somehow to vote for government we still need to stand in a queue to fill in pieces of paper. This fact alone shows Govt. to be an out of date 19th / 20th century behomth that is unnecessary.
Everything in the universe is inherently self organising, even clouds of gas gather to form stars, planets and moons that obey strict universal laws. It is unnatural to impose all manner of false regiemes upon people, which largely serve to keep the least intelligent, least productive and most psychopathic members of socity lauding over the more productive.
Obama has absolutely no experience in anything whatsoever and the same can be said for most people holding high office. If you want leaders at least look to successful business people who know what it means to balance a budget and be productive and cost efficient.
Let's offer the president absolutely no security personel whatsoever and then see who wants the job. That person will truely care about others more than the do themself.
Government like many superstitions that came before it, like religion or the divine right of kings, should be dispelled.
Please give a list of all the places without a strong central government that you would like to live.
strong central govts I definitely DO NOT want to live under:
NK
China
Myanmar
France
US
to name a few.
Leaders you definitely DO NOT want to have over you:
John Roberts
Nancy Pelosi
John Boehner
Harry Reid
Mitch McConnel
Eric Cantor <-- you can scratch that one
Any Parasitic Regime currently in the overthrown countries of Israel (Palestine), the United States, Germany, England, Ireland, etc.
"Please give a list of all the places without a strong central government that you would like to live."
Im an atheist. It is like asking me pick a religion without a powerful god you would like to worship. I should not have to bow down to any spiritual or government masters.
Excellent comment sir. I've mentioned this already on here, but David Friedman in his 'machinery of freedom' cites studies on successful stateless societies in both medieval Iceland and the american west.
Here's the one on the american west: http://mises.org/library/american-experiment-anarcho-capitalism-not-so-w... very compelling
I myself would add pre-monarchy biblical Israel, the period of the 'judges', "when there was no king in Israel and each man did what was right in his eyes".
Huh? A King/Queen is the State. Isn't the POTUS a warlord anyway?
He's a warlord.....with a Nobel Peace Prize.
He seemed ashamed at the time to even take it......it's almost like he knew something.
human beings tend to devolve into warlord and/or King/Queen environments without some kind of self-governance (e.g., state)?
I would argue that states tend to devolve into warlord and/or king/queen environments. Human beings did fine until the state evolved.
Evidence of this is found in the Amazon and Tasmania. Bands and tribes, although slightly xenophobic, form cooperative efforts to ensure their success (long term survival). It is only when chiefdoms become states that xenophobia truly expresses itself in the form of genocide and pilaging. Self-governing doesn't require statist control.
They become more aggressive when their survival is threatened, which was caused by nature, and now is mostly caused by government.
Look at the US currently as a prime example.
I never thought I'd see the day where LTER declares himself a statist, and proud being one on top of that.
(And seconds later declares statism to be a good thing, no surprise on that progression.)
Seen it forever and not just a statist but a leftist statist.
Maybe its just a reading comprehension issue (but I doubt it) however when I challenged LTER on the government having control over CREDIT he had no problem with it.
"Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
The fifth plank.
Why credit or capital should be centralized to a monopoly of the government is beyond me, its been broke for as long as I've been alive ;-)
Also, it is not necessary to know the correct answer to a question in order to know that a particular answer is incorrect
That is very true. If you do not know what you want it is best to eliminate that which you do not want.
Actually it is you, LTER, that will not make a decent scientist.
For instance Kepler knew that the Copernican Model of the Universe was incorrect.
His Law, P2 = kD3, accurately described the motion of the Planets and OVERTHREW the Copernican Model. Yet it was not correct. It did not account for the 43 arcsecond precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.
Then Newton described the Motion of the Planets with his Laws of Motion...which were also not correct. There was a problem with the Planet Mercury's motion. The perihelion precessed at 42 arcseconds per year. Minute but measurable.Same problem. Incorrect. But the Copernican Model was soundly rejected...WITHOUT KNOWING THE CORRECT ANSWER.
Then Einstien came along with a better description and accounted for that with General Relativity, OVERTHROWING the Newtonian description..
