Creating the Game Changer..
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
It is all meaningless..
Unless one understands why..
greg..will do my best..
have always been way out there when it comes to complying..
guess that's why I could never work for anyone..
has the same effect..
Gun registration is not enough..
Attorney Generral Janet Reno `12-10-93 ~ Associated Press
Waiting periods are only a step...
Registration is only a step..
The prohibition of private firearms is the goal..
~ Janet Reno ~
If a nation values anything more than freedom, then it will lose it's freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort and security that it values, it will lose that too..
Unknown Americans must decide..
Are we to be governed by Americans or by an International organization ?
I, for one, owe no alliegence to the United Nations nor will I give it any..
I obey only the U.S. Constitution. You had better think about this issue, for if the U.N. can violate the Sovereignty of Haiti, Iraq and other countries, it can violate ours...
The United States may not be the top dog 15 years from now. U.N.
security council resolutions, backed by say chinese soldiers, could be aimed at us..
~ Charley Reese ~
Orlando Sentinel
Maintaining the second amendment is but a small piece of the overall puzzle in achieving liberty as a sovereign individual..
If the others are left out and not understood all will eventually be lost..
It has to be done individually and completely..
Or not at all..
Today, we need a nation of Minute Men..
Citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but
citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of thier daily life and who are
willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom..
~ President John F. Kennedy ~
during a speech in 1961 to the Americans for Democratic Action endorsing Citizen Militias..
OB..you are good..
Those that I still have links to I post..
Many are from articles I have collected over the years..
unfortunately without active links or just failed to keep a record of..
greg..respectfully submitted..
is this not..
all inter~related..
In the Beginning of a change..
The patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned..
When his cause succeedes the timid join him..
For then it costs nothing to be a patriot..
~ Mark Twain ~
The ideal tyranny..
Is that which is ignorantly self~administered by it's victims..
The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawarely enslave themselves..
~ Dresden James ~
THE LIBERTY MANIFESTO..
by P.J. O'Rourke -- The American Spectator, July 1993
(edited)
[P.J. O'Rourke is the Cato Institute's Menken research fellow. He delivered these remarks at a May 6 gala dinner celebrating the opening of the Cato Institute's new headquarters in Washington.]
The Cato Institute has an unusual political cause -- which is no political cause whatsoever. We are here tonight to dedicate ourselves to that cause. To dedicate ourselves, in other words, to... nothing.
We have no ideology, no agenda, no catechism, no dialectic, no plan for humanity. We have no "vision thing," as our ex-president would say, or, as our current president would say, we have no Hillary.
All we have is the belief that people should do what people want to do, unless it causes harm to other people.
I don't know what's good for you. You don't know what's good for me. We don't know what's good for mankind. And it sometimes seems as though we're the only people who don't. It may well be that, gathered right here in this room tonight, are all the people in the world who don't want to tell all the people in the world what to do.
This is because we believe in freedom. Freedom -- what this country was established upon, what the Bill Of Rights was written to defend, what the Civil War was fought to perfect.
Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights -- the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery -- hay and a barn for human cattle.
There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
So we are here tonight in a kind of anti-matter protest - an un-political un-demonstration by deeply uncommitted inactivists. We are part of a huge invisible picket line that circles the White House twenty-four hours a day. We are participants in an enormous non-march on Washington -- millions and millions of Americans not descending upon the nation's capital in order to demand nothing from the United States government. To demand nothing, that is, except the one thing which no government in history has been able to do -- leave us alone.
There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself.
Bill, keep your hands to yourself. Hillary, mind your own business. We have a group of incredibly silly people in the White House right now, people who think government works. Or that government would work, if you got some real bright young kids from Yale to run it. We're being governed by dorm room bull session. The Clinton administration is over there right now pulling an all-nighter in the West Wing. They think that, if they can just stay up late enough, they can create a healthy economy and bring peace to former Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration is going to decrease government spending by increasing the amount of money we give to the government to spend. Health care is too expensive, so the Clinton administration is putting a high-powered corporate lawyer in charge of making it cheaper. (This is what I always do when I want to spend less money -- hire a lawyer from Yale.) If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free.
The Clinton administration is putting together a program so that college graduates can work to pay off their school tuition. As if this were some genius idea. It's called getting a job. Most folks do that when they get out of college, unless, of course, they happen to become governor of Arkansas.
And the Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas [Waco] because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns. Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
You know, if government were a product, selling it would be illegal. Government is a health hazard. Governments have killed many more people than cigarettes or unbuckled seat belts ever have. Government contains impure ingredients - as anybody who's looked at Congress can tell you. On the basis of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign promises, I think we can say government practices deceptive advertising. And the merest glance at the federal budget is enough to convict the government of perjury, extortion, and fraud. There, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Cato Institute's program in a nutshell: government should be against the law. Term limits aren't enough. We need jail.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1747245
Are You A Practicing Communist??
Many Americans pride themselves as being relentless anti-Communists..
A lot of people think of the communists as the bad guys and the cause of our troubles and that of the rest of the world's..
This bad guy must look really bad and we should spot him easily in a crowd. Let's examine what a communist really is..
Communism is a way of life that is contrary to most teaching of the Holy Bible and that of the common people, as our beloved country the 50 united States of America was founded to be..
In 1848, Karl Marx wrote the ten (10) planks of the Communist Manifesto.
It is the foundation of what communist ideology is all about. A true communist or communist country would be practicing all ten (10) planks..
Today, here in the 50 united States of America, we ARE practicing all ten (10) planks and we don't even realize that we are in reality communists..
We would rather call ourselves something else.
The 1st Plank..
THE ABOLITION OF PROPERTY AND LAND AND THE APPLICATION OF ALL RENT IN LAND TO PUBLIC PURPOSES.
As in the old law of Moses and in the first 150 years of the united States of America, when you owned land, you had absolute title to that land and no other party could lay claim on it whatsoever unless you sold the land or voluntarily let another party lay claim. But then, you had the right to get it back, even if it will take your grandchildren to claim it all back. Today, we only have what you might call a 99 year lease. The State can confiscate your land for non-payment of taxes or some supposed crime. The only reason the State can do this is that you don't really own your land. The State has controlling interest on your land and you are merely paying rent and this rent goes toward the public use such as paying toward the interest on the national debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Plank..
A PROGRESSIVE, GRADUATED INCOME TAX.
Need this be explained? We all know that there is an income tax in the 50 united States of America and that the more you make, the higher your tax bracket, the more you are taxed. We did not have income tax until the 1940's. Through instruments of government such as the public fool (school) system and with the help corporate funding we have been convinced it applies to everyone even though it doesn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd Plank..
THE ABOLITION OF ALL RIGHT OF INHERITANCE
In the old Law of Moses and the first 150 years of the united States of America, there was NO inheritance tax. In the Law of Moses, land was transferred to the eldest son absolutely. In the first 150 years of the united States of America, inheritance and/or your assigns was also absolute. There were no third parties involved. This started with the birth certificate and then getting a marriage license which makes the State the third party. When a spouse dies, the other spouse cannot claim the fruits of the marriage because of the third party, the State. Now, the state would in effect say "buy me out." Then the land would be forced to be sold just to pay the State, and almost always attorneys, who always want cash.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th Plank..
THE CONFISCATION OF ALL PROPERTY OF EMIGRANTS AND REBELS
Some people are beginning to find out about what is really going on. They are beginning to rebel against these communist and/or satanic practices and in the process, SWAT teams are sent against them. Businesses are padlocked; homes are liened; bank accounts seized; some are jailed without due process; and many are outright killed. What will it take to practice the Bible teaching and follow our original Republican Laws?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 5th Plank..
THE CENTRALIZATION OF CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE BY MEANS OF A NATIONAL BANK WITH STATE CAPITAL AND AN EXCLUSIVE MONOPOLY
This brings us straight to the Federal Reserve Banks. The basis of the Federal Reserve Note is credit, which is the reason it lacks gold and silver backing. The government borrows these notes (they didn't borrow anything of value) to pass on to the people and you will notice how huge the federal debt is. All for the cost of printing these paper notes. In the Law of Moses and in the first 150 years of the united States of America, people used gold and silver coins which have intrinsic value. The Federal Reserve Bank has a monopoly on issuing currency today in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution for the 50 united States of America, "No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of Debts." This worthless paper currency is distributed through the local banks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 6th Plank..
