Because The State Loves You

reply to post by mnemeth1


There was a time that when a story involving any of the issues you mentioned would have been coming to us from across the globe somewhere or followed by video of militants in ski masks and BDUs screaming their demands as they kick in an innocent's door in the dead of night. I see these things and I can't help but to think of the old news footage of the KGB on a warpath with no regard to human rights.
Is there anything we can do to stop the derailment of our once great country or is it already too far gone?
I sincerely hope that there is enough time to change the course or these issues will be the least of our worries.

Great job putting this together.

Originally posted by DrinkYourDrug

Imagine a corporation in a "free-market" owning all the commons that the state owns today. Imagine this corporation offfering a deal to the public: that they pay exactly what the pay the state today, under the exact terms and also that no customer of the corporation may deal with a non-customer in any way whatsoever. It is a completely "voluntary" deal. Should you enter into the deal would you call paying taxes to the corporation "robbery"? Or would you rather not enter into the deal and stay and rot on your property?

I would use the services of a competing organization, as would millions of others. This would mean the original organization would have to create fair terms to attract customers (unlike the state they would be unable to force everybody to pay and obey their terms at gunpoint).

The point is there are no other competing organisations offering you a service. The road in front of your home is owned by this corporation and in order for you to leave your home and step onto their property you either take their deal or stay put in your home.

Large monopolies do not exist in the free market.

In the absence of a state, large monopolies with extreme coercive power are what will form in a "free market". Witness the scenario in any place where the state is extremely weak or non-existent. You think those who use the coercive power of the state today would bat an eyelid before forming their own personal mercenary bands to directly establish their control?

Any modicum of competition that exists in the market today is because a state with monopoly on coercive power exists and in most cases is not interested in stiffling competition. You remove the state with its monopoly on coercive power and private bands with coercive power will take over and establish a state like structure with no accountability to anyone.

You are worried about your state launching murderous campaigns abroad with tax funded money? Same murderous campaigns will be launched within your society by the same people controlling the state, when the stae is dissolved. I am not saying that is a bad thing. I wholly welcome it. I would rather see Western thugs murder their own rather than murdering defenceless people in far off countries. So I strongly support the dissolution of state in the West. But I am arguing here purely from an intellectual point of view. I know this discussion makes no difference to what happens in the West anyway.

It is not as if humans are genetically incapable of using coercion individually or collectively and they require a state to do so and once the state disappears, the coercion too will disappear and one will be left with a "free market". Individuals and business that have no qualms in using the state coercion apparatus for personal ends will have no qualms in using private bands of armed thugs to achieving the same results and in the absence of a state coercion appartus that can limit the scope of such private armed thugs, they will rule. Perhaps that is what the libertarians want, private armed thugs ruling without any accountability to the public.

In a society of individuals driven exclusively by immediate self-interest, no individual businessman or coproration desires competition or wishes to tolerate it. So they will use everything they can to wipe out competition, including use of physical coercion. So monopolies are inevitable in a society without a state.

You make it sound as if paying for the upkeep of commons is the only thing taxes pay for.

It is not the consumer's decision what the price he pays goes towards.

Oh so I'm happy for pay for whatever commons I use, therefore it is moral for the state to take half my income at gunpoint and use the majority of it to pay for services I don't want or use?

It is not your decision what the cost of the services you use should be. The taxes that you pay are for the privilege of stepping on to the state property. The rest of the services are free, even to you

What sort of freedom do you get under the current system obeying countless unjust laws?

Hmm.. Interesting, now you are talking about just and unjust laws. Perhaps you should dwell more on it, justice, instead of your self-interest. Then you may understand the role of a state.

So because I want to use commons, while they have a gun to my head they can start calling out whatever terms they like? I use commons, therefore I must also contribute to illegal wars, other peoples education, an oppressive police force, bank bailouts, government debt, etc. I don't agree to those terms.

If you don't like the terms, stop using state property in any way. You won't make any money that way if you even survive beyond a few days, so you don't have to worry about paying any taxes either.

If you disagree with the way your state is operating and there are enough like you, you can probably do something about changing it.

What about if I calculate the costs of my use, then ask for a refund for 90% of my tax back?

It is not up to you to decide what the cost of your use is, it is up to the owner of the property, the state.

No, it is very different because consumers have a choice. They are not having a gun pointed at them and forced into the transaction. They can deal with a competitor or no one at all. Therefore businesses must create terms and conditions that are fair. The state can do what it wants.

