[2dogs]

He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

A tenth? Damn, our government takes half- what does that make us?

:scrutiny:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/09/11/gaddy.htm

Defending Anarchy

By Michael Gaddy © 2003

Like almost everything else in our present day society, government has distorted and subverted the meaning of our language. The word anarchy is a perfect example. The literal translation means “without rulers.” Our present government, which by its very actions believes itself to be omnipotent, defines anarchism as “chaos.”
Naturally, they would like for all to believe that without government the only thing that would ensue would be chaos. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Recently, a person who had just read two of my articles asked me what party I belonged to. When I told her I did not believe in political parties, she was appalled. “Then how do you hope to advance your ideas,” she asked? I told her certainly not through political parties and certainly not through the voting process. More confusion ensued when I told her I believed those who vote do so because they believe social order is a quality that can be instilled by violence and other coercive means by governmental authorities and that I cannot agree with that concept. After some thought she told me we must have government to protect us from those in our society who would take advantage of others and commit criminal acts. Total vapor lock occurred when I asked her what if all those criminal elements she described were to end up working for government and then were to perpetrate their crimes on the citizens of the country with immunity granted by the government they control.

F. A. Hayek, described very well the gravitational pull to politics of those who would plunder the citizens and resources of a country in his work; The Road to Serfdom.

One need only look back at the latest fiasco in Alabama having to do with the removal of the Ten Commandments to understand the philosophy of government. The first commandment has been co-opted by government. “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” The reason government is fighting so hard to have any mention of God removed from our everyday life is to make the ignorant masses actually believe that only government can provide all that is needed for ones existence-cradle to the grave.

Reminds me of the stories that came out of Cuba just after Castro took over the country. Seems Castro would travel to the schools and ask the young students to pray to God for ice cream. The children would pray and Castro and his minions would wait an appropriate time for the children to realize there was no ice cream and then he would tell them to ask Castro for the ice cream-presto, ice cream for the children. The event left an indelible mark on the minds of those children.

No different than the millions of children who see government checks arriving monthly and food stamps used at the market when others are using highly overtaxed greenbacks.

Government is anathema to freedom --The essence of government is force -- Government has absolutely no power without the ability to intimidate and/or coerce. Government courts have destroyed freedom of association and freedom of religion by removing all references to God in our communities. Government creates terrorism rather than eliminating it. Government has created class wars that cause jealousy and hate, thereby prohibiting a cohesive national atmosphere. Government gains power by what it is able to steal from the fruits of our labor. Government must create villains for us to fear if it is to grow. If government was forced to fight the wars it creates for profit using the sons and daughters of the “ruling class” instead of ours, there would be no wars except those required to defend our homeland. If the free market were truly free, government couldn't dictate trade policies and most wars to defend the homeland would be avoided.

Most folks in the Christian community base their support for government on the 13th chapter of Romans but somehow completely forget the answer God gave the prophet Samuel after the Israelites asked for a king.

"Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do…

He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 1 Samuel 7-20

There is a simple question we all must answer: Can you rule your own life, handle your own resources and raise your children without government interference? Are you capable of making common sense decisions without endless regulations, warning labels and "licenses" from government?

What about being a slave on that great federal plantation do you enjoy most?

[gunsmith]

then I quit smoking pot.
people who call themselves anarchist nowadays.
ARE NOT!
old school anarchist never wanted to ban any guns
theyr'e about 7 or 8 probably in the whole world.
they hang out with the pro gun commies(5 or 6 in the whole world) who are nice
enough to share the weed they got from
doing temp jobs which usurp the unions:rolleyes:

anarchist today are kids with personality disorders
who pay to go to clubs and beat up on each other
(a "mosh pit")
anarchist today will say they are pro gun
but will trash the local starbucks and spend
hundreds of $$ on speed and weed
and march with the lefties who are banning guns.
moderne anarchist are democrats with ripped jeans
and pierced genetalia

[2dogs]

old school anarchist never wanted to ban any guns

Anarchy- another good idea ruined by liberals!:evil: :neener:

[suijurisfreeman]

2dogs posted, "What about being a slave on that great plantation do you enjoy most?"