Another example. As a Gemologist, (Gemology is materials science after all), I will begin identifying an unknown stone by what it is NOT. After the process of elimination is completed then I will end up identifying what it is.
Now I can cross these two exercises over to Political Science. When I can accurately define that which is unworkable then I am closer to the ultimate "truth" of what may work.
Personally I believe the problem to be without a possible solution. Yet my belief does not mean that one does not exist. Or I may be correct.
Somebody should have thought of all this several hundred years ago.......
"We" is the most dangerous word in the English language. The second most dangerous word is "should". These two words are used as weapons to convince people to do or believe things that they wouldn't otherwise do or believe. Always be ready to counteract those two words when you hear them.
Carbon Unit #233322445 / Dr. Daystrom says: We Should never blindly accept sweeping generalizations.
i think 'bipartisan' is the most dangerous word in the english language, even more so when you add 'compromise' at the end of it. anytime you here those words used to describe a new law, you can be assured that "we" are all getting shafted even worse than usual
It depends on what the meaning of IS is.
When Hillary is elected President in 2016....maybe we'll finally find out what is....IS.
Damn shame about Vince Foster.......but......oh well.
If you ever find yourself in Bosnia......just remember to keep your head down.
Whoever wrote this article must be a terrrrerist!
Please report to your nearest FEMA re-education camp.
Awesome, exposing it for what is the first step toward liberty.
Crap. That's crap.
Here is a real article about propaganda:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/vigilantreport/mind-control-theories-and-techniques-used-by-mass-media/
I up voted you but, this movie warned of it in 1957;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ5RZWttmoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaLQMs_VDLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QCMTmLXdI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9dK1JQBmwE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Face_in_the_Crowd_(film)
Notice, it was slanted against evil 'isolationists'. The Jboys couldn't resist attacking rightwing isloationists while warning you not to be brainwashed!
Andy Griffith is the devil!
I would'a added more to that post but, for some odd reason, the edit button disappeared. Hmmm, never seen that before. Andy was a 'bought and paid for' stooge of the NWO. So, yea, the devil.
You ...just....destroyed....one...of...my...my....my....delusions...of....goodness and wholesomeness.
Thanks. I needed that.
American popular 'culture' was taken over by sophisticated propagandists at least as far back as the lead up to WW1.
Everything from the rock bands you thought were 'rebellious' in your youth to the movie screen & t.v. actors you think are actually the heroic characters they play - - is a fraud.
So nowadays it 's down to some jazz and blues, and classical music. The cable was disconnected & the t.v. unplugged long ago. I actually read books. This is a rarity in a nation where most adults don't read a single serious book after graduating from h.s. or college.
Oh yeah, this country is in for a major reckoning.
Found this on Harold Lasswell's wiki;
He analyzed Nazi propaganda films to identify mechanisms of persuasion used to secure the acquiescence and support of the German populace for Hitler and his wartime atrocities.
Nazi Germany never died, just changed it's marketing strategy.
When you talk shit like that you dispear in the dark house in chicago and they addict you to heroin and then we will talk. E are free to shut the fuck up and pay our taces and do what they say when they say to do it. When you figure that out your free yto do nothing but complain....... Life is a bitch and then you get married if your unlucky enough if not aids is out there
"And there is nothing left to learn;
Only the path to obedience."
-Michel Houellebecq, The Art of Struggle
Yep. "We the People " is statist I suppose.
"We the people" is not "we the government", Counselor. Is that your final argument? Give her the noose!!
WE didn't start the fire but WE are more than willing to pour gasoline on the fire. There is something about WE that you're not getting.
Whee! MOAR gas, Bitchez........!!
MOAR!!!
Feed it ;-)
gimme fuel gimme fire gimme that which I desire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhYH-tCa9DM&t=48
Oh... right... someone wrote "We the People" so that means the "people" composed it?
The Constitution was never put to a popular vote.
Go look at the document. It is "witnessed" by representative of the States and signed only by George Washington.
It was negotiated within King George's property i.e. Independance hall.