THE CENTRALIZATION OF THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND TRANSPORTATION IN THE HANDS OF THE STATE
This is accomplished by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) which controls, regulates and licenses all newspapers and magazines; radio and television stations, local or national distribution who are in a corporate or in a State created entity. Transportation is controlled by the various State Departments of Motor Vehicles and enforced by the various law enforcement agencies. Isn't it strange that we hired peace officers (to keep the peace), but somehow they became law enforcement officers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Plank..
THE EXTENSION OF FACTORIES AND THE INSTRUMENTS OF PRODUCTION OWNED BY THE STATE AND THE BRINGING INTO CULTIVATION WASTE LAND AND THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SOIL GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH A COMMON PLAN
Factories are all controlled by the government by means of permits and licenses, and various other agencies like O.S.H.A., labor boards and others. Smaller businesses are really extensions of these factories because most are franchises. You cannot put up a business and start selling somebody else's product unless you first ask for and pay for this privilege. Even if you will buy and sell in bulk. Farms are told which crop to plant and are sometimes paid not to plant. Farms are controlled by various government agencies like Soil Conservation Districts, Bureau of Land Management and Desert Land Entry Act where government owned desert is leased out to farmers. And what about U.S. Wetlands?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Plank..
EQUAL LIABILITY FOR ALL TO LABOR AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ARMIES, ESPECIALLY FOR AGRICULTURE
Equal liability is accomplished by means of the Social Security Number and most are members of an industrial army because you cannot get a job with a corporation unless you have a Social Security Number (slave number). You are part of the Social Security Army and being unemployed, the unemployment office will send you to work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th Plank..
THE COMBINATION OF AGRICULTURE WITH MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES AND THE GRADUAL ABOLITION OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TOWN AND COUNTRY BY THE MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION OVER THE COUNTRY.
Real wealth comes from the land and in 1920's, almost half the population owned their land outright. That has fallen steadily since then through farm foreclosures because these farmers are needed in the cities to work in factories. Equal distribution is not distributed evenly but rather distributed where you are needed. By the turn of the century, this country is expected to have but a few super corporate farms (like ConAgra?) instead of millions of family owned smaller farms, just like in Russia!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th Plank..
THE FREE EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Do you need this explained? Even private and church schools need to have permits and licenses from the government and follow approved curriculum. This way our children can be indoctrinated with humanistic principles, and communistic ideology. Subtly but effectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One big difference between Russia and the 50 united States of America is that in Russia, people do not pretend to have private property, they don't call themselves free and homeowners like in the 50 united States of America..
Private property has been subjugated to the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto.
NOW, are you a practicing communist?
Be honest..
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1675453
14 SIGNPOSTS TO SLAVERY..
1. Restrictions on taking money out of the country and on the establishment or retention of a foreign bank account by an American citizen.
2. Abolition of private ownership of hand guns.
3. Detention of individuals without judicial process.
4. Requirements that private financial transactions be keyed to social security numbers or other government identification so that government records of these transactions can be fed into a computer.
5. Use of compulsory education laws to forbid attendance at presently existing private schools.
6. Compulsory non-military service.
7. Compulsory psychological treatment for non-government workers or public school children.
8. An official declaration that anti-communist (Patriot) organizations are subversive and subsequent legal action taken to suppress them.
9. Laws limiting the number of people allowed to meet in a private home.
10. Any significant change in passport regulations to make passports more difficult to obtain.
11. Wage and price controls, especially in a non-wartime situation.
12. Any kind of compulsory registration with the government of where individuals work.
13. Any attempt to restrict freedom of movement within the United States.
14. Any attempt to make a new major law by executive decree (that is, actually put into effect, not merely authorized as by existing executive orders.)
President Nixon invoked numbers 1, 11 and 14. As of January 1,1972, banks must report to the government any deposit or withdrawal over $5,000. That number has since been reduced to $3,000. Any purchase over $10,000 made in cash must also be reported to the federal government. Clinton has done the same via Executive Orders. Courts have in some instances ordered individuals without bank accounts to open one under threat of incarceration through charges of Civil contempt.
This government is presently attempting to end private handgun ownership in America through federal legislation, signpost #2.
Recent destruction of Habeas Corpus has made signpost #3 a reality.
Federal banking laws have made signpost #4 the law of the land.
President Clinton's "America in Service" legislation has made signpost #6 an expected part of American behavior.
Federal civil rights legislation in regard to helping young children deal with alternative life styles of adults (Suzie's two mommies/daddies) has made signpost #7 a part of the new american landscape.
Increased fees and much extended waiting times are now required to obtain a passport, signpost #10.
The EPA's trip reduction legislation, which limits an individuals right to travel freely on the highway is a perfect example of signpost #13. Road blocks or check points set up by either local or state police under the guise of searching for drugs or drunk drivers, while appearing to be in the service of society are in truth an invasion of our freedom to travel.
Well, we have seen these already -- 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14
Signpost #8 is up for grabs, and 5, 6, 7 and 9 may take a little more time.
The truth speaks for itself . . . . America may be lost . . . . We may now be living under totalitarian rule. Some of us will recognize the truth.
Some of us will continue to be in denial of the truth. Too few of us will fight back to regain the freedoms we have lost. The only thing you can be sure of is that this government will continue in it's relentless march over whatever may be left of this once great Republic until we are all slaves on the land our fathers fought to make free.
Winston Churchill, speaking to the English people as they were about to become involved in World War II proclaimed:
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival."
Because the American people have ignored warning after warning, we have finally come to that place in time where we are beginning to ask where our freedoms have gone. Unless we begin to take action now against unconstitutional acts on the part of our elected public servants, we will face a future choice, also described by Mr. Churchill. He said:
"There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
To study the 'whys' and the 'wherefores' of our present condition, I suggest "Our Enemy, The State" by Albert J. Nock - 1935, His Classic and Brilliant Critique Distinguishing 'Government' from the 'State'.
In the same vein, tracing the path of 'STATE' from tyranny to freedom and back again to tyranny, I suggest "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat -1850, another much ignored classic expose of all socialist tendencies in the functioning of government.
Reproduction of all or any parts of the above text may be used for general information.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1675532
Help Get US out!! of the United Nations..
http://www.getusout.org/action/index.htm
The Top 10 Reasons The Fourteenth Amendment Of The Constitution Should Be Repealed..
10. The 9th And 10th Amendments Of The Constitution Would No Longer Be Just A Decoration..
9. The American Peoples Could Be In Control Of Their Own State Legislatures..
8. The Thought Of Real Money Looks Pretty Good At This Point..
7. The 2nd Amendment Would No Longer Be A Privilege Granted By Government..
6. The President Of The United States Would Lose The Dictator Status..
5. The American Peoples Would No Longer Be Deemed Criminals By Their Own Countries..
4. Police State?. Who Needs It!.
3. The United States Congress Would Have A Lot More Time Off Work..
2. Hey!. The Founding Fathers Think The Work Of Karl Marx (Moses Mordecai Levi) Has Been Utilized Long Enough..
And the Number 1 Reason the 14th Amendment should be Repealed is. .. .
.. SOCIALISTS WOULD HAVE TO GET A REAL LIFE ..
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1382075
These things I believe..
That government should butt out..
That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant government will take it all away..
That individual freedom demands individual responsibility..
That government is (contrary to George W. Bush)not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil..
That the executive branch has grown too strong,the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid..
That political parties have become close to meaningless..
That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away..
That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquillity..
That foreign trade should be fair rather than free..
That America should be wary of foreign entanglements..
That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time
with the blood of patriots and tyrants..
That guns do more than protect us from criminals.. more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government..
That states are the bulwark of our freedom..
That states should have the right to secede from the Union..
That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows..
~ Lyn Nofziger ~
[Franklyn C. Nofziger]
Press Secretary for President Reagan
side..
so true..
Liberty means responsibility; that is why most men dread it.
George Bernard Shaw
OB..
But first..
One must see it through..
Regardless of the rocky path it takes..
To get there..
I've over~educated myself..
In all the things..
I should not have known..
~ Noel Coward ~
I believe in only one thing..liberty..
but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone..
~ H. L. Mencken ~
How does one know?
If what one is chasing..
Is an oasis..
or
A mirage..
A final word from Thomas Jefferson..