I removed the master's harness back in 1993, kicked up my heels and went feral! Don't need no stinkin' government regulations or licenses, I've got my freedom! Winston Ward Johnson hasn't gone postal, hasn't gone country, he's gone FERAL! Maybe some day the people in this country will look back with tears in their eyes on the way to the glue factory and wonder what it would have been like to live the substance of freedom!

Long live individualist-anarchism! How does Webster's 1828 Dictionary define 'anarchy'?

[2dogs]

suijurisfreeman

There was a story on FNC last night- part of which I missed- about a fella who was arrested for a minor crime and he tried to defend himself in court by declaring himself a country, and claiming diplomatic immunity.

Seems it didn't work.

:eek:

Anyway, good luck to you.:)

[suijurisfreeman]

2dogs,
I don't claim to be a country, I claim to be a free Human Being! Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 1, "...... All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable right, among which may be reckoned:"

I've been in 'their courts' and I've won! I haven't been arrested for exercising my rights since September of 1995. Long live individualist-anarchism!

[buzz_knox]

It's amazing when anarchists cite to the Constitution, either of the national gov't or the state gov't. If you are truly an anarchist, then you would rather burn said documents than comply with them.

[suijurisfreeman]

buzz_knox,
"It's amazing when anarchists cite to the Constitution, either of the national gov't or the state gov't. If you are truly an anachrist, then you would rather burn said documents than comply with them."

How does Webster's 1828 Dictionary define 'anarchy', 'anarchist'? Do we define these two words the same way today?

Is 'individualist-anarchism' the same as 'anarchist'? I believe that Webster's 1828 Dictionary (can't remember for sure as my copy is at my place in Kentucky) defines 'anarchy' as the absence of government. I (individually) certainly have created 'the absence of government' in my life since 1993! No licenses, no permits, etc! I happen to believe in the saying, the government that governs best is that government which governs least! Again I will quote Alabama's Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 35: "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."

Exactly what is a constitution? I believe it is a compact/contract by the sovereign people with their 'agent'/government in which they (the sovereign people) have delegated limited authority/power to said 'agent'/government to protect their natural, inherent and inalienable rights. While it is true that I am not a party to any constitutions , public officials are and in fact did take an oath to support said constitutions and are therefore liable for any breaches of said oathes. I claim no, absolutely none, zip, nada rights under any constitutions! I believe that I'm a free Human Being and I exercise the natural, inherent and inalienable rights of same on a daily basis! I am not a 'member of the body politic', I have not 'entered into society' by registering to vote, I have never voted, I never authorized any 'agent' to pass law on my behalf in any Congress assembled, I never gave my explicit consent to be governed, I revoked any implied consent on June 4, 1993! I also happen to believe that as the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America states, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Have you given your consent? Explicit consent? Implied consent?

I don't 'comply' with any constitutions, the various constitutions are the straight jackets that the sovereign people placed on their government (that is if they indeed did consent to be governed). The various constitutions limit the delegated authority that the people gave their 'agent' (government).

I didn't say that I was an 'anarchist', I said long live individualist-anarchism!

[buzz_knox]

You've never given consent? Okay, I presume then that you have:

1. never driven on a public road;
2. never asked for and/or received services from any state or federal agency (including the protection of the military or protective services); and
3. do not access electricity from power lines built by a public utility.


This is, of course, a nonexhaustive list of the services you can't partake of and claim to be "separate from society."

[tyme]

The trouble with anarchy is that nobody knows what would happen if the world (or even just the U.S.) adopted it. Some think unregulated capital markets would drive society, and that it would remain much the same (aside from dumb people losing their money in the market more often). Others think that the world would primarily be divided into tribes/neighborhoods by social forces.

