fyngyrz, you are the only person i've seen on/. who understands what the Government is (f)actually doing. However, the rabbit hole does indeed go much further. I strongly encourage you to check out the links below, and read the book.
I imagine this comes as good news for those of us that have decent theater rooms. Although not quite the real theater experience, it sure beats sitting next to strange people on opening night. And now if we could get our movies the same time as regular theater goers, all the better.
I hate to admit it but I am a bit jealous. Yes the guy made a horrible career move, but how many people can say their a millionaire, have a Lamborghini, and a gold medal at age 21? That to me is incredible success, and it pisses me off.
The following are small excerpts from chapters in Mr. Willims book 'The Energy Non-Crisis'
CHAPTER 1 - The Great Oil Deception... There is no true energy crisis. There never has been an energy crisis . . . except as it has been produced by the Federal government for the purpose of controlling the American people....
CHAPTER 3 - Shut Down That Pipeline... My friend answered, "Well, Brother Lindsey, that's one of the major cross-country pipelines carrying crude oil from the West to the East." "Ah," I answered, "That's rather interesting. I've heard there's a possibility of an energy crisis. I'm sure glad those pumps are running full speed ahead."... That was in 1972. You will remember that 1973 was the first time we were told there was really an energy crisis. The East Coast was used as a test for that energy crisis, and there were long lines of people waiting, burning fuel while they waited in line for gas they couldn't get.... Well, the man finally recognized that I was getting a little bit indignant and he said, "well, mister, if you really want to know the truth, the truth is the Federal government has ordered us to close this pipeline down." The old Westerner went on and told how he stood up to the boss man, "Why man, I can hardly believe that. After all, we've got an energy crisis." The boss man answered him, "Sir, we're closing it down because we've been ordered to."...
CHAPTER 4 - An Important Visit by Senator Hugh Chance... What followed included some of the most astonishing answers I have ever heard in my life. This is not opinion, but is actually what I heard from a man who was one of the original developers of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. He said, "Senator Chance, there is no energy crisis! There is an artificially produced energy crisis, and it is for the purpose of controlling the American people. You see, if the government can control energy, they can control industry, they can control an individual, and they can control business. It is well known that everything relates back to crude oil."...
CHAPTER 11 - The Barges Froze and Cracked and Popped... I watched as they stalled, and stalled, and stalled for time... until they had finally stalled long enough! The barges froze, and cracked, and popped. The big steel plates were literally destroyed, and millions of dollars worth of equipment was crushed by ice-Why? Could it be that the government did not want that flow of oil? Could it really be that there is no energy crisis, except the one they want to produce?...
CHAPTER 13 - Why Are These Arabs Here?... What follows is an approximate recall of the questions and answers betweenSenator Chance and Mr. X, one and a half years earlier. If you like, this is the good old "flashback" method. The questions and answers went like this. Senator Hugh Chance had asked, "Mr. X, how much oil is there on the North Slope of Alaska?" "Senator Chance, I'm persuaded there is as much oil as there is in all of Saudi Arabia." "Then, Mr. X, if there is that much oil there, there is not an energy crisis." (Mr. X's only answer was a smile, implying that Senator Chance had hit the nail on the head.) "Mr. X, what do you think the Federal government is really out to do?" "Senator, I personally feel that the American government wants to nationalize the oil companies of America." "Then, Mr. X, if you are so convinced of that fact, have you calculated how long you can remain solvent with present Federal control?" Mr. X was reluctant to answer at first, but then he looked at Senator Chance and said, "Yes, we are so convinced that in fact we, as oil company executives, have made that calculation." "Then how much longer do you think you can remain solvent?" "Until the year 1982." "Then, if what you say is true, why don't you oil compan
While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.
A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?
I'm going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.
I'll define the word freedom. And so I'm not accused of being biased, I'll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.
Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there's government, there's "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave.
I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That's nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.
Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.
By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destro
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.
A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?
I'm going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.
I'll define the word freedom. And so I'm not accused of being biased, I'll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.
Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there's government, there's "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave.
I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That's nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.
Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.
By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destro
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
Slashdot Mirror
This is very hypocritical considering government is antisocial and violent by nature.
fyngyrz, you are the only person i've seen on /. who understands what the Government is (f)actually doing. However, the rabbit hole does indeed go much further. I strongly encourage you to check out the links below, and read the book.
http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/
http://thereisnostate.proboards39.com/
I imagine this comes as good news for those of us that have decent theater rooms. Although not quite the real theater experience, it sure beats sitting next to strange people on opening night. And now if we could get our movies the same time as regular theater goers, all the better.
480p is not HD. Besides, Nintendo already said they will support 480p but no higher.
Theres only been one FF7 port, and that was to PC. What are you talking about?
I hate to admit it but I am a bit jealous. Yes the guy made a horrible career move, but how many people can say their a millionaire, have a Lamborghini, and a gold medal at age 21? That to me is incredible success, and it pisses me off.