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt..
We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude..
If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds..
We [will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers..
And this is the tendency of all human governments..
A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for another till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery..
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt..
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression..
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt..
We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude..
If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds..
We [will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers..
And this is the tendency of all human governments..
A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for another till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery..
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt..
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression..
~ Thomas Jefferson ~
Onebug..Thanks for the link..
The original site I found it on was closed..
gd..well said..
onebug..it was one's own thought..
because the forethought of it's consequences..
is outweighed by the time it would take..
to do it right the first time..
look what one stumbled upon..
great board..
thank you One..THG..
will post as the occasion arises..
GD..Just tried it..works for me..
try clearing your cache..
GD..because the sheople will not challenge what they do or say..
they truly do..
get away with murder..
Hoover's Long Shadow..
Commentary, Earl Ofari Hutchinson,
Pacific News Service, Nov 24, 2003
Editor's Note: The release of a confidential FBI memo detailing FBI surveillance of antiwar protesters shows that the FBI is once again in position to quell dissent and disrupt political organizing.
When Attorney General John Ashcroft dumped the old 1970s guidelines that banned FBI spying on domestic organizations last year, he also publicly pledged that the FBI would not be back in the spy business. But a recently released memorandum sent by FBI officials to local police departments is proof that FBI agents, if not back in the spy business, are inching up on it.
The memo, written before last October's anti-Iraq war protests, urged police to keep close tabs on protesters. FBI officials claim that their aim isn't to harass or intimidate protesters or chill political dissent, but simply to ferret out violence-prone radicals.
But that's what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover claimed four decades ago. During the 1960s, Hoover kicked into high gear a super-secret and blatantly illegal counter-intelligence program called COINTELPRO, which targeted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other black and anti-war protest leaders as well as thousands of innocent Americans. The mandate of the program was spelled out in one of the stacks of secret documents released by Senate investigators in 1976: to "disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and neutralize" groups and individuals the FBI considered politically objectionable. Those targeted in nearly all cases were not foreign spies, terrorists or individuals suspected of criminal acts.
The results were devastating. Thousands were expelled from schools or lost their jobs, were evicted from their homes or were publicly slandered. Few COINTELPRO targets were indicted, convicted or even accused of any crime. Hoover gave local FBI offices wide discretion to pick and choose targets and the tactics they could use to go after them.
A striking feature of Hoover's approach to political spying was the close coordination between the FBI and local police departments. This was apparent when the FBI launched deadly search and destroy missions jointly with local police in several cities in 1969 against the Black Panther Party.
With the death of Hoover in 1972 and Congressional disclosure of the illegal program, the Justice Department publicly assured Congress that COINTELPRO was a thing of the past, and issued new guidelines to prevent such abuses in the future.
That wasn't entirely true. During the 1980s the FBI waged a five-year covert spy campaign against dozens of religious and pacifist groups and individuals who opposed American foreign policy in Central America. In the 1990s it mounted covert campaigns against civil rights, environmental, Native American and nuclear disarmament groups, as well as Arab-American groups. The FBI tactics used against these groups were a close replica of the tactics that the 1970s guidelines supposedly banned.
The new guidelines that Ashcroft put in place in 2002 -- heartily endorsed by President Bush and silently approved by most Congressional Democrats -- are supposed to make it easier to nail potential terrorists and their supporters. They give the FBI carte blanche authority to plant agents in and place under surveillance churches, mosques and political groups. They also permit FBI agents to roam at will through the Internet to hunt for potential subversives. They can do all this without having to show probable cause of criminal wrongdoing. This again gives the FBI unbridled power to determine what groups and individuals it can target.
That doesn't mean the FBI will again blatantly and brazenly twist and ultimately break the law, violate civil liberties or commit willful acts of violence as it did in the past. But it does make it much easier for FBI officials to skirt the law if they so choose when dealing with protest organizations. There's some evidence that that's exactly what has happened. Antiwar activists have complained that FBI agents have infiltrated antiwar meetings in some cities, and that local police have fiercely grilled antiwar demonstrators in New York City about their political ties. Some activists say their names have wound up on the government's "no fly" list, the list the airlines can use to deny passengers the right to board an airplane.
Ashcroft, Bush and FBI officials have relentlessly used the threat of more domestic terror attacks to sell Congress and the public on expanded FBI powers. Few would dispute the need for the FBI to use all legal means to apprehend those who are a legitimate threat to commit terrorist attacks in the United States. But if the past is any indication, the enemies of the state can be just about any and everyone Ashcroft, Bush and FBI officials suspect or, worse, finger. Hoover had no compunction about pointing fingers, and the FBI memo is a disturbing signal that fingers are again being pointed at the antiwar movement.
PNS contributor Earl Ofari Hutchinson (ehutchi344@aol.com) is a political analyst and the author of "The Crisis in Black and Black" (Middle Passage Press).
pay close attention..
it will help close the gaps..
Philosophy of Liberty..
http://familyguardian.tzo.com/Subjects/Freedom/Articles/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english.swf
DEEP ANARCHY..
An Eliminativist View of "The State"..
by Max T. O'Connor
[Editor: This article is reprinted from Extropy #5, Winter/1990. Extropy is published by The Extropy Institute, Extropy is the opposite of entropy. Extropy = A measure of intelligence, information, energy, vitality, experience, diversity, opportunity,and growth. Extropianism = The philosophy that seeks to increase extropy.
For more information on the Extropy Institute Inc, a not for profit educational foundation, send mail to exi-info@extropy.org, access the Extropy Website at http://www.extropy.com/ or write to Extropy Institute, 13428 Maxella Avenue, Ste 273, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292.]
1: Introduction
Two of the fundamental extropian values are responsibility for one's own life and actions, and the determination to do away with constraints on one's rational will.1 I believe that the institutions of religion and "the State"2 are antithetical to these values. I took aim at the dominant Western religion in the last issue and will be dissecting that entropic force again in future. The purpose of this article is to destroy a powerful barrier which stands in the way of personal responsibility and freedom.
Extropians tend towards libertarian politics and a suspicion of the "State." Many call themselves anarchists, holding that "States" are inherently coercive and should be replaced with voluntary institutions to protect rights and perform other necessary functions.3 Those who already think of themselves as anarchists are likely to be most sympathetic to my thesis, though the deep anarchy idea goes beyond traditional anarchism, whether of the free market or communalist type.
Traditional anarchists want to abolish the "State." In planning their strategies and in doing their thinking about this they rarely question the existence or fundamental nature of their enemy. This situation wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that their mistaken beliefs often lead them into counterproductive political strategies. Thus we observe the ludicrous sight of self-named anarchists joining political parties (usually the Libertarian Party) in order to hasten the end of the system. The idea seems to be: We can remove it by being absorbed by it!4
I want to suggest that when we talk of "the State" we are not talking of any entity, either concrete or abstract. I will provide two main arguments for this: One from considerations of methodological individualism, and another that could be called "the argument from fuzziness." "Deep Anarchy" is the view that results from these thoughts; it is the idea that we already live in an anarchy.
2: What is it to Exist?
In order to keep this article to manageable length I will not attempt to provide a complete ontological theory (a theory of what exists). I will only examine the conditions for the existence of complex objects and organisms. I will ignore issues of the existence of numbers, sets, relations, concepts, consciousness, and so on. I will assume that readers accept that complex entities such as tables and humans exist. What about collections of objects? Is a collection also an object? If we wish to accept as objects all the things we normally accept as objects, then it cannot in general be an objection to the objecthood of a thing that it is composed of parts which are themselves objects or individuals:
Case 1: An eagle is a thing, an object, even though it is composed of many parts such as limbs, organs, feathers, and so on. These parts can be further broken down into sub-parts such as cells, and further into organelles, molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles (or fields).
All objects are reducible to collections of more basic individuals except for the fundamental particles or fields, so we face the alternatives of (a) asserting, contrary to all normal usage, that the only really existing things are the sub-atomic particles, or (b) accepting that being a collection of more basic objects cannot, in itself, be a reason for denying the reality of a thing. I take it that everyone will agree that common usage, and the requirements of sanity and workability require us to take the second option. But is any collection of objects itself necessarily an object?