Any business that understands the consumers have no choice of not using its services, can set any terms it wants. Currently no business is allowed to set any terms it wants, because it is controlled by the state. In the absence of a state every business that understands that the consumers have no choice but to use their services will set any terms it wants.

I disagree. That (personal advancement) is the current goal of everyone. It is human nature. The sooner we have a system to accommodate that, the better. It's not as if we can change human nature to get it to fit to the current system.

I happen to know many humans for who that is not true. However I won't try to convince you that such humans exist. If you don't know such people, there is little I can do by way convincing you. But I can prove that in such a society, a moral state, of the kind you desire, is an impossibility.

So the choice is yours, you change or you will have more of what you have today.

IMO a moral state is ideal, but no state is still better than the current system.

You should probably try relocating to Somalia, it has no state. But if you wish to reduce your country, which I am guessing is a Western state, to another Somalia, you have my complete support.

A state run by selfish individuals must not be allowed to have coercive power. Else those in power use that power and coercion to control others to their own advantage. When people pay for what they use, the power is in the hands of the people (voting for what they want with their wallets).

I edited what I quoted by introducing a 'not' and removing a 'to' in the first sentence, because I believe that is your intent.

A state without coercive power is a contradiction in terms. In fact, a state is one that has monopoly on coercive power. Again, absence of state doesn't mean absence of coercive power. It simply means anyone who wishes to use it is limited only by the existence of another coercive power bigger than them. The biggest gang of crooks will replace the state in their coercive power, the only difference being there won't be anyone bothering about your complaints of being "robbed" if you are even allowed to make them.

reply to post by Observor


spot on!
nice post here, dude!


caught your humor on my post.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Well the question you have to ask yourself is whether the colonists could have overthrown British rule by simply not complying with them.

What would the Red Coats have done?

Locked up all the colonists without a trial?

Would they have spent a mighty fortune on building prisons to hold them all?

The fact of the matter is that the colonists could have ended British rule without firing a shot had they chosen to go that route.

You have obviously never ever dealt with a real bully. FORCE is the ONLY thing a bully will respect.

What would the British have done????
They would have done what has been done from time immemorial. What is being done today although people do not see and recognize it for what it is.

#1. You figure out who the "Ring Leaders" are. The people with the guts to stand up to tyranny.

#2. You trump up charges against them. If possible you hang them, if not that toss them in jail for a LONG time.

#3. YOU TARGET THEIR FAMILY!
This is key.
a. Make sure the house is broken into and females are raped and young males beaten. Heck QUARTER your soldiers in the house so they have repeated access.
b. Make sure the livelihood of the family is taken away through fines or any other means possible.
c. PUBLICLY toss the family out on the street or make the family slaves.

You think this is not done??? How about done by AMERICANS???

The United States invaded Haiti in July 1915 and held [Haiti] under military occupation for nineteen years. While in Haiti, marines installed a puppet president, dissolved the legislature at gunpoint, denied freedom of speech,...

Meanwhile, marines waged war against insurgents (called Cacos) who for several years maintained an armed resistance in the countryside, and imposed a brutal system of forced labor that engendered even more fierce Haitian resistance. By official U.S. estimates, more than 3,000 Haitians were killed during this period; a more thorough accounting reveals that the death toll may have reached 11,500.[2] The occupation also reorganized and strengthened the Haitian military. Now called the Gendarmerie, the new military organization was officered by marines and molded in the image of the Marine Corps.[3]

An occupation is, in one sense, a temporary arm of the state created to carry out a series of specific tasks..... supporters of the occupation, and those responsible for it, proposed that these goals would also bring about specific gains for Haiti. They pointed, for example, to the work of the Navy Medical Corps and to the construction of roads, bridges, buildings, and telephone systems under the marines' supervision.[4]

….On the ground, cross-cultural dynamics complicated Washington's script for the occupation. Some members of the Haitian elite initially cooperated with the U.S. military, even viewing their presence as potentially helpful, but other Haitians, long suspicious of foreign powers and of government in general, were less eager to play their parts. Many Haitians adopted a watchful stance in relation to the invading blan (or blancs, as foreigners were called), some engaging in varied forms of everyday resistance, while the Cacos, initially representing a small but significant sector of the population, mounted their armed rebellion. In time, the unabashed racism of many Marine Corps officers and enlisted men, and the outright brutality of the forced labor system implemented to carry out building projects, galvanized the population in opposition to the U.S. presence.[5] Far from laying the groundwork for the hoped-for advent of democracy, material improvements in transportation and communication served to increase the efficiency of the occupation as a police state, with marines and gendarmes in command of every district of the country.[6]

www.ibiblio.org...