By Lindsey Williams
... There is no true energy crisis. There never has been an energy crisis . . . except as it has been produced by the Federal government for the purpose of controlling the American people. ...
... My friend answered, "Well, Brother Lindsey, that's one of the major cross-country pipelines carrying crude oil from the West to the East." "Ah," I answered, "That's rather interesting. I've heard there's a possibility of an energy crisis. I'm sure glad those pumps are running full speed ahead." ... That was in 1972. You will remember that 1973 was the first time we were told there was really an energy crisis. The East Coast was used as a test for that energy crisis, and there were long lines of people waiting, burning fuel while they waited in line for gas they couldn't get. ... Well, the man finally recognized that I was getting a little bit indignant and he said, "well, mister, if you really want to know the truth, the truth is the Federal government has ordered us to close this pipeline down." The old Westerner went on and told how he stood up to the boss man, "Why man, I can hardly believe that. After all, we've got an energy crisis." The boss man answered him, "Sir, we're closing it down because we've been ordered to." ...
... What followed included some of the most astonishing answers I have ever heard in my life. This is not opinion, but is actually what I heard from a man who was one of the original developers of the Prudhoe Bay oil field. He said, "Senator Chance, there is no energy crisis! There is an artificially produced energy crisis, and it is for the purpose of controlling the American people. You see, if the government can control energy, they can control industry, they can control an individual, and they can control business. It is well known that everything relates back to crude oil." ...
... I watched as they stalled, and stalled, and stalled for time ... until they had finally stalled long enough! The barges froze, and cracked, and popped. The big steel plates were literally destroyed, and millions of dollars worth of equipment was crushed by ice-Why? Could it be that the government did not want that flow of oil? Could it really be that there is no energy crisis, except the one they want to produce? ...
... What follows is an approximate recall of the questions and answers betweenSenator Chance and Mr. X, one and a half years earlier. If you like, this is the good old "flashback" method. The questions and answers went like this. Senator Hugh Chance had asked, "Mr. X, how much oil is there on the North Slope of Alaska?" "Senator Chance, I'm persuaded there is as much oil as there is in all of Saudi Arabia." "Then, Mr. X, if there is that much oil there, there is not an energy crisis." (Mr. X's only answer was a smile, implying that Senator Chance had hit the nail on the head.) "Mr. X, what do you think the Federal government is really out to do?" "Senator, I personally feel that the American government wants to nationalize the oil companies of America." "Then, Mr. X, if you are so convinced of that fact, have you calculated how long you can remain solvent with present Federal control?" Mr. X was reluctant to answer at first, but then he looked at Senator Chance and said, "Yes, we are so convinced that in fact we, as oil company executives, have made that calculation." "Then how much longer do you think you can remain solvent?" "Until the year 1982." "Then, if what you say is true, why don't you oil compan
Reformation.org
2-14-6
The following are small excerpts from chapters in Mr. Willims book 'The Energy Non-Crisis'
CHAPTER 1 - The Great Oil Deception
CHAPTER 3 - Shut Down That Pipeline
CHAPTER 4 - An Important Visit by Senator Hugh Chance
CHAPTER 11 - The Barges Froze and Cracked and Popped
CHAPTER 13 - Why Are These Arabs Here?
While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.
A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?
I'm going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.
I'll define the word freedom. And so I'm not accused of being biased, I'll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.
Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there's government, there's "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave.
I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That's nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.
Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.
By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destro
Obviously comprehension isnt your strong suit.
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
The first is a "kinder, gentler" way of descri
While flipping through some TV channels, I was unfortunate enough to catch a few moments of a smirking politician rambling on about freedom and liberty. What a tragic comedy. The fact politicians still have a market to spew their crap is a testament to the lack of thought of the average viewer of such pretended "news" programs.
A few minutes of thought and any literate person of any degree of intelligence would dismiss politicians as con men. However, has any "journalist" on television, radio or in print ever confronted a politician by asking him exactly what he means by freedom? Can you imagine the look on a bureaucrat's face if he was asked to define freedom or liberty?
I'm going to demonstrate how easy it is to prove government is incompatible with freedom or the protection of freedom.
I'll define the word freedom. And so I'm not accused of being biased, I'll use only "legal" definitions: "Liberty; absence of restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 499. Look at the last word, "restraint." Liberty is "Absence of servitude and restraint." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 734. And "free" means: "Without restraint or coercion..." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 498.
Now let's define what governments do, viz., they govern:
"To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
It's correct to say freedom is "Liberty; [an] absence of" government. If there's government, there's "restraint" and therefore, no freedom. By definition, and in practice, government is anti-freedom. Keep in mind any slave had the freedom to do what his master ordered or allowed him to do; he was none the less a slave.