Case 2: Imagine that I have a bag of marbles, each of which we grant is an object. I scatter the marbles on the floor randomly. Now it is quite possible for me to refer to the collection of marbles as a whole rather than to each of the individual marbles. If I'm eccentric I might even give the collection a name such as "Gertrude." By using the name Gertrude I can then simply refer to the collection of marbles without having to point to or mention any of the marbles individually. Does this mean that we should say Gertrude exists, or that Gertrude is an individual, an object? This is far less plausible than in the case of an eagle.
Consider Case 3: On my desk I have a computer, a glass, a business card, and a sheet of paper with a note scribbled on it. I can now talk about the collection of objects on my desk. The collection is picked out simply by my listing the objects that constitute the collection. Again, if I'm eccentric I might name the collection "Jeremiah." Should we say that Jeremiah is an individual, an object?
If we answer in the affirmative we should also say that Jeremiah exists. Surely Jeremiah does not exist. There is no object here; there is only a mere collection of objects. By pointing to the objects in turn and then telling you that I'm going to refer to the collection as "Jeremiah" I am just giving the impression of unity and objecthood where there is none. The "components" of Jeremiah are not linked or causally related to each other in any way except one - my arbitrary act of calling them an individual with the name "Jeremiah." I might just as easily have given the name "Jeremiah" to the conjunction of the glass and computer only. There is nothing special about the group of four objects which I actually named Jeremiah. If a human act of naming random collections were enough to constitute an object then the number of objects in the universe would be arbitrary, indeterminate and limitless.
Why is the first case clearly one of a collection constituting a higher-level object (or meta-object) whereas the second and third cases are examples of collections which we would not say constitute a meta-object? The answer to this will determine what we should say about "States." My suggestion is this:
Functional Integrity Thesis: In the case of the existence of objects, what determines whether a collection of objects is itself an object is the degree of functional integrity possessed by the collection.
Secondary Thesis: (a) For each (kind of) object, there is a lower limit of functional integrity below which a collection will not constitute an object.
(b) Where that limit is will vary depending on the kind of object under consideration.
An object exists when its parts possess a sufficient degree of functional integrity. Alternatively, we can say that an object exists when it possesses the requisite properties of an object of that type. This is equivalent to the previous definition: Properties will only exist where there is a sufficient degree of functional integrity. The existence of an object can therefore be thought of as requiring a second-order functional integrity - sufficient functional integrity of properties (or parts), each of which must have a sufficient degree of integrity.
The three examples given above, and many others that could be given, are a major motivating factor behind the Functional Integrity Thesis. The collection of objects on my desk is a mere collection. Nothing makes them into a collection or set apart from the bare fact of my having arbitrarily put them into a group. The collection or group has no existence apart from my specification. My referring to the separate objects by means of a name is not sufficient (or necessary) to make them into a genuine object. Collections formed by fiat are not thereby objects. Such collections are not things; we can rightly say that such collections do not exist. By saying this we are not denying that, in the situation at hand, there is something more than the four objects; there is also an act of grouping or of collective reference, but that is all. This act cannot constitute a new object.5 I might point in the direction of the eagle and list the eagle's parts: it's wings, lungs, eyes, liver, etc. I then assert that the collection of parts constitutes an object, a thing. That object is an eagle. Now, though, the individuality of the eagle is not constituted by my act of referring collectively to the group of the eagle-parts. The eagle exists independently of my acts of grouping and referring. There is an objective grouping of parts such that there is a higher-level object in existence.
The Functional Integrity Thesis claims that what makes the difference, what gives the collection of eagle-parts an independent existence, is the functional integrity of the collection. There are various very specific and specifiable causal interrelations between the parts. The internal parts of the organism are causally related in a more intimate and systematic manner than the relation of the parts to the environment. There is no rigid separation of organism from environment since air, food and drink are incorporated into the body from the surroundings. Yet the organism is clearly distinguished from its environment by the tightness of its internal organization and by the causal history of its constituent parts. For the eagle to exist the organs must function in a coordinated manner and the skeletal and muscular systems must be appropriately linked up with the rest of the assembly. If the eagle gets torn into pieces we say that the eagle no longer exists. Only its parts continue to exist.
The first part of the Secondary Thesis requires more comment than I have space for, but a brief explanation must suffice. It might be thought that objects exist more-or-less, that there is no way of saying when an object is sufficiently integrated to exist. The idea would be that functional integrity is a matter of degree and so we should hold existence to be graded into degrees.
Certainly functional integrity is a matter of degree, and there will be borderline cases where, even given all the facts, we will have to decide what to say. However, the existence of borderline cases does not show that there are no clear cases of existence and nonexistence. The fact of twilight does not mean there is no night or day.6 Higher level properties and objects may not arise at an instantaneous point, but conceptual clarity and communication will mean that the extension of a concept is limited. Cognitive systems such as the human brain are well built to handle fuzzy boundaries while being able to categorize the world usefully.7
The second part of the Secondary Thesis contends that the minimum degree of functional integrity necessary for a collection to constitute an object depends on the kind of object at issue. Living organisms tolerate less loss of functional integrity before they cease to exist than some other objects. Objects like clouds and oceans can exist with a rather low degree of integrity. Unlike living creatures (or works of art, or even buildings), oceans and clouds don't require any very specific arrangement of their constituent parts; a loose conglomeration will suffice. Some limits do have to be imposed however. If the parts of a cloud are too separated they no longer form a cloud, though they may form more than one cloud.
For me to be a human, rather than a collection of flesh or a dead body, very many conditions of bodily integrity must be satisfied. My organs must be in the right place, connected up properly, and their parts must be precisely arranged. Integrity is required right down to the level of the cells and their molecular components, otherwise I am not a living human. In deciding on the degree to which something exists, then, we must take account of the kind of thing that it is. Things of the same kind require the same degree of functional integrity of their parts.
3: Argument From Fuzziness
I am now ready to apply these general ontological theses to the case of "the State." Applying the Functional Integrity Thesis (FIT) to perceivable physical objects such as tables, chairs, condoms and cars, is a simple enough matter. Even in those cases we have to take care to identify exactly the kind of object we are looking for, in order that we can correctly determine the degree of integrity needed for a collection to constitute that object. Unfortunately, applying the FIT to objects of a different order is more difficult. Some purported objects that we need to consider are "States," corporations, clubs, and societies.
Where is "the State" to be found? I've never seen one and I don't think anyone else has either. What I do find is a large number of people who claim to be "politicians," "policemen," "tax collectors," "federal agents," "judges," "government workers," and so on. I also come across buildings and collections of individual human beings which I am told are "the Department of..., " "Congress," "The White House," "The Supreme Court," "the IRS," etc. Amongst all these people, buildings, guns, pieces of paper, and assorted equipment I cannot find a "State."
Of course "the State" is supposed to be the collection of these things. But now I have two problems: First, exactly which people and things are to be included in the collection that supposedly constitutes a "State"? Second, how can a "State" act, have responsibility, or authority, if it is a collection whose parts (persons) themselves have these qualities? The second of these problems will be discussed in the section "The Argument from Methodological Individualism."
If the "State" is to exist, if it is to be a thing, it must be (a) a clearly identifiable collection of parts, and (b) a collection which exhibits a high enough degree of functional integrity. Neither of these conditions are fulfilled. Max Weber offers the most helpful definition of a "State." Essentially this comes down to saying that a "State" is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a geographical area. Each element of this definition is necessary. If no force were involved then "it" would be merely a voluntary organization. "Governments" or "states" have to use force or coercion in order to finance themselves - the system of taxation-extortion common to all governments.
Even more essential is the idea of a monopoly, since someone could argue that it is at least conceivable that a "government" be financed entirely by voluntary contributions, even if this has never happened (and almost certainly never would happen). Yet, if the "State" is not a monopoly then it just cannot be a "State." The deepest and most essential function of such an institution is that it decides what laws there are and enforces them. No one else has the right to do this, except and to the degree that the "State" grants this right (a right which it retains the power and authority to remove). The idea of legitimacy comes in here; only "the State" may rightfully make decisions about laws and allowable coercion.8
Furthermore, I ask: who or what is supposed to hold the monopoly of power? I suggest that this is simply a myth. As will be argued in the next section, the wielders of power and coercion are individual human beings. Each person makes his or her own choices about the use of coercion. We observe no organism, person, or creature with a monopoly on the use of force, legitimate or otherwise. The illusion to the contrary is made possible simply because many people who coerce others wear uniforms, carry badges, or otherwise claim to "represent" "the State." The wearing of uniforms, the carrying of badges, and the claims of some people that they are part of "the State" does nothing to show that there is such a thing.
