Friday, August 12, 2011
Amazon Bookstore
If your interested in used and collectible books, check out my storefront Currently titles are limited, but I hope to increase as time goes on, all sales will support a struggling, loan averse, college student. Sorry for the shameless self promotion.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
I could not have said it better myself.
"The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:
Go to A— B—, and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.
It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support “the government,” it needs no further argument to show." - Lysander Spooner
It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay any tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected.
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life. And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves “the government,” are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman.
In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated:
Go to A— B—, and say to him that “the government” has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we choose to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of “the government,” and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not choose to make ourselves individually known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band). If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder, convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that “our country” is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and “save the country,” cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done, that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore.
It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to support “the government,” it needs no further argument to show." - Lysander Spooner
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Interesting quote from Voltairine de Cleyre
"I die, as I have lived, a free spirit, an Anarchist, owing no allegiance to rulers, heavenly or earthly." - Voltairine de Cleyre
Taken from this recording by the Ludwig von Mises Institute in association with Jeff Riggenbach
Taken from this recording by the Ludwig von Mises Institute in association with Jeff Riggenbach
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Adolf Hitler and George Bush
Found this parallel interesting.
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - Adolf Hitler (announcing the Gestapo to the people.)
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - George W. Bush (refering to the Patriot Act after 9/11)
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - Adolf Hitler (announcing the Gestapo to the people.)
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - George W. Bush (refering to the Patriot Act after 9/11)
Friday, December 10, 2010
Martin Luther King, Jr. Quote.
There comes a time when a moral man can’t obey a law which his conscience tells him is unjust. – Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
No Cursing in Va Beach
This more detailed sign I have yet to see.
This is the more Popular version seen throughout the streets.
These signs and the added law supposedly give the police and the city the right to fine you or arrest you for one of the following offenses as defined by the first picture. I will not address them (I intended to) however, I decided to leave the interpretations up to you. I recommend consulting Websters online dictionary to clarify your understanding of the key words.
1. Cursing or using obscene or vulgar language or gestures.
2. Engaging in sexually explicit behavior.
3. Wearing revealing attire which is inappropriate in a public setting.
4. Engaging in any behavior which is likely to intimidate, harass or disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of others.
5. Engaging in any act the violates the law.
If the city government can prevent you from speaking and acting in ways which they deem 'inappropriate', what is to stop the state? What is to stop the feds? What is to stop them from expanding their powers from public to private? What is to stop them from deeming all speech which denounces them as illegal on the same grounds they used previously?! The answer is: NOTHING. The consent of the governed seems to be superfluous, the governed will except the authority that the state claims to have as long as the people are appeased in this way or that. In other words the people will accept the legitimacy of the government as long as they do not tread on CERTAIN rights.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
Details of the case can be found: here
"About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” Id. , at 11a, 153a. Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” Id. , at 11a. Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” Id. , at 11a, 153a. Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Id. , at 153a. Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away. Ibid. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later. Id. , at 11a."
Thompkins was after that charged with first degree murder, naturally. After this he sued the police department claiming that he was exercising his right to remain silent! The Supreme Court ruled on the case stating that: a person must verbally state their intent to exercise this right.
My thoughts are this: The right to remain silent do not mean that the officers must stop questioning you when you don't answer a question or two. And it does not mean they must determine whether that silence is an attempt to exercise that right. They also are not required, even if you remain silent, to stop questioning you. It is your duty to exercise your right to remain silent, by doing just that, remaining silent. Or in simpler terms Mr. Thompkins: Keep your fucking mouth shut. In no way and at no time should you have to say: I intend to exercise my right to remain silent. The act is exercising the right. I am no lawyer, I admit, but is it really that complicated to figure out?
"About 2 hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, Helgert asked Thompkins, “Do you believe in God?” Id. , at 11a, 153a. Thompkins made eye contact with Helgert and said “Yes,” as his eyes “well[ed] up with tears.” Id. , at 11a. Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God?” Thompkins said “Yes.” Id. , at 11a, 153a. Helgert asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Id. , at 153a. Thompkins answered “Yes” and looked away. Ibid. Thompkins refused to make a written confession, and the interrogation ended about 15 minutes later. Id. , at 11a."
Thompkins was after that charged with first degree murder, naturally. After this he sued the police department claiming that he was exercising his right to remain silent! The Supreme Court ruled on the case stating that: a person must verbally state their intent to exercise this right.