I know, statists (with not a shred of evidence of course) will shout government is there for protection and they're the only men and women who can. That's nonsense, as everyone with even the slightest knowledge of government should already know. There is no duty to protect anyone. And any lawyer claiming otherwise is either lying or was asleep during that part of law school. Like I say; if you doubt me, then sue the police or the "state" for failing to protect you. A team of "state" lawyers will file a motion for a failure to state a claim.
Statists argue there has to be political "laws" i.e., "restraint." Fine, then explain exactly how politicians protect freedom. Accepting such nonsense for sake of argument, statists argue themselves right out of business because it cannot be said, with a straight face, that "states" are protecting freedom and liberty because freedom and liberty do not exist when there is "restraint [and] coercion." The "restraint [and] coercion" is another reason there is no duty to protect anyone.
Statists also support the use of violence to provide and pay for a service. Statists believe it's OK to kill people to make them pay for a service that's never provided. If you doubt this, then refuse to pay taxes. A good one to not pay, if you want to demonstrate a politician's intent to kill, is the vehicle license tax. Go ahead and drive around without a tax plate on your car. See what happens when you peacefully continue to drive when the local revenue cutter puts his emergency lights on.
When NORMAL men and women provide services, even the service of protecting freedom, they do not exercise "restraint or coercion" in providing their services to their customers, thereby destroying freedom. They would not only offer their services on a mutually voluntary basis, they would not restrain us of our freedom in order to protect it i.e., they would not take away that which they want to protect.
By definition the protection of freedom cannot involve "restraint or coercion". And yet, this describes exactly how men and women doing business as a government operate. They coerce us to pay them for protection they have no obligation or intention of providing and they restrain us in millions of ways; restraint that clearly has nothing to do with protection. These smirking politicians destro
The government hoax is probably the oldest, most pervasive and stubborn of hoaxes. It's the belief in non-existent "states" and "nations" and that "government" is both legitimate and necessary. In the geographic area of the North American continent commonly referred to as the "United States," it's claimed only "government" can provide the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." This is nonsense if only for the reason "government" has no duty to protect anyone and their property.
Another reason is: no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun. It's that simple. There are no exceptions unless one believes people have no rights. If one believes people have no rights then "government" is not "necessary" to "protect" what doesn't exist. If you believe people have rights, then you don't "protect" them without their freely given consent. Also, protection is not submission to the violent unaccountable control of another nor is violent domination a legitimate method of doing business. Would you hire people who don't acknowledge you have property, to protect your property? I wouldn't:
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere user; and that use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Resolution #62, April 1933.
What exactly is "government?" Have you ever seen a "government?" While there are varying degrees, "government" is one man violently controlling the life and property of another man. In some places this violent control is "decreed" to be for the latter's "own good" and "protection" and hailed as the "best system in the world." Because it's based on violence, there are no "states" or "nations," "states" being "voluntary associations." You may recognize that violent control over a man's life and property is what we like to call... slavery. Slavery is a form of "government," and in most cases, if not all, synonymous with "government." Govern means control, not protect. Have you ever noticed the word "protect" is mysteriously not included in any definitions of govern?
"govern. To direct and control; to regulate; to influence; to restrain; to manage. State v Ream, 16 Neb 681, 683." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 530.
In "democracies" and so-called "democratic republics," slaves are given the false choice of choosing new masters. The old plantations can be seen as "political subdivisions" such as "cities," only smaller: "nations" have "presidents," "states" have "governors," "counties" have "commissioners," "cities" have "mayors" and plantations have masters.
"Government" is a group of men and women providing the service of protecting "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" at the barrel of a gun. We have no choice in accepting and paying for their wonderful services. Their services are so valuable we're compelled to accept and pay for them. And non-political libertarians and voluntaryists are the extremists?
To keep this short, I'll use statements from politicians themselves i.e., their sacred "law" that's worshipped, revered and most important, feared. Compare the following:
"tax. A forced burden, charge, exaction, imposition or contribution assessed in accordance with some reasonable rule of apportionment by authority of a sovereign state upon the persons or property within its jurisdiction to provide for public revenue for the support of the government, the administration of the law, or the payment of public expenses. 51 AmJ1st Tax 3." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1255.
"The organized use of threats, coercion, intimidation, and violence to compel the payment for actual or alleged services of arbitrary or excessive charges under the guise of membership dues, protection fees, royalties, or service rates. United States v McGlone (DC Pa) 19 F Supp 285, 286." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, page 1051.
The first is a "kinder, gentler" way of descri
So you are ignorant. I thought so.
"The government (usually) isn't evil, you know." Are you out of your mind, or just really ignorant?
The sun doesnt cause cancer, it prevents it. One of the best studies done on this was with the black community in Africa vs America.
I suggest everyone here read the articles linked in the site below before you come to any conclusions. http://www.buildfreedom.com/aidsdir.htm
Well then, its a good thing I know a remedy to that situation.
I never said anything about using a microwave to remove it.
Would it be all that impossible to just remove it from the passport?
factualy what is a "State"?