To clarify the issue, before finishing with "States," let us consider other collections of persons. Do corporations exist? Does a club exist? The answer depends on how the question is to be taken. If it means "Is there literally a creature which thinks, acts, plans, and makes agreements?" then the answer is no (see next section). If the question is merely "Does the collection of persons involved possess a high enough degree of functional integrity to constitute a thing?" then I believe the answer is plausibly in the affirmative. There are corporations, although they are not things that literally plan, act, or think - though we may treat them as if they have these powers, considering this to be a useful fiction. What gives a corporation its functional integrity?
A corporation exists where there is a fairly tight set of relations between persons, each of whom has the capacity to reason, plan, decide and contract. A corporation is essentially a set of agreements between persons; these are agreements to perform certain duties and functions, to accept certain responsibilities, and to receive certain benefits under specified conditions. It is quite definite and determinate who is and who is not part of a corporation. A customer is not a part since he or she does not have the necessary kind of relation to the other people. The corporation is limited in various ways. When a person who is part of the structure of the company steals, rapes, or does anything outside of the functions and activities agreed to in joining the corporation, she is not acting as part of the company. She is individually entirely responsible for the effects of her actions. If, on the contrary, her actions are in accordance with the structure of agreements which constitutes the company, other people may (depending on their contractual agreements) share in responsibility.9
There is no similar means of determining who the people are who are to constitute a "State." The reason is that there is no set of contractual relations to be found at the level of a "State." This is because of the coercive nature of statism binding contractual relations are not possible while under threat. It would be more promising to argue for the existence (but not the legitimacy) of groups like the Los Angeles Police, The Chicago Police, The Internal Revenue Service, and the House of Representatives. Within each of these bodies more specific functions can be identified and there are definite agreements between the people involved.
Putting all of these bodies together does not create a "State." Where is the functional integrity necessary to the existence of a further thing? People who go to voting booths and pull levers or make marks on paper next to the name of a politician also have certain relations to those men and women sitting in Congress, and relations (at a far remove) to "the police," and yet no one claims that voters are part of "the State" or are really also policemen. So the fact that we can find some relation between those people who might be thought to form "the State" is not enough to show that there is such a thing.
True, there is more of a connection between members of "Congress" and tax-extortion collectors than there is between the four items I arbitrarily picked out on my desk. However, there is insufficient coordination between the various agencies mentioned to form a higher level agency. They generally have no specific contractual linkage - the only linkage is externally imposed by "law." I have many interactions and relations with my friends, yet there is no thing composed of myself and a friend. In the same way, these agencies can have many links without constituting anything. They do have something in common - statist behavior. But the statist behavior of the individuals in any of these agencies does not differ in kind from that of other individuals who are not thought of as part of "the State." This leads into a related argument, in the course of which I will develop this point about the spectrum of statism.
4: Argument From Methodological Individualism
What kind of thing is "the State" supposed to be? It is supposed to be an agent capable of making decisions, having justification, and acting. This is nonsense: Only an individual has a mind and can perceive, think, decide, choose values, and act. In this sense no governments (or corporations or nations) exist or act. If groups (such as corporations) pass the functional integrity test and so exist in some sense, they are still merely "metaphorical constructs for describing the similar or concerted actions of individuals."10 In the case of "the State," since it fails the functional integrity test, there is a more serious failure of reference when we refer to an action of "the State." At least when we talk of a corporation's action we manage to refer to certain fairly definite actions of specifiable individuals. "The State" is not only not an ultimate actor or agent, it is not a thing of any kind.
Since "the State" is not any kind of thing, we cannot truly speak about it. However, we are doing something when we say "the State is pursuing a War on Drugs." We are making an inaccurate and misleading reference to a wide range of differing behaviors in many individuals. We are saying - at least - that certain persons calling themselves "policemen" (or "soldiers") are initiating physical violence against drug users; other individuals (politicians and bureaucrats) are issuing orders and directing activities; others (judges) are telling the seized persons that they are guilty of a crime; others (prison guards and administrators) are constraining the freedom of the drug users; and many individuals are encouraging these activities by voting, paying "taxes" and by verbal support.
As Ludwig von Mises noted, "It is the meaning which the acting individuals and all those who are touched by their action attribute to an action, that determines its character... A group of armed men occupies a place. It is the meaning of those concerned which imputes this occupation not to the officers and soldiers on the spot, but to their nation."11 We understand fully the actions of a group only when we understand the subjective beliefs, decisions, and actions of the individual human beings comprising the group.
"The State" is really nothing more than statist behavior and belief - and elements of this can be found in almost everyone. I have argued that there is no boundary which can divide off some behavior as constituting "the State" from other behavior. This point can be made more forceful by considering the wide range of statist behavior and thinking found in society (or "society"!). If it were possible to order these instances along a spectrum we might arbitrarily draw a line beyond which we would say the collection of behaviors was "the State." However, apart from the fact that it would be arbitrary (unlike the division of eagle parts from non-eagle parts), there is no single dimension to be ordered into a spectrum. People can be more or less statist at different times and in very different and incomparable ways.
Political office holders, who make laws and oversee and coordinate a wide range of statist behaviors, are clearly guilty of statism much of the time, as are the physical enforcers of unjust laws. Obviously they can be more or less statist depending on what they do and say. Bureaucrats who organize and execute statist activities, lowly office workers in the FDA, DEA, IRS, and INS, and those who support their activities are all sources of statism. Business people who gladly accept and encourage subsidies, tariffs, and "government" licenses are not excused from charges of statism simply because they are supposedly not part of "the State." Workers in state-run and monopolized businesses - such as the post office and state schools, are also contributing to statism. Voters are statist because they legitimize the system. The person who uses the power of a "State" agency unjustly against someone (rent control, for example) is being statist. Anyone voting for, verbally supporting, or turning a blind eye to statism is thereby statist.
In so far as there is any sense to talk of "the State" then, it is talk of statist behavior. And this is not confined to easily specifiable individuals. We may all be statist at times. Perhaps even the least statist of us sometimes choose statism in order to protect ourselves against worse behavior by others. In a corrupt system, behavior that you would otherwise reject may be the only rational course of action. This is the tragedy of the institutional effects of statism. For example, in a socialist country where everything is owned by "the State" (= everything is run in a statist manner), you may face the choice of working in a statist institution or starving. In this country, if you wish to mail a letter first class, you must choose between the "government" monopoly or nothing. What are you to do?12
5: Bringing About a Better Anarchy
We already live in an anarchy. There is no "State." There are only individuals acting in a statist manner, often because they believe it to be right, to be necessary, and because they see no alternative. Extropians who wish to bring about a more rational social system, a system more capable of allowing diversity, of encouraging rational responsible behavior, and of minimizing conflict, should not join political parties, or try to attack "the State." What is needed is a micro-politics, a politics of individual behavior.13
We should seek to minimize our own contribution to statism, and to persuade others to do the same. We should withhold all support for statism whenever possible without seriously endangering ourselves. We should avoid paying tax-extortion (the life blood of statism) and should pay no heed to unjust laws whenever we can. We should encourage a cultural change, by rewarding and praising voluntaristic and anti-statist behavior, art, fiction, movies, and role-models and by pointing out what is wrong with their contraries. And in doing this a sense of humor can only help us. Sometimes it is a grim fight, but extropians are dynamic optimists and realize that hard fights against stupidity and coercion are best fought with high ideals conjoined with humor and understanding, not anger, hatred, or violence. Our goal is to increase understanding and increase rationality and responsibility, not to destroy.
One of the four central extropian principles14 is that of self-responsibility for one's values, choices, and thinking. Living up to this principle is the best way to fight statism and to bring about the universal extropian community proper to intelligent beings. A focus on the individual and the rationality of behavior will not only break down statism, but all other forms of collectivist irrationality such as racism, sexism, and nationalism.
