Bio not provided
If this referendum passes Switzerland could lead the world out of paper money and to a return to gold money. This little country's vote is like the boy in the parable who cries out: "The king is naked!". It is a wake up call for the world. Long live honest money!
3 months, 3 weeks ago on Ron Paul: Will The Swiss Vote to Get Their Gold Back?
@Bill Weston I agree. But as long as schools are public the fundamental problem will remain. Accountability will not come until we return to the system that made the U.S. #1: Private schools. A separation of education and state is not optional, but necessary for a healthy society.
1 year, 10 months ago on Texas Schools Force Girls to Wear Islamic Burqas to School
@Bill Weston "... order was restored...". How? By telling the parents that education is achieved by debating ideas openly? I hope so. Your world history teacher knew the only way to defeat an idea is through open debate, not banning discussion of some ideas. That only gives them power.
@Retro Ranger Just read what the founders of our school system said. The sole purpose of so-called education in the mandatory gov't system is to instill automatic obedience in authority.
@RJeffreySavlov @NativeNE "You must understand that" public education is indoctrination. It exists to increase the power of the state (gov't), not the public. It is sold to us as "free" but that is impossible because gov't has no money of its own. Gov't money is taken by force from us. Then it is used against us in programs such as the brainwashing of our children. For example, what knowledge is being given to children each day when they are forced to recite the pledge? None. But their minds are being conditioned by rote recitation just as the muslims, and all brainwashing systems use.
Gov't was created to provide one (1) and only one service: Protection of rights. The problem began when the counter American revolution happened in 1789. A new gov't was created with the power to interpret (decide) how and if it was doing its job, meaning it set its own limits, meaning it had no limits. Of course, it was impractical for the gov't to take over immediately, due to a check on its power: A majority of freedom loving, individualistic, heavily armed, seasoned freedom fighters. After 160+ years of gov't schools disarming people mentally, and disarmament through gun control laws, no check on power remains.
Complaining about gov't overreach is useless. Gov't has all the power. The power must be taken back. This can start by restoring property rights. We can no longer forfeit our right to our money by paying taxes. Our land is our property, not subject to eminent domain. If we stop these two abuses, we can cut gov't down to size and restore our liberty.
1 year, 11 months ago on Sequestration Proves How Government Overreach Threatens Society
The state requires you to educate your child. It does not require you to subject your child to the indoctrination which passes for education in public (gov't) schools. It does require you to pay for the state indoctrination, even if you are paying for non state education of your child. No tax relief is given to chose who do not use the so-called "free" public schools. If you find this unfair, but agree with taxation in general, you must reconcile your position with the fact that many taxpayers find much of what gov't does with their money repugnant. Some even find taxation immoral (theft). The bottom line: If you don't like gov't schools, don't use them. If you don't like paying for what you find repugnant and find this immoral, don't force others to pay for what they don't like, i.e., don't support taxation. Without popular support, institutionalized theft (taxes) would be abolished. How is it different from slavery? We are all victims, but most are practicing "the sanction of the victim". Stop sanctioning your own slavery.
1 year, 11 months ago on Texas Schools Force Girls to Wear Islamic Burqas to School
@bob25030 How many dead teachers had guns for protection? None. Why? Because the gov't disarmed them and put signs up proudly advertising it: "Gun Free Zone", i.e., defenseless potential victims here.
How many unarmed, innocent victims are killed by police every year? The stats are kept but the police will not release them, only telling us how many cops are killed. The figure is estimated to be 25-1. How many cops are prosecuted or punished in any way? Almost none. No accountability exists. Why do we exempt gov't from moral value judgements? If we give anyone a monopoly on violence, who will protect us from our protectors?
Isn't self protection and self reliance the only system that works? Isn't forced dependence immoral?
2 years, 1 month ago on Shooting After Shooting--What Do We Have Left?