Most people don't know that America was not the British gov't. It was the King's PERSONAL property under maritime law.
read the case not someone's opinion of what it means.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S.(1819)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7985814098766481295
King George OWNED America. It was taken by imminent domain and the payment of fair market value was guaranteed by the Treaty of Peace. The USA is the mechanism for repayment.
It is eminent domain if you want to sound slightly less idiotic.
Are spelling corrections the best you have?
lol...is this a technicality of some monarchs law that free men are supposed to be concerned with or adhere to?
At this point in time (or any other time) FORCE my good man, is the only thing monarchs and statists ever understand or listen to, not the niceties of legislators defining "law" as to how it best fits into their fat wallets and schedules or some construct of "fairness" derived from a paid advocate pleading before an appointed magistrate or judge of the states choosing who may (or may not) agree with the offended parties argument.
No, force. Raw, uncompromising brutal force will rule the day and every day when these things are settled.
And settled they will be.
Force is a constant, always has been and always will be. The variable that matters is the moral character behind the force.
To imply that YOUR sanctioned force is better than existing force is to say that your code-of-conduct - writ large - is better than what we have now, enough to justify a violent overthrow with some inevitable horrors that occur during transition.
How confident are you that it is?
"We, the incorporated."
Who are only loyal to themselves, never this nation-state called America.
An excellent example of a straw man argument that begs the question, wrapped in a false dilemma, while appealing to consequence and leaving you hanging.
No State Project
http://marcstevens.net/
Its settled science.
you forgot the MOST importaint one word of them all: "freedom"
OT: Is putin out in Russia...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995335/Vladimir-Putin-neutralis...
Shut up!
He looks good shirtless and rides unicorns!
/s
And evidently is fertile
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/14/rumors-vladimir-pu...
Shoulda added some aspect of Russia so the trolls would be on this thread.
just type polonium and they will come.
I do. In fact I always take my shoes off before going into the Oval Office in case I dirty the carpet.
Do you think I won't have a gun on me?
it goes past 25,
gdp, gmo, g.i. joe.
Many of these points are simple "right and wrong" issues. "Our" government: Do you consent to the notion that you are part-of or one-and-the-same with en evil entity? "Respect for" persons, official titles, and laws: Do you respect evil? "Civic duty" to vote: Is it morally definsible to approve or lend your support to one of two evil candidates? Seems pretty simple to me.
This is a positive claim which carries a burden of proof. By itself, this is a claim asserted without logic or evidence and may therefore be dismissed without logic or evidence.”
Government is the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gang of criminals. Since organized crime exists, and can not be stopped from existing, government exists, and can not be stopped from existing.
The history of government was due to the history of warfare, which was organized crime on larger and larger scales. Those who were the best at being deceitful and backing that up with destruction prevailed. They became the War Kings, that created the sovereign states, whose powers were later effectively privatized by the Fraud Kings, the international bankers, who have been able to apply the methods of organized crime to the political processes to effectively capture control over the actual uses of the powers of governments.
The only connection between the human rule of law and the natural laws is the ability to back up lies with violence. The history of Neolithic Civilizations has been social pyramid systems based on backing up lies with violence becoming more sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. The most important of those are the combined money/murder systems, which are enforced frauds.
Since governments are basically military organizations, which operate as organized crime on the largest scale, whereby the previous outcomes of wars enabled those who were the biggest and best organized gangs of criminals to declare that they were the government, all citizens are actually members of a military organization, and members of an organized crime gang that they call their country.
More generally, all human realities are based on organized lies operating robberies. All private property is based on backing up claims with coercions, and there is no private property outside of some system of public violence. Systems of public violence manifest an irreducible paradox that nobody guards the guardians.
The theory of a democratic republic operating through the rule of law requires that citizens be educated. However, the existing systems are fake democracies, based on a fake education. Citizens are brainwashed to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit social stories, by the public schools and mass media. The results are that the majority of citizens act like incompetent political idiots. The ways that the public "money" supply has been almost totally privatized is a demonstration of the degree to which there is a fake democracy. Taxation is the primary way that the value of that "money" made out of nothing as debts by privately controlled banks is a fraud enforced by governments to give that form of "money" its value.