In a forthcoming issue, in my article on spontaneous orders, I will illuminate the theoretical underpinning of the voluntarist society that should succeed statism as our intelligence and rationality expands over the coming decades and centuries. We have changed enough to do away with monarchies and theocracy, and totalitarianism is breaking down all over the planet as advanced communications technology inescapably brings awareness of superior alternatives to the peoples of those countries. Centuries ago, the idea that humans could handle the freedom of modern limited democracies would have been ridiculed. Let us not be deterred from seeking a spontaneous voluntarist society by cynics who stand for stagnation. Freedom is our evolutionary future.15
Notes
Aleister Crowley expressed the second of these values in his Thelemic dictum: "Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law." This does not mean "do whatever you feel like doing"; rather it implies a deep investigation of one's individual nature and a commitment to actualizing that self, while taking into account one's context of internal and external facts and relations.
I write "the State" in inverted commas in order to highlight my view that there is no State. This isn't strictly necessary since we don't normally refer to "unicorns" but to unicorns. The point of this device is that far more people believe in "States" than in unicorns and so I wish to emphasize its mythological nature.
The libertarian free market anarchist view (or "spontaneous voluntarism") is best explained and defended in David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom (Open Court, 1973, 1978, 1989), but also see Murray Rothbard, For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Power and Market; The Ethics of Liberty; and "The Anatomy of The State" in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and other Essays,; and Morris and Linda Tannehill, The Market for Liberty.
An exception to this sad tendency is the group called "The Voluntaryists." The Voluntaryists oppose voting and standing for election as being an endorsement of statism. Voluntaryists are more consistent methodological individualists than other libertarians.
Of course there is much more to be said here. One problem is that though things have causal natures - relations and natures that they have independently of our acts of classification, at the level of human perception and normal discourse it may be unclear which classification is most accurate. We may also be selective about the interrelations on which we choose to base our categories, since we may require a constrained view of what we are referring to in order to suit our conscious purposes. For instance, in everyday non-scientific talk we may refer to "genes" as if they were distinct units. In doing this we should be aware of what we are doing and be prepared to speak more accurately if necessary. This will require reducing the thing to be explained to its constitutive elements. See C.A. Hooker, "Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Part I: Historical and Scientific Setting, Part 11: identity in Reduction, Part III: Cross-Categorical Reduction," Dialogue 20: 38-59, 201-236, 496-529 (1981).
For a good discussion of the logic of vagueness see Kit Fine, "Vagueness, Truth, and Logic," Synthese 30 (1975), pp. 265-300, especially Section 4.
In the heyday of logical positivism many thought that all concepts were individuated by precise necessary and sufficient conditions. The concept of art, for example, should be exactly definable even if this proves difficult. This view is now seen as wildly implausible. Theories of concepts arising from cognitive science tend to emphasize the fuzziness of conceptual boundaries and explain their content in terms of cognitive structures such as neural networks. We decide whether something falls under a particular concept by seeing whether the input to the cognitive system (brain of synthetic neural network) activates the set of nodes (group of neurons and synapses) which encode the concept. There will be threshold effects, so that some inputs will be insufficient to activate the network. Those will not be instances of the concept. See: Barasalou, "The Instability of Graded Structure"; Armstrong, Gleitman, and Gleitman, "What Some Concepts Might Not Be," (Cognition 1983); Osherson and Smith, "On the Adequacy of Prototype Theory as a Theory of Concepts," (Cognition 1981); Rey, "Concepts and Stereotypes," (Cognition 1983); E. Rosch "Principles of Categorization," in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (Eds.) Cognition and Categorization, (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum); Paul M. Churchland, A Neurocomputational Perspective (MIT Press, 1989); David Kelley, "A Theory of Abstraction," (Cognition and Brain Theory, Volume VII, Number 3 & 4, Summer/Fall 1984).
Arguments surrounding the justification of the legitimacy of some agency are complex and cannot be considered here. It should be obvious that such arguments are not independent of the question of the existence of the agency: If there is no such agency we will have to refocus the discussion to one of the legitimacy of individual acts or types of acts.
There is an interesting question about limited liability when it is imposed by law and not by contractual agreement. This feature of currently existing corporations (and trade unions) seems to be unacceptable in my view (and in the views of other libertarian writers).
Murray Rothbard, Individualism and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Cato Paper No.4, Cato Institute, 1979), p. 57.
Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), p. 42. See also Friedrich Hayek, The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press 1955), pp. 53-54.
George Smith discusses libertarians who accept work in "the government" in "Libertarian Intellectuals as Government Lackeys" in Liberty, forthcoming, March 1990).
An excellent and empowering source of ideas on how to control your own life free from coercion is Harry Browne's How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World (Avon Books Macmillan,1973). I cannot recommend this book highly enough. It addresses not only typical political issues, but also friendships romantic relationships, work problems, and various constraining psychological traps.
The Extropian Principles will be sent out to subscribers before the next issue and will be reprinted in Extropy #6.
My early deeply anarchistic thoughts were fostered by Chris Tame and others of the Libertarian Alliance in England (1 Russell Chambers, The Piazza, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8AA, UK - New address: 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London SW1P 4NN). Andre Spies' highly extropic Meta-Information spurred the development of these ideas. Conversations with Tom W. Bell helped sharpen the idea for me and induced me to write this article.
Godfrey..good question..
It is a game where the objective remains the same..
For the small class that stand to gain..
It matters not the nation or name..
They are all treated just the same..
Like pawns on a board game..
It is the illusion of the same..
That keep the masses playing without disdain..
..--------------------------..--------------------------..
one is free either by not knowing the truth..
or
having knowledge to put in practice the freedoms of a sovereign..
incarcerated souls are slaves that posses the knowledge but fear to act upon it..
..--------------------------..--------------------------..
THE BEGINNING OF THE LIE..
by The Informer
Once upon a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title to their land. Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe..
William the Conquer came in 1066 and stole the Kings Title and took the land of the people. From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire straits. It was bankrupt.
The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead man's hand, so people couldn't pass their land on to the church or anyone else without the King's permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King would lose the land he controlled. The Vatican didn't like that because the King owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican.(WHY?)(1). King John refused to accept The Vatican's representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to rule England(religious or in fact?)(2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal interdict(?). Interdict means a prohibition.)
King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him. King John accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal's bond of fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury, Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, as Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and everyone on earth as tradition.
Question 1. Where in the Bible did Jesus give any man this kind of power over all men and land? He didn't. He did not create a religion nor did he create the office of Pope.
Question 2. Can you have a third party break a contract between you and another person under duress..? Don't those of you who are forced into a contract reserve all your rights under modern UCC 1-207 and claim UCC 1-103?
The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two parties. Now the Barons of England would not put up with being slaves anymore so they took to the sword and made King John sign the Magna Charta. So doesn't this act of the Barons violate the principle of natural law, when they created the Magna Charta, as having no force and effect upon a contract between two parties? Well Pope Innocent III, the other contracting party thought so, for he declared the Magna Charta to be: ". . .unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful. . . whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled." Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the British Museum. London. 1965.
The Pope, in order to introduce strife in England and Ireland that would help him, used Jesus teachings to his advantage that is verified in the Gospels by two of His Apostles. So St. Levy (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), alias Matthew, cites Jesus at Matthew 10::34-36 and Luke 12:49, 51-3. Nothing reveals the antithesis of government and religion more clearly than these facts.
Question 3. What did the contract of 1213 A.D. create? A TRUST or CONTRACT. Only the two parties, the King's heirs and the Pope, can break the contract. For the Trust /Contract cannot be broken as long as there are heirs to both sides of the contract.
At this time in history we now know who controlled the Kings of England and the land of the world. For Now we have the Pope claiming the whole Western Hemisphere besides Europe. The Holy See of Antioch ruled all the easterly side and the Holy See of Alexandria ruled the western side, so there was a conflict. (3)
So, on with the story. The King's explorers had come to America to claim dominion over land by deceiving and murdering the natives, the American Indians. The King operated under the treaty of 1213 and everything was going along okay until the 1770's when the bunch of rogues called the "Founding Fathers" decided they wanted the benefits but not pay the taxes to the King. They, being lawyers, and professional educated men, didn't know they were still under the Pope's control? Their lies and fraud now would affect the American colonies and the people who lived on the land.
Those common people who fought in the American Revolution were unaware that the 1213 treaty still ruled despite the fact they THOUGHT the Magna Charta was a viable piece of work.(4) The Declaration of Rights in 1689 declared the Rights of the British subjects in England. At the end of the English Declaration it stated at Section III " ...that should any of the Rights just mentioned be in violation of the HOLY ALLIANCE (1213 Treaty), ...it is as if this Declaration was never written".