[Tamara]

Interesting tack you present, there. So, by breathing air kept clean by the EPA, I'm giving my implied consent to have my finances raped by the IRS? Because nuclear fallout clouds are not descending on my head from the direction of Oak Ridge, I am implying my consent to not owning magazines that hold more than ten rounds? :scrutiny:

[buzz_knox]

No, that's not the point. Arguing that one is separate from society while actively taking significant or advantage of the benefits of said society is both disingenous and dishonest, as one becomes a free rider.

Tamara, unless things have drastically changed, you have not separated yourself from society. You have, through your participation in the legal and social structure of society, given your consent to be bound by it. But with that consent comes the absolute right to demand that the society recognize and defend your rights, whatever they may be. By being part of that system, you get the right to affect change within that system.

[suijurisfreeman]

buzz_knox,
You posted, "You've never given consent? Okay, I presume then that you have: 1. never driven on a public road; 2. never asked for and/or received services from any state or federal agency (including the protection of the military or protective services); and 3. do no access electricity from power lines built by a public utlity. This is, of course, a nonexhaustive list of the services you can't partake of and claim to be 'separate from society'."

I think we're talking about two different things here. I posted that I've never given my explicit consent to be governed, revoked any implied consent in 1993, that I'm not a 'member of the body politic' and therefore do not exercise the privilege of sufferage. I have never hired an 'agent' (congresscritter) to pass laws on my behalf, and certainly never authorized any government agency to violate my natural, inherent and inalienable rights!

As John Locke wrote in his 2nd Treatise of Government, "Man being as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.

The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another ......"

(1) Have I ever traveled on a public road? Yes I do! As a matter of fact, I've given up a portion of my property as a road right-of-way so that public travel is possible. I also pay property taxes on my 20 acres, part of that money goes to the county to maintain the county highways. Have you ever researched how we came to have 'public roads' in this country?

(2) Have I ever asked for and/or received services from any state or federal agency (including the protection of the military or protective services). I have never once asked for any 'services' from any state or federal agency. I have never received 'unemployment benefits', 'disability benefits', 'homestead exemption' on my property taxes or any other such 'services'. I defend myself, that's why I own and carry firearms. I would never call the 'police' for my protection and would never call the fire department or 911 for help or assistance.

(3) I am not hooked up to any public utilities at my property in Kentucky and never will be, as a matter of fact no public utilities even come down the road that my property in located on.

Giving one's consent to be governed and being 'separate from society' are not the same thing. I have never been part of the 'political process' in this country and never will be. I have exercised the rights of a free Human Being for 10 years now without harming another Human Being, their rights, or property.

[rock jock]

Interesting tack you present, there. So, by breathing air kept clean by the EPA, I'm giving my implied consent to have my finances raped by the IRS? Because nuclear fallout clouds are not descending on my head from the direction of Oak Ridge, I am implying my consent to not owning magazines that hold more than ten rounds?
So, you're saying that because we have too much govt., we shouldn't have any? This is based on what?

[Tamara]

So, you're saying that because we have too much govt., we shouldn't have any?

Look at your quote. Did I state that there? No, I did not. buzz_knox and I were talking about consent, either expressed or implied. If you want to talk about the legitimacy of government, perhaps we can do that elsewhere.

[JohnBT]

"What about being a slave on that great federal plantation do you enjoy most?"

Well, the ongoing existance of the First Amendment makes it possible for me to read tortured pieces of convoluted logic like this one. I'm sure I could think of more with proper motivation, but frankly it just ain't worth the bother.

One of life's great mysteries is how does an anarchist go about trying to organize other anarchists to get them together to tear the government apart? There's a contradiction there, don't you think?