Civilization is a very thin veneer. Anyone who thinks our political leaders are actually "civilized" should read what a Admiral had to say about a well know LIBERAL democrat!

...A former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Kerry's recollection of their discussions: "[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt,told me --30 years ago when he was still CNO [chief naval officer in Vietnam] that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO,

young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass,by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. "We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control", the admiral said....

www.counterpunch.org...

reply to post by TupacShakur

I agree, the pamphlet arrest where the dude handed them out to jurors seemed justifiable...

No THAT was most certainly NOT justifiable!

The pamphlet told the juror what his Constitutional rights and obligations were PERIOD. This is information the JUDGE should be clearly stating to EVERY JURY!!!

In fact it is becoming a LAW in some states thanks to the groups handing out the pamphlets.

This is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT move any American can make to protect our freedom. WE as Jurorists have the RIGHT and duty to judge not only the case by the LAW itself. We as Jurorists CAN set aside laws passed by Congress!

THis is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite want to keep it hidden!

On appeal, however,

the jurors' action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts -- to nullify the law if it chose

-- became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.

Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous...

FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case...... prorev.com...

reply to post by crimvelvet


sorry, i can't make the letters bigger,



OMFG!!!!!!!

are you serious?

the US did that?

in 1915? why?

weren't we in a war in europe then?

reply to post by Noeffingway

Quick question? Who is here to help such things, Who do we contact about the blatant misguidance of our laws of state and goverment? Theres alot going on nowadays and the things look like they headed down hill. Its no longer a war with anyone, Its not a muslim thing or a racist thing nor pregudice. I feel as if we are being pushed to look at a bunch of smoke screens while there is clearly wrongs being done right under our noses.

Keep an eye on the Federal Register. That is where all the blasted regulations are published before they become law. The public has any where from a month to 120 days to scream bloody murder and get things changed before stuff is set in concrete.

I talk about the newest one up for public comment HERE

Originally posted by crimvelvet
We as Jurorists CAN set aside laws passed by Congress!

THis is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite want to keep it hidden!

I believe you meant to say "We as jurors" and not "We as Jurists".

Anyway, these are the exact kind of insane sentiments why such things as jury nullification are not publicised. You think a bunch of 12 random guys from one small part of the country should have more power than duly elected legislature of the country? If so why bother with legislatures? Why not have juries make laws, while they are at it?

First off, I hope you do know that juries have only a recommendatory power, meaning they can only recommend to the judge what the court's verdict should be. The presiding judge is not bound by the recommendation, although they rule against a jury verdict so rarely that very few are even aware of it.

So a jury nullification is essentially recommending to the judge that the law itself is archaic and hence should not be valid. If the judge himself/herself doesn't feel able to accept such a recommendation, he/she does not advise them of their "right" to do so, not to make a mockery of a trial by jury.

Judges/juries in lower courts declaring as invalid laws is not meant to act as a power that supercedes elected legislatures, but to act as a reminder to the legislature to repeal archaic laws. Once a lower court rules a law as invalid, the state is forced to appeal in a higher court in order to reverse the precedent set and if and when the highest relevant court holds the law as invalid, the legislature may repeal the law since it is ineffective anyway.

In Common Law where there exist no written constitutions, the highest courts usually invoke 'principles of Natural Justice' to invalidate laws passed by legislatures. Where there exists a written constitution, the courts will find some relevant provision of the constitution which makes the law invalid.

An excellent example of laws that juries can nullify is laws making sodomy an offence.

So unless there is a consensus within the judiciary on the unjust or archaic nature of the law, juries nullifying laws as they please will only make the judges reject the juries' recommendations and deliver the verdict as per the judge's own conclusions on the case.

If anyone believes an existing law, regardless of when it was made, is against 'principles of Natural Justice' in Common Law jurisdictions or ultravires the constitution where such exist, they should directly challenge the law in the highest court of the land.

"We the people" is what is reflected in the legislatures, not juries. Otherwise you can easily find juries "nullifying" laws that prohibit involuntary servitude.

Those upset with the existing laws obviously do not constitute a majority or the legislatures would be reflecting their will. Even if you are in a minority and strongly feel your will should be reflected in the laws, you do that through usurping power through force, not by searching legal precedents that serve your cause.