So we know that the English Declaration didn't fly, so what makes you think the 1774 Declaration of Rights in this British Colony would work. Weren't these people doing the same thing as the Barons did in 1215 A.D. to King John? A contract is a contract. Look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Can anyone obligate a contract? Were the "founding fathers" trying to obligate a contract between two parties that still have heirs living today?
Question 4. How important is the "ultimate benefactor", the Pope, The HOLY SEE, in the scheme of things? Move through history till modern times and pull Public Law 88-244, which follows Public Law 88-243 - the institution of the law- merchants Uniform Commercial Code. Are you shocked that the Pope is listed in this Public Law?
Doesn't the United States have an ambassador in the Vatican? Why? Is it a government like all other nations such as France, Japan, Spain or Brazil? The Vatican runs the world, it controls the British Crown. Is it any wonder they separate man's Church and government? They don't talk about the Lord Almighty's Church (government) do they.(5) "Organized churches" are given special tax privileges because the Vatican dictates to the sixty United States trustees through the trust document, the U.S. Constitution created by the 1783 treaty between the King, frontman for the Vatican, and Adams, Hartly, Laurens, & Franklin who were operating for the King and not the people of America. Look at Article VI of the Constitution for the United States for your answer as stated in the "New History of America".(6)
You see we are still under the Pope who rules over all nations as he declared he did back in 1213. The 1783 Treaty did say in the opening statement quoted exactly as it appears in olde English; "It having pleafed the Divine Providence to difpofe the hearts of the Moft Serene and Moft Porent Prince, George the Third, by the grace of God, King of the Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender, of the Faith , Duke of Brunfwick and Laurenberg, Arch-Treafurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, & C. AND OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . . .."
(Emphasis added in caps).
Did you catch the last few words? This is from a King (man) who can supposedly make no claim over the United States of America because he was defeated? The King claims God gave him the almighty power to say that no man can ever own property because it, "goes against the tenets of his church, the Vatican/Holy Roman Empire, because the King is the "Elector of the Holy Roman Empire’"
What about the secret Treaty of Verona, made the 22nd of November, 1822, which shows the power of the Pope and the Vatican's interest in the US Republic.
Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona. "The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in what ever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.
ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state but also in the rest of Europe.
ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations."
Do we have a false God before us and worship him and his church instead of the real Lord, Jesus and his government. The divine right of kings exists in Clinton and every Governor of the states in corporate Union. Well let me go on record and say that the Lord gave me the same right as the Pope claims was given to him. Am I not a Steward upon the land of the Lord as a mere sojourner, the same as the Pope? Are not you also a Steward?
Did the Lord make a covenant with Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and reign over the animals and to populate the earth? Doesn't that contract still exist? And doesn't it exist with you also? And we, the true believers in that contract, can we take all the nations (mans) laws in the world and dump them in the ocean to regain our rightful place on this earth under the Lord's Natural Law to thwart the contract between King John and the Pope that appears to defeat the original contract the Lord made with man?
Yes, let us go back to the original contract and destroy the Vatican's control over everybody. Before 1066 the Pope did not claim all the land as the people claimed the land and didn't pay taxes on it to anybody. Didn't the Lord say to the people after coming out of Egypt, "why do you want a king when you have me and my contract?" Which Lord do you want to live under, a Pope, a King, President, Governors, Senators, Representatives, or a real Lord called Jesus Christ. "Christians," are ridiculed and put down because they read the Word of the Lord correctly and could defeat even the best the Pope has to throw at them.
The King James version of the Bible is just that. A version concocted by the King under the guidance of the Pope so as to hide the real truth. I was taught by the church I went to, which is government controlled as it has to be by the treaty of 1213 and reiterated in the 1783 Treaty between The Pope's Elector, King John and the First President of the United States, Sam Huntington and Charles Thompson, Secretary. I read the passage, when Jesus was on the cross, from a very old manuscript that said, "Forgive them NOT, for they know what they do." This is different than what most people believe he said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Bottom line is that when men write, transcribe, translate, update, and copy over thousands of years they always alter the interpretation, words and insert their own meanings. You can see this in just the 200 years that our country became separated from England, but still remains a colony under different compact and use of clever wording. But that is another whole subject that you do not know about.
Eminent domain and Allodial title:
Why and where did "eminent domain" rear its ugly head?
Right after the King's government was formed here in America. Eminent domain replaced the Law of Mortmain of England and when government wanted your land they claimed eminent domain thereby destroying that to what people think they have allodial title. Allodial title only existed in America when the King granted the use of the land to the likes of William Penn, .........
But it could be taken at any time. Are you or were your great, great, great grandfathers ever free to hold land that could never be taken away? Ask some of today's farmers and see how many lost their farms to the government that belonged to their past family and I'll bet none of the land goes back to the 1789 era. Well it's a wonderful world to live in the end times, isn't it. Read Revelations to see where the false preachers come from. Who is the "Harlot" in Revelations?
Does the Vatican come close with a mortal calling himself the "vicar" of Christ?
Here is the definition of vicar in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
Vicar: "In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office."
The Pope PRETENDS to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth..
Pretend; To hold out as a false appearance; to offer something feigned instead of that which is real; To exhibit as a cover for something hidden."
You bet your life the Pope has something to hide. He is no more powerful than You. The King is no more powerful than You. The American President and Governor's are no more powerful than You. You allow THEM run your lives ...WHY.?
Thinkers, you cannot fight the Pope or the King on their contract even though you are affected by the contract. You must go elsewhere for relief. Remember the first contract in history, God with Adam and Eve? You had better because you were a part of it as an heir and it is your saving grace. Why do you think the "courts of common law" are despised and Government and States are taking action to stop them? See where the power lies when this happens? Clinton, the Governors, and Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several states are only following orders and delegate to the 60 U.S. Trustees, who always show up in bankruptcy generated mostly by IRS actions. Isn't that a starting point?
What do Trustees administer? A trust? The Constitution is a trust, correct? It was created by the 1783 Treaty, correct? It is not the private man's trust contract, correct? Only those entering into the contract are UNDER the constitution and are bound by it, correct? Look up the definition of "under" in words and phrases and a good dictionary such as Webster's 1828 at Vol. II, 101. I, my dear readers, am not "under" some damn corporate trust (constitution) drafted in secrecy by the King and corporate lawyer esquires (you call them the "Founding Fathers") whom were controlled by the Treaty of 1213, wherein the Vatican still ruled over all. It was never "my constitution" and never will be. The Constitution does not apply to me nor will it ever.
However, some of the states' representatives in 1776 realized that the Constitution was a commercial contract among the Founding Fathers to protect their financial interests in the Americas and in Europe. The Articles of the Bill of Rights is designed to keep those United States citizens whom are bound by the Constitution (contract) from encroaching upon my natural Law Rights, (With this hint in mind you may discover where the IRS gets its purported power that makes you liable, because you claim to be UNDER the constitution, but they will never admit it because only a few know the real reason and they are not about to tell their agents. The same goes for any license issued to you by the corporate States). I hope you have read the Supreme Court cases of State and United States cited in my previous books that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt I am correct in my previous two sentences. Yet you always fall back into the trap by claiming citizenship of the United States AND THE STATES.
No! You are not a citizen of the corporate or organic State if you want to be free. You cannot claim it is your constitution and remain free. You cannot claim representatives in the legislatures and remain free. How about your estate? State and Estate come from the same contract.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines it;
"ESTA'TE, n. 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a condition; now generally written and pronounced state. (6) The general interest of business or government; hence a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.
But in this sense, we now use State." Get the picture? We are the ryots tenure holding the "estate" of the King called your estate. Belong to a body politic and you are a slave. In my previous books I told the people a "republic" is a fraud, for then you belong to the estate of the King which makes you a law-merchant holding as a trustee the King's land that he is holding in trust for the Vatican. The States are the "estate " of the Vatican/King cabal with the money changers along for the ride are a full blown consortium which includes the Congress/President/ Governors et al. I don't want to drive you crazy, since you might not comprehend all that is here. Once you know the truth and let go of all you were taught by the government and the preachers you don't become the drowning man grasping at the lies to stay afloat. Have you ever wondered why you were sinking while pleading case law and their constitution to protect you?