Taxation is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle, private property rights, and freedom of association. There can be no legitimate duty to comply with immorality.”
The "non-aggression principle" is nonsense, which can never exist in the real world. Promoting such impossible ideals actually makes the opposite happen in the real world. Demanding politics without violence is the same as demanding physics without force.
The article above was the typical kind of bullshit spouted by Libertarians, etc., which provides a somewhat correct view of the superficial social facts, but has no connection whatsoever to the biological and physical facts. Rather, it is an idealized ideology which deliberately divorces itself from reality, in order to rationalize its preferred ways of feeling morally superior. Therefore, ironically, the article above was mostly "repetitive propaganda."
Of course, "statists" are parroting the biggest bullies' bullshit. While one does not have to believe their bullshit, one has to be aware of the degree to which they can be bullies. The armed forces and police are crucial to the existence of the established systems, because of the ways that states exist because of the history of warfare, applied both within society and between societies. The result of thousands of years of that history is that there is almost nothing but organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition.
What is needed is a paradigm shift in which the concept of permaculture is applied to other arenas besides farming. Permaculture applies to our bodily physiology and therefore our health, it applies to the complex dynamics of society, obviously it applies to the ecology, and it applies to economies. That's because all of the above are systems of organized complexity, which is to say that they are simply complicated fractals, examples of many ways in which energy dissapation produces stable reinforcing systems through feedback loops. All systems work the same way. If you understand one, you understand them all.
Key to this understanding of systems is the necessity of feedback loops. No feedback loop, no stability. As an example, tribal leadership has a good feedback loop, which is that aggressive leaders who always launch wars are frequently killed, because at the tribal level, leaders are expected to be at the forefront of the fight. Similarly, excessively timid leaders get invaded and killed. Once leaders are allowed to stay at the rear, however, this feedback loop is lost, such that society tends to slowly squander all of its accumulated wealth on vanity wars and projects, after which the society collapses and the accumulated knowledge, which is much more valuable, is also lost. Thus, when you abandon the more immediate feedback loop that regulates the quality of leaders, you submit yourself to the dictates of the longer feedback loop, which is survival of the civilization and culture. And, if you somehow manage to subvert this also, you still have the even longer feedback loop to deal with, which is survival of the species.
Thus we cannot escape from feedback loops, so the choice is never feedback loops or not. Rather, the question is, which feedback loop do we choose to be subject to.
At the heart of all of this, however, is one, big, behemoth question.
Who are we?
If you believe that we are nothing more than biological creatures whose intellects are an accidental emergent phenomenon, beings whose sentience is permanently locked in a biological cage that we can never escape, then it doesn't really matter, right? Take what you want, screw who you can, and kill who you need to. There's no tally at the end and no bigger purpose, so why work with each other if we don't have to?
On the other hand, if the concept of a "we" bigger than ourselves resonates with you, if you believe that there is something to the idea that we are a hybrid being, Descartes body of animal and mind of angel, Pope's "Glory, jest, and riddle of the world", then you have to consider the possibility that there are two directions in which to focus.
The decision is: Are we bodies with souls? Or souls with bodies?
If there is an existence larger than biological, if sentience is all part of a bigger whole like the Gnostics and Taoism said it was and is, and our sentience is only discrete at this point in time like billions of little streams, but destined to come together into one big ocean later in the sentience water cycle and thus actually all part of the same whole, then the social contract takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it?
Seen from this perspective, handing resources to those who squander them is like scoring on your own goal. And that applies just as equally to self absorbed politicans as it does to self absorbed welfare queens. We are each entrusted with the duty of accounting for the resources within our control. And thus we have to decide, are we the sons of god or not? If we are, then we (in the collective sense) have a chance to eventually grow to become a god ourselves. But, there are a lot of correct choices that must be made in the development process, and the key to this process is to choose who we are, because this will determine where we want to go.