My thoughts are this: The right to remain silent do not mean that the officers must stop questioning you when you don't answer a question or two. And it does not mean they must determine whether that silence is an attempt to exercise that right. They also are not required, even if you remain silent, to stop questioning you. It is your duty to exercise your right to remain silent, by doing just that, remaining silent. Or in simpler terms Mr. Thompkins: Keep your fucking mouth shut. In no way and at no time should you have to say: I intend to exercise my right to remain silent. The act is exercising the right. I am no lawyer, I admit, but is it really that complicated to figure out?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Quote of the Day.
"The misapprehension springs from the fact that the learned jurists, deceiving themselves as well as others, depict in their books an ideal of government - not as it really is, an assembly of men who oppress their fellow citizens, but in accordance with the scientific postulate, as a body of men who act as the representatives of the rest of the nation. They have gone on repeating this to others so long that they have ended by believing it themselves, and they really seem to think that justice is one of the duties of governments. History, however, shows us that governments, as seen from the reign of Caesar to those of the two Napoleons and Prince Bismarck, are in their very essence a violation of justice; a man or a body of men having at command an army of trained soldiers, deluded creatures who are ready for any violence, and through whose agency they govern the State, will have no keen sense of the obligation of justice. Therefore governments will never consent to diminish the number of those well-trained and submissive servants, who constitute their power and influence." ~ Leo Tolstoy
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Thought and after-thought of the day
Thought:
It is odd that we choose to measure life by increments of time rather than by life itself i.e. duration versus Depth (or fullness of the life lived).
After-thought:
It is possible we do this because most lives today (if measured by Depth) would barely, if even, lift the scale of duration off the floor. Our lives have become half-empty shells pouring all we have left into the violent ocean that is the state. In order not feel so empty they tell themselves that because they have lived this-or-that duration, they are automatically wise and accordingly have lived a full life. This being a fallacy since to truly live one must move through many series of events building on experience, knowledge of truth, of the world, and of themselves. It is possible to be 'alive' for whatever measured period of time, whether it be 1 day or 200 years old, and never actually gain the previously stated bases for wisdom, through simple inaction. Or in the case of those having a lessor duration under their belts should be seeking that experience, knowledge, and truth; that is, if they have not already found it. See it follows that the young can be more wise than the old and vice versa depending on how much they actually 'live'.
I do admit that measuring duration is a lot easier than depth. Also note that time is defined as a series of events occurring one after the other, however, the 'time' used to measure physical age is more an imagined series of events rather than a tangible series. For example we could say: Once I noticed the man drowning time seemed to stand still and all I could do was watch, or, Once I noticed the man was drowning I stripped of my clothes and dove into the water to save him. Whether I acted or did not act the clock of man measured time still ticked away. Action versus Inaction. If we measured life through action and you spend your life hidden in a corner never leaving you room your measure of depth would be lower than the individual who acts to the extent that he/she has never thought to hide in any corner. The corner-hider would also not be considered wise simply because their hair was graying and they were reaching the end of human life. Yet the actor could, depending on the substance of his actions, may be considered wise very early on.
It is interesting to muse over but still some holes though, I think.
It is odd that we choose to measure life by increments of time rather than by life itself i.e. duration versus Depth (or fullness of the life lived).
After-thought:
It is possible we do this because most lives today (if measured by Depth) would barely, if even, lift the scale of duration off the floor. Our lives have become half-empty shells pouring all we have left into the violent ocean that is the state. In order not feel so empty they tell themselves that because they have lived this-or-that duration, they are automatically wise and accordingly have lived a full life. This being a fallacy since to truly live one must move through many series of events building on experience, knowledge of truth, of the world, and of themselves. It is possible to be 'alive' for whatever measured period of time, whether it be 1 day or 200 years old, and never actually gain the previously stated bases for wisdom, through simple inaction. Or in the case of those having a lessor duration under their belts should be seeking that experience, knowledge, and truth; that is, if they have not already found it. See it follows that the young can be more wise than the old and vice versa depending on how much they actually 'live'.
I do admit that measuring duration is a lot easier than depth. Also note that time is defined as a series of events occurring one after the other, however, the 'time' used to measure physical age is more an imagined series of events rather than a tangible series. For example we could say: Once I noticed the man drowning time seemed to stand still and all I could do was watch, or, Once I noticed the man was drowning I stripped of my clothes and dove into the water to save him. Whether I acted or did not act the clock of man measured time still ticked away. Action versus Inaction. If we measured life through action and you spend your life hidden in a corner never leaving you room your measure of depth would be lower than the individual who acts to the extent that he/she has never thought to hide in any corner. The corner-hider would also not be considered wise simply because their hair was graying and they were reaching the end of human life. Yet the actor could, depending on the substance of his actions, may be considered wise very early on.
It is interesting to muse over but still some holes though, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