I deny the authority of the state. I do so by not voting, not obeying, and not keeping silent when I see the totalitarian belief system working. Elections are one example of an attempt to justify compulsion. I deny they create an obligation to obey. No public duty to obey can exist by the action of some. No contract exists which binds all in violation of rights. Universal obedience is compelled by force, nothing more. The world wide political system is immoral. It is not sustainable. It will lead to extinction. The counter friction is individual defiance and self dependence. Peace and prosperity are constantly destroyed by government. Education will result in the rejection of the myth of protection by institutional violence. Government has no place in a civil society. All organization must be voluntary to be effective and moral. Faith in force must be countered by confidence in reason.
2 years, 2 months ago on A Tenther's Guide to the Elections
@thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @calinb7 What is more important, "a more perfect union" (as Lincoln believed) or individual rights (as Jefferson believed)? I.E., is the state sovereign, or are the individuals sovereign, i.e., does the forced interaction of union trump individual rights? Was the creation of "these united states" for the purpose of one neck to collar, rather than many necks (13)? If you think the latter, then the U.S. cannot secede from the U.N. and we should have a one world government.
2 years, 4 months ago on Dangerous Dicta
@mrducksmrnot Once the power was given it was used to create an indoctrination system for the purpose of keeping and expanding political power. The biggest theft of all time, the bank bailout, went on in plain sight, with 99.99% disapproval and NO RECALLS. A few whimpers, but no rebellion, no protests, no accountability. Again, during the Katrina crisis, guns were essential for citizens to protect their neighborhoods. They were confiscated immorally and illegally without resistance. What more poof do you need? When will you call a slave a slave? When he is in a concentration camp? It's too late then to wake up!
The feds have no moral or legitimate authority but they have the backing of the majority to do whatever they want. For example, theft (taxation), kidnapping, torture, murder are acceptable if the feds claim it is necessary. No proof is needed. Just the claim. The general public does not hold any gov't agency to the same moral standards as they do individuals. Why? The federal gov't and all its subsidiaries are held in reverence as having unquestionable moral authority. Why? That is the purpose and result of 12 years of state indoctrination in state schools. Subsequently, the state exercises unlimited violence both here and abroad. But the worldwide majority does not revere the U.S. It is held in contempt for the criminal it is. And as Americans, that puts us all in danger. As we should be. We are not exempt from punishment. We will be judged for giving unlimited power to an elite. And even the innocent among us (voluntaryists?) will be branded as "imperialist" or empire builders. The irony is that the condemners are quilty of giving their gov't the same power. The U.S. gov't is the most powerful and therefore abuses the most. That is the only difference.
@Bernie Quigley By "they" I hope you don't mean to imply group think. This is a collectivist anti-concept concept. I fully endorse independent thought as essential, but that can only occur on an individual basis. I am against state sovereignty for the same reason as fed sovereignty. Personal sovereignty is impossible along with gov't sovereignty. Either each of us is sovereign or an elite group calling themselves "the state", or "representatives" or "gov't" is, but not both. Remember, kings called themselves "the sovereign" to let everyone know they came first. Rulers are people who put themselves first. The ruled are servants. It was un-American to be servants.(ruled). That has changed. Admitting it is the first step in correcting it.
2 years, 5 months ago on The Real Origin of the Tea Party Movement
To sum up Sam Adams: No taxation without representation because that guarantees free subjects.
"Free subjects" is a contradiction. But let's suppose he meant free citizens. What is a citizen but a member of the body politic, i.e., a subscriber to a social system where a government exists. Does that leave room for non-citizens, e.g., anarchists? Are some free to bow to gov't and others not? Can there be a sovereign gov't and sovereign persons? Can I govern myself and let you be governed by others? Can I bow to gov't and change my mind by seceding? Can a free person exist under rule? I say NO to all these questions.
A person who believes gov't is needed to assure rights wants: 1. Universal compliance. 2. Gov't as the final authority, e.g., limits individuals and itself. Also, it defines justice, right and wrong, and "the good". A "right" is what the gov't defines as a right, as in, "the right to fight (kill or be killed) for your country" but no right to refuse the "honor".
It was not Adams but Jefferson who came up with a completely new, non-contradictory explanation for abolishing rule. He stated in his Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal", i.e., no man can lord over (rule) another, and "all men are created with inalienable rights", i.e., as sovereign individuals. This was the first time a society was based on the individual as the primary value. The gov't was an after thought created with the sole purpose of protecting the individual. No other country claimed this ideal. America was first. And may be the last.