If we choose biological, then we will use up all our energy and resources and will stay locked on this planet forever, which right now is looking likely. Which will hurt no one but ourselves -- for all we know, god is an "r" reproductive strategist like a sea sponge -- just launching sentient copies out into the void with full faith that the quality control process of causality will ensure that only the fittest will survive. And getting stranded on this planet will simply represent an egg that didn't hatch, an embryo that didn't develop properly and will therefore eventually be aborted. But if we choose mind, choose sentience over biology and therefore choose to survive, then it is time to stop wasting time and it is definitely time to stop wasting resources.
The industrial revolution has run as far as it can go. Now it's time for the information revolution, which involves a collapse of central heirarchy and defunct paradigms, to be replaced by decentralized production of everything from food to materials, linked by a nervous system called the internet, guided by the recognition that those who value and honor voluntary cooperation are on the side trying to build something, while those who honor repression and coercion are the parasites trying to free ride the thing into the ground. Our society currently has an incurable cancer, the hallmark of which is an irrational paradigm, just like cancer itself. The only solution is to allow the host to expire and focus on remaining on our feet while the weight of the State crashes into a million pieces around us. Choosing to see what is inevitable is the first step. The second step is to begin discussing what comes after that. And I don't believe it has to be limited to what our ancestors have chosen in the past.
If you believe that we are nothing more than biological creatures whose intellects are an accidental emergent phenomenon, beings whose sentience is permanently locked in a biological cage that we can never escape, then it doesn't really matter, right? Take what you want, screw who you can, and kill who you need to. There's no tally at the end and no bigger purpose, so why work with each other if we don't have to?
You don't need to believe in Flying Spaghetti Monsters to believe that if you deserve to be treated decently, other people inherently have that characteristic too.
If you're only being good because you're scared Jeebus gonna throw you in hell... I suspect that's exactly what he'll do. If you were God, would you want to share heaven with some person who only behaves well because he's scared of being punished?
heaven can not exist without hell
What he said.
(Gwiss)
gwiss, I agreed with what you wrote, especially that "we cannot escape from feedback loops, so the choice is never feedback loops or not," and with the hope that this might be possible "the information revolution, which involves a collapse of central hierarchy and defunct paradigms, to be replaced by decentralized production of everything from food to materials, linked by a nervous system called the internet."
I adopt the view that ENERGY IS SPIRIT, which is one of the major foundations of attempting a creative synthesis of post-modernizing science with ancient mysticism. Another important aspect to that is a radical critique of the concept of entropy, recognizing that an arbitrary minus sign was inserted into the entropy equations of thermodynamics and information theory.
I have no doubt that "we" are the environment. However, the "statists" have been on a path of developing the kind of lies which benefited them, from Privatizing God, to privatizing the environment, and, in particular, the degree to which privately controlled banks have successfully privatized the public "money" supply. Overall, there may eventually evolve some better political permaculture, however, at present we are watching the most extremely unbalanced systems pump up the energy for severe social storms.
The historical social successes based on backing up lies with violence are the foundation of our current kinds of social pyramid systems, and those are surely going to have their short-term successes followed by much worse longer term failures. Whether enough survives through that to gradually evolves a more balanced political permaculture remains to be seen. At present, it looks like we are failing dismally, due to the degree that the professional liars and immaculate hypocrites are so totally able to dominate things. In that context, the most important of the fractal patterns are the methods of organized crime.
A fundamentally fraudulent accounting system makes permaculture have an almost impossible up-hill battle against that avalance of frauds, which get away with deliberately ignoring the basic laws of nature ... at least in the short-term ...
"government exists, and can not be stopped from existing."
I would like to point out that more than a few governments have stopped existing. The current crop of progressive "moar big government" criminals infesting the FEDGOV think their government existence cant be touched when actually it can be gone "poof"------ just like that. Likewise, all of their private assets can go "poof" also.
Rolling back to before income and property taxes might not be biologically or physically perfect, but would be a good start. Will take some serious controlled opposition against criminals to do that, like you say.
Grimaldus
Relax, Neo. The truth is coming...
Does Central planning work?
If China becomes the next global super power the answer has to be YES.