John

[rock jock]

Oh, sorry, I thought this thread was about defending anarchy. I guess I got confused from the title. :rolleyes:

[2dogs]

A short, simplified primer on theoretical anarchy, for any one interested.:)


http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/R/Wayne.D.Riggs-1/courses/intro/2001-spring/Anarchy.doc

[Tamara]

Oh, sorry, I thought this thread was about

You weren't responding to the thread title, you were quoting and replying to (out of context, I might add) a very specific phrase from my post.

You really don't do "disingenuous" very well. ;)

[bountyhunter]

I removed the master's harness back in 1993, kicked up my heels and went feral! Don't need no stinkin' government regulations or licenses, I've got my freedom! Winston Ward Johnson hasn't gone postal, hasn't gone country, he's gone FERAL!

I'm taking a wild guess here: You don't date much, do you?

[BigG]

... at my property in Kentucky and never will be, as a matter of fact no public utilities even come down the road that my property in located on.


I note you are not there, so why not? You are not, by any chance, the guest of some gomit, say the county hotel? :uhoh:

[Sir Galahad]

Wow! Look at all these self-proessed "anarchists"! I didn't know Bongs Online had such a wide customer base!


"...anarchy sounds good to me, til someone asks who'd fix the sewers, would the rednecks just play king of the neighborhood..." (not that the individual who penned those lyrics is necessarily a person I agree with most times.)

[Sir Galahad]

He's gone FERAL!!!! Woooooo!!!! Someone stop him before he tears the tags off his pillow! Am I ever impressed!:rolleyes: That's the beauty of the internet. A kid who works at Pizza Hut and lives with mom can profess to be anything he wants. On one forum, he's a green beret. On another, he's a anarchist. On yet another, who knows, maybe he's getting in touch with his "feelings". Yep, no proof whatsoever required. No DD214s, no diplomas, zip, zam, nada, nothing. I think the terms used to be "Walter Mittyism" and "Baron vob Munchausen Syndrome". With probably a healthy portion of "Peter Pan Syndrome" thrown in for spice.

[tyme]

Since there's altogether too much neo-liberal thought around here, maybe we should reconsider the wise old words of John Donne... (please, no corny jokes about European power or dominance)

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Every man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

:) :uhoh:

[BigG]

Geez - now we've got gremlins quoting dead white guys! :what: :p

[Tamara]

Apparently, some folks were unable to read this part on registering, so here's the large type version:

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

:scrutiny:

[suijurisfreeman]

bountyhunter,
You're absolutely correct, I don't date much! As a matter of fact the very reason that I got a divorce back in 1998 was because of my quest for freedom! My ex-wife didn't want to get out of the system, I made my decission that I was getting completely out, so I told her to file for a divorce. We owned (it was paid for) 43 acres in Michigan, house, cars everything, I signed it all over to her and walked away with only my personal stuff (all my own choice). That's how serious I'm about this freedom thingy! Contrary to what Sir Galahad posted, I actually do live what I've posted about! I've got court transcripts, witnesses, tape recordings, TV footage, newspaper accounts of my struggle to become free. What I have posted are not the ramblings of some madman, they're facts, period!

BigG,

The reason why I'm not at my property in Kentucky very much is really quite simple. My daughter (33) has been very sick since January of 2002, I've spent alot if not most of my time up here at her place in northern Indiana since May of 2002. I get home maybe once a month for 3-4 days. Her hospital/doctor bills have been well over $350,000 so it's not just for fun and games. My whole life has been put on hold, I should have completed my Earthship by now but I haven't had enough time to even get it started, let alone finished. Oh well, maybe soon!

And last but not least, Sir Galahad, why the hostility? I'm not a 'momma's boy' living at home, I'm a grown man, 55 years of age, I own my own property and everything I have is paid for! I've reared four children, as a matter of fact my youngest (26) was only 2 when I divorced his mother and reared him and his 2 brothers and sister by myself! Back in 1979 it was quite unusual for a father to get custody of his children - I did! And I did all that without any assistance for Big Brother's teat in my mouth! Never once did I take anything from any government agency, I did it on my own! Anything, and I do mean anything that I've posted on this forum or any other forum is the absolute truth, I don't just blow smoke up people's @$$, I actually live what I believe! And have for 10 years now! I have paid dearly for my freedom, but I would never consider going back, I'm free! Are you?