Now I would like Alabama to take the next step to strengthen property rights and abolish property tax. A tax on property is a tax on a right, e.g., paying for a permit to breath. The tax contradicts the right of property, i.e., we own property by right not by permission.
2 years, 7 months ago on Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21
"For when enough good people rise up and say no to tyranny..." That was the theory behind the Libertarian Party's attempt to alter the course of politics. It failed. One or two % is not enough for change, especially when the game is rigged. That was what I realized after 5 years of constant dedicated political action for the party. I quit in 1980. Thirty-two years later you assume we can rely on people to rise up against tyranny. People will protest because of hardship just as they have done all over the world for centuries. This is revolution without change. They unknowingly sanction their own enslavement. The few who understand that the solution is voluntaryism, not government, will be shouted down and threatened with violence by the majority who value democracy over reason, emotion over thoughtful argument. It is not a matter of good vs. bad people. Everyone considers themselves as "good" and "in the right". The majority thinks they are against "tyranny" even as they make it possible. We are such a small minority in a sea of conformist collectivists that escape is our only option. Withdraw and live. Live to think and write. In the aftermath of the collapse we may find an audience willing to listen. I doubt it. I suspect the best we do is teach our young and live free and prosperous lives as an example to any with an open mind.
3 years, 2 months ago on On Obamacare: Don't Trust the Courts to Uphold the Constitution!
Only one person represents us or deserves to be called "honorable": Ron Paul. However, the remedy for the unconstitutional power assumed by government on any level is not another law. We have too much government and law now. We need to stop acting as our own destroyers. We need to stop sanctioning a duel moral code: one for individuals, and another for authorities. The authorities act immorally and should be stopped. Public resistance and condemnation is needed. We can start by refusing to fund immoral conduct. Just say NO! to taxation. Also, mass rebellion against all the immoral laws is needed. Jury nullification will put the government on notice that they are limited by us.
3 years, 2 months ago on Message to the FDA: "I Drink Raw Milk. Arrest Me!"
I submit that relying on the states to protect us from Federal government is to "follow where the path may lead." The Founding Fathers attempted to blaze a new path and for that I commend them. They recognized the dangers of the old ways and clearly enumerated them. However, their attempt to safeguard our rights failed. And that failure cannot be rectified by using the same system on a smaller scale, e.g., state government against federal government.
A "new path" would require a fundamental change in power distribution. The power of the individual is presently given away to a ruling elite. I suggest we keep it and self govern. This expands the economic principle of capitalism to all aspects of society and allows for spontaneous order in all things. It renounces the principle of "force first" for voluntary interaction based on mutual interest. This is truly a path making endeavor to peace and prosperity.
3 years, 2 months ago on Small Things Grow Great by Concord
"At what point did judges begin claiming they could just make up law as they go?" When they realized they were the law, i.e., they decided what the law meant without limitation or penalty for usurpation. The creation of our government as detailed by the constitution is an exercise in contradiction. The goal is to have a "limited government". The constitution allows for politicians to limit themselves. They make laws and decide their legality. The separation of powers did not work, i.e., did not create a check and balance. The corruption has grown worse each decade. Voting does not work, i.e., change or limit government. The only limit on power has proven to be a mass (grassroots) refusal to obey a law. Now we need to expand that disobedience to government itself. All support must be withdrawn, e.g., taxation must be rejected as the theft it is, and worse, because it supports and encourages the concentration of power. The resulting collapse will leave no void, but instead allow for the natural spontaneous order that freedom brings.
Reform implies a system that works at least in theory. Such a system could be fixed by fine tuning with trial and error. Our system of giving up individual sovereignty. i.e., granting an exclusive monopoly on force/morality to a few is fundamentally flawed. Once that is fully understood (grokked?) is becomes clear no "reform" is possible. We can only abolish the concentration of power and create a historically new system where power is distributed to each individual. This self governing would be a challenging new attempt to make freedom work. The old way has failed for 10,000 years. We can remain barbarians or choose a civil society. We can give up war and oppression and achieve peace and prosperity. It's our choice. We control our destiny.