Bye till next time,
The Informer
(1)(WHY?). Because the Pope claimed all lands as the vicar of Christ and the king owed money from the Vatican that was to be collected by the Church of England. The church reduced their parishioners to mere serfdom. When they died the church got the property and the King, in order to preserve what property he had instituted the law of Mortmain. This prevented the people from willing the land to the Pope. When the pope got wind of this he excommunicated the King. That's the explanation for the Why?
(2) This is a fact that is documented in the English documents of History at the Leeds Library.
(3)The conflict between each of the Holy Sees, one controlling the western front (America) and the other controlling the China side with the dividing line somewhere in Spain and France through Germany. The Pope is the figurehead, remember and the best way to explain it is Congress is Alexandria and the Senate is Antioch.
(4) (Why doesn't the Magna Charta hold more force and effect than a later contract between the king and the Pope? Because the Pope decreed it null and void as it would break the contract he had initiated with the King. The Magna Charta was a contract breaker by third parties and that was a no-no in any law. Besides the Pope owned England and how could the Barons take the land that the King pledged let alone all the surfs that the Pope still controlled through the church of England? He can't and so the Magna Charta was declared Void. Now the Pope, through the front man, The King, could create the other contracts called treaties and no one is the wiser. Remember, the Pope was being controlled by the creditor, The Rothschilds to whom the Pope was indebted.
(5) Why? It is clear as a bell. The "church" of GOD is 'Government of GOD and man created all these religions and made churches for them. They, man, cannot allow the Government of the Lord "Church upon this rock" to get in the way of the government of men, now can they?
(6) "New History of America", by The Informer
People you can read this for yourself in American Council of Christian Laymen: "How Red Is The Federal Council of Churches", Madison, Wisconsin, 1949. Now you may better understand James Montgomery's latest as to why all the declarations, Magna Charta, etc. have no effect. Read on to see why.
See: James Montgomery's - "British Colony III" on the Internet. To further prove what I say that the declared rights were also at the mercy of any previous charters or grants from the king of England you must read section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights which states;09"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them."
More people have been conned..
Into the so-called benefits of the US Constitution..
It is a right under that common law (the law that was adopted by the states in the Union) not to testify against himself..
This has been a maxim of law for centuries…
Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare..
No man is bound to accuse himself..
One should be concerned when one’s natural rights/common law rights have to be written out in preservation..
This is prima facie evidence of some rights being taken away..
All such rights are held in the states under the will of the people, i.e. nationals..
The United States Constitution is nothing more than a CON job..
The Fourteenth Amendment is just an extension of that con which pulls everyone into the jurisdiction of the federal government so that they can be controlled by the “United States”..
http://www.pacinlaw.org/inside/tu_s_servants.htm
Supreme Court to Examine Miranda Appeals
By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - "You have the right to remain silent" will be a common utterance around the Supreme Court this fall.
Officers hoping to enhance their chances of getting a suspect to divulge key information sometimes put off reading "Miranda warnings." After they get a confession, or answers that will lead to a weapon or other evidence, officers then run through the warnings that have been made famous by TV cop shows.
The Supreme Court will decide if it's smart detective work or deceitful trickery to delay the warning. Critics say people may not realize that information divulged before they are read their rights cannot be used at trial and they then repeat incriminating statements later in formal interviews.
Susan Klein, a University of Texas professor, said there's a good chance the court will side with the government in all three cases. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not a cherished right in this age of terror fighting, she said.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/w/1154/8-25-2003/20030825061502_04.html
Cf. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 694 (1966) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/384/436.html ; aff’d. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (06/26/2000) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/530/428.html ; U.S. v. Orso, No 99-50328 (9th Cir. 12/08/2000) http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9950328.html ; Kaupp v. Texas, No. 02-5636 (U.S.S.C. 05/05/2003) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-5636.pdf (Where a criminal defendant was arrested without probable cause prior to his being questioned by police, his subsequent confession must be suppressed where the state failed to allege any meaningful intervening event between the illegal arrest and the confession);
Sed vide: Texas v. Cobb, No 99-1702 (U.S.S.C. 04/02/2001) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-1702.html
makes one think..
how small one is..
in the overall scheme of things..
anticipation..
profound as that sounds..
so true..
go figure..
so big and unorganized, yet so expensive..
guess it comes with being..
enemies of the state..
something different..
http://www.isabelleboulay.com/#
enjoy!!
THE MEDICARE FRAME-UP..
There is only one way to bring the benefits of the free market into
health care: end government intervention
By Robert Garmong
After battling for months over two allegedly opposite versions of the
bill to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, members of the
House and Senate announced Saturday they had reached an agreement.
House Republicans managed to include in the bill a provision to
contract out Medicare benefits by giving elderly patients subsidized
insurance, rather than having the government directly pay for
pharmaceuticals. Many Democrats, however, decry this as a
"privatization" of Medicare that, in the words of Representative
Charles Rangel, would not "reform the Medicare system as we know it,"
but "dissolve it." Republican Bill Thomas agrees: "Our answer to that
is, we certainly hope so." Members of both parties see the
Republican-led effort to pass the bill as a break with the "Great
Society" welfare state.
In fact, the agreement is based on the same socialist premise as the
original Medicare system--and it promises to be every bit as
disastrous in practice. The premise is that one gains a moral claim to
a good, not by earning it, but simply by needing it. On this premise,
as long as any patient has an unmet need, other people must be
coerced--whether through taxes or regulations--to meet it.
Economically, this guarantees skyrocketing expenses as more and more
of the elderly cash the blank checks offered them by government.
Medicare is already expected to face bankruptcy within 15 years--and
Senator Ted Kennedy calls the current prescription drug expansion
"only a down-payment." Some have estimated that the new program's $400
billion estimated cost will quickly turn into $800 billion or more.
What will happen when those blank checks start bouncing? Since
Medicare money is, in one of President Bush's favorite phrases, "the
people's money," ultimately the decision of how it's used belongs to
Congress--and that means price controls and rationing. The original
Medicare program began rationing care soon after its inception, and
ever since the medical spending crisis of the 1980s Medicare has
imposed price controls on doctors via "Diagnosis Related Groups" (a
fee schedule that pays, for each diagnosis, an amount fixed by
bureaucrats in Washington).
It is the basic moral premise of the welfare state--the idea that the
producers of health care may be coerced to provide for the needs of
their patients--that turns Medicare into a war against the very
doctors and hospitals who produce the services it seeks to
redistribute. And this attack on producers leads inevitably to
shortages and the rationing of care.
By the same logic, we can expect that the prescription drug plan will
end up imposing price controls on drug companies. The only difference,
in the Republican plan, is that allegedly private companies will be
the middlemen executing Congress's orders.
This has happened before, in the HMO debacle of the 1990s. Congress
effectively created the HMOs in 1973, when it offered massive tax
incentives to employers who shunted their workers into managed-care
plans. The goal was to "bring the power of the market" to solve the
crisis created when doctors and hospitals, squeezed by Medicare price
controls, raised prices for non-Medicare patients. In fact, HMOs
brought the worst aspects of socialism: rationed care, tyrannical
bureaucracy, price controls, harried and disgruntled physicians,
miserable service for frustrated patients--all of it blamed, not on
the government programs that created the health-care crisis, but on
the pseudo-private HMOs.
We can expect the same catastrophe to come from the "privatized"
Medicare prescription drug plan. Nominally private insurers will
answer to penny-pinching government paymasters, who will demand that
they cut costs by limiting patients' access to drugs and by imposing
price caps on drug companies. This is merely an indirect form of price
controls, imposed by private companies acting to please their
government employers.
The results of price controls are well-known. No company will be eager
to risk the vast resources needed to create new drugs--decades of
research and billions of dollars invested--knowing that when it
finally succeeds in producing a path-breaking new drug, its profits
will be pinched by government edict. Such consequences will be no less
deadly because the agent issuing the government's edicts is a
corporation.
Socialism with a "free market" veneer is still socialism. All the
Republicans are doing, in their supposed attempt to "expand" the free
market, is planting the government's smoking gun in capitalism's
pocket.
There is only one way to bring the benefits of the free market into
health care: end government intervention. As long as Republicans do
not reject the socialist premise that the needs of patients authorize
the sacrifice and coercion of producers, their supposed support for
the free market will merely hasten its demise.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a writer for the Ayn Rand
Institute (www.aynrand.org) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism,
the
philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.