[rock jock]

Never once did I take anything from any government agency
Not all the benefits of living in this country are tangible. Some can only be measured by the bad things you don't experience as a result of their existence. So, the answer is, yes you have.

[Marko Kloos]

But with that consent comes the absolute right to demand that the society recognize and defend your rights, whatever they may be.

An interesting angle would be to explore whether the government has defaulted on that "social contract" when it not only fails to hold up its end of the bargain (the safeguarding and defending of my rights), but actively engages in denying me those rights (via gun control, asset forfeiture, and a zillion of other proactive measures).

Sure, I can try and change the system from within, but the government may use force to get me into compliance with the "social contract", while I can only use the glacially slow legal and legislative processes. I'd say that tilts the playing field greatly in favor one party to that contract.

[Baba Louie]

Ahhh... the "Social Contract"

Marko, I have been waiting for someone more intelligent than I to bring said concept to light in this thread.

Tangled into the weaving of our lives, lives the social agreement to forgo some of our freedoms and to cooperate with others (I like to think that most people in the US will stay on their side of the road)... but at what price?

Some people (very few) tend to "Do things without feeling the need for permission from higher ups or worry about their peers reaction", while others (the majority?) feel the need, the safety of having to ask for said permission prior to any action.

The consequences that are rendered by seeking permission prior vs. asking forgiveness after, if your actions truly "harm others" seems to be the main feature my Father taught and lived by. He taught the latter.

I personally don't remember signing a social contract whereby all that I create, or a large portion thereof, would be given away to others via automatic deposit.

Perchance that occured back in 1971 when I signed up for and received a small card with a number on it that clearly states "Not to be used for Identification purposes"

1 Chicken in 10?

More like 4 to 6 at a minimum.

Adios

[tyme]

If difference and, to some degree, mental anguish and oppression create the possibility of social progress, where on the state-power continuum do we want to be... oppressed by government, minimally oppressed by government and somewhat oppressed by criminals, or oppressed only by criminals?

In which society does scientific, social, literary, philosophical, and artistic progress occur more rapidly? If that's not our goal, what else is there? If that's not our goal, we should all go live in a shack like the unabomber and write hoplophobic treatises promoting the state of nature. Then when we're bored with that we can all start stealing from each other. Because if society and local communities have no sense of direction, in the absence of religion or morals for the sake of morals, the only thing of importance is self interest.

[Sgt]

4.) Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Tamara,

While I read the rules, it makes little difference how one argues on this forum.....no matter how one conducts oneself in a heated discussion, if they happen to have a different opinion than the "mods" then they are brow beat and lectured until they either conform to the socialistic flavor of the week, or you all throw then off of here. You can insult an individual while only dealing with the topic they so strongly support. And when this happens.....it's usually one of you mods, or your pocket protector buddies who's offended. And why.....because if you can't defend your position, the easist thing to do is get rid of the offender......too bad...that old line about "small people with big titles"......LOL Jeez, we wouldn't want to offend anyone, now would we? be fair and enforce the same rules for EVERYONE, or throw them away.....this little socialist experiment and power happy moderators will ruin this forum if you all don't get your ego's in check......
:rolleyes:

[LawDog]

Sgt,

if you don't like this little socialist experiment that is THR, by all means go somewhere else.

Nobody has nailed your feet to the floor, nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you come to The High Road.

If you aren't happy here -- leave.

In the meantime, due to major thread hi-jack, color this one closed.

LawDog
Power Mad Moderator,
First Chief Assistant Brow Beater, and
Small Person With Big Title, First Class.