Some points are true, some are ideological nonsense. For example, the state (or a municipality) is much more efficnient in building centralized infrastructure for the benefit of all business and society (roads, pipes, cables, etc.), because private road-owners place tolls and barriers everywhere, and don't invest in infrastructure unless it's to monopolize its use. The state is very INefficient in places where competition is required (cars, computers, etc.), but not in natural monopoly markets. So why not use business and state where they're most efficient, not the other way around? Damn ideology is full of nonsense...
So, basically, why not maintain authority as described in the original Constitution, as written, yes?
yes
Where is there already small Government?
Third world nations that are hotbeds of bribery and corruption.
The first role of the state is to ensure everyone works in a legal framework.
The financial sector was released from regulation, fraud and market rigging are now endemic.
Is there anywhere in the world where businessmen grouped together to end slavery and child labour?
As far as I know Governments have always had to do it as it dents profits.
(The main problem today seems to be that Governments are serving businessmen and bankers and not the people, they can be voted out. Just voting for the other mainstream party gives you more of the same, new parties are needed)
@Batman "the financial sector was released from regulation, fraud and market rigging are now endemic" , this statist statement is true taken on its own but conveniently ignores the fact that the creation of"money"itself has been handed on a plate by a monopoly of force called government to the "one bank" a criminal cartel of private banking families that owns said corporation (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORP) through bond ownership and political "donations"i.e bribery
North America used to to be an anti-statists dream.
Then the white man came with armies controlled by Governments.
You know the rest ....
the Iroquois Confederation was founded in the 15th Century, from memory. It began under the title of Great League of Peace. Several Nations, each with it's territory, language, customs, etc.
so... no, it's strictly speaking not correct, there was armies, war, state and governments before the white man came
the problem with anarchism is... it does not happen spontanously. what human do, naturally, is government. often beginning by it's ugliest part, war, invasion, occupation
“Our” is the possessive form of “we.” This phrase assumes that a collective exists and has ownership of the government, which is another collective. To exist is to have a concrete, particular form in physical reality. To say that abstract objects exist is to beg the question of where they exist, to which there is no answer because there is no empirically observable entity. To say that collectives exist is beg the question of what physical form they take, as all available physical forms are occupied by the individuals which are said to comprise the collective. Thus, there is no “we”; there is only you, I, and every other individual person. By the same token, the government does not exist; each person, each building, each gun, etc. exists.
RUBBISH. this is one of those strange memes: "there is no physical reality of government" which I so often encounter here and elsewhere
there are very, very physical nuclear supercarriers on the oceans, followed by very physical subs. governments do very physical things like bombings, wars, invasions, prisons, police controls
----
"As such, the phrase “our government” is meaningless"
RUBBISH. then don't claim "my" government, but say "the armed force currently occupying the territory where I live and imposing it's jurisdiction over it", which is how some people in Syrian territories currently being occupied by the Islamic State might call it, or some people in the East of Ukraine might say about the rebel territories
---
*Additionally, to own something is to have a right of exclusive control over it."
RUBBISH. Then I can't say my mother or my father or my family or my faith or my family or my health, because I don't have exclusive control over them?
---
"Part and parcel of this right is the right to physically destroy that which one owns."
RUBBISH. The logic of the medieval merchant that as cornered the wheat market, owns all ten warehouses in the city, the harbour is frozen solid and he muses how rich he would become if he burns down half of this warehouses. that logic that causes famines and deaths, yes
---
"As governments use force to stop citizens who attempt to physically destroy the state, the citizens are not the de facto owners of a government."
if the same author would be talking about a corporation, I bet he would be very vocal about the corporation's management having every right to evict a small shareholder from a meeting where he started to destroy corporate property, or even talk about closing down the corporation. if not, then I'd be very interested to know which kind of (voluntary or not voluntary) associations he would find legit
EU Ghordius = multi-statist
;-))
fudge, govermnent is application of force. violence. death. and this guy says: "oh, it does not exist, it is not real". sure. show me where
You're taking this far too seriously Ghordius, it's just a Weekend Tyler fun post.