Categorized | Call of Shame

CoS – Jun 9, 2015 – Statism is a Mental Disorder

Posted on June 13th, 2015 by Calvin

June 17, 2015 Update: I did finish the podcast from last week, but I am not going to finish the notes for this recording. Between what’s already noted below and the good analysis from the many comments; its all documented enough to put this UCC crap to rest, for now at least.

Return visitors here, and listeners to the show, get that facts and evidence are objective, reproducible, and tangible. No amount of redefining your way out of the terms used in a question can compensate for an absence of facts and evidence to support your claims, but lets listen to a statist try anyway, here is a sample of some of the logical excrement:

  • Anarchy is the problem, not the solution.” <- So abolishing institutionalized violence and slavery is not the solution to the problem of institutionalized violence and slavery?
  • Government is in a state of anarchy.” <- So an institution-of-rulers is in a state of having no rulers?
  • My questions weren’t being answered.” <- Why don’t you review the record and listen to who wasn’t answering who’s questions. Hint: its really obvious.
  • After Marc explains that “comply-or-die” is a phrase used to describe the force continuum, Clint and Jan dismiss this fact no less than 5 times throughout the recording!
  • Because a bear can kill a bear in the animal kingdom, that does not equate to humans cannot live without institutionalized coercive hierarchies, or in a state of anarchy if you will.
  • Because we are talking about criminal men and women who call themselves “government,” when we occasionally refer to them under their chosen nomenclature; that does not mean we accept the non-sequitur that “government exists.”
  • Clint claims Marc isn’t providing any facts right after he just laid the facts out. <- Suggestion: try listening, its there.
  • The Federal Reserve is not federal; total BS.” <- not my area of expertise, but for some reason I think that’s wrong….
  • Just because you say there is no government [which we aren’t, we are asking what facts and evidence is there to prove government does exist: his argument], that does not mean there is no government.” <- So much for the fallacy of proving a negative, Clint is [again] demanding Marc to prove something that doesn’t exist.
  • Clint condescendingly talks down to Marc many times, such as when describing his language as a catchphrase.

As I mentioned during the podcast, there are a myriad of mental disorders, like schizophrenia, where sufferers actually believe in things that are not there and that defy objective reality. It is not useful, nay; counterproductive and unhealthy, to continue to debate someone who does not accept empirical evidence and objective reality; that’s how we got to statism in the first place. If we are to object to and reject statism because of the obvious violence and schizophrenic beliefs that come with it, we must proceed with caution against its most fringe enablers to avoid such distasteful discourse.

Editor’s note: I have only completed notes for the first 22 minutes or so, there are many more fallacies to note, but its hard to do so in one sitting, I will finish the notes, and yesterday’s podcast in response to this recording, later.


129 Comments For This Post

  1. Andy Says:

    I love Marc’s audible yawnsss.

  2. Boxer Says:


    Those yawns were awesome. I don’t think Clint picks up on social cues.

  3. Boxer Says:

    It appears that because a word is defined, Clint believes that it comes into existence. In other words, you can’t agree on the definition of unicorn unless you agree that unicorns exist.

  4. Andy Says:

    Clint and Jan should get parking tickets and use what they’ve got to defend themselves against the “government”. I’d pay to see that.

  5. Thad Says:

    Clint does not like answering direct questions, likes to rattle on about a whole lot of nothing. He did not wish to admit that people who operate under the illusion of “government”grant themselves the right to use force or threat of force. Sure it might be unlawful on the books they cannot do such things…..but then, if you grant yourself immunity to most of those “crimes” then they have nothing to worry about violating people. Clint failed finish the view of that for a reason. That there might be laws against said actions, but said actions from “authority” gets a pass 99% of the time. The force continum is a policy. Fun fact Clint, “governmental types/authority” bypass law by creating their own special set of rules. Want proof, glad you asked….anytime police shoot and kill someone, the common response is…..our officers followed police policy/procedures. Notice no law was required as a standard of their actions. “Befehl ist Befehl” did not work out so well for the Nazi’s though…..

  6. Andy Says:

    It’s so obvious that Clint is not seeking facts/honesty/truth. He’s trying to win his arguments with rationalizations rather than facts. He may have set a record for the most non sequiturs used in two hours fifty six minutes.

  7. Boxer Says:

    Marc: Are you a complete idiot, Clint?

    Clint: Let’s define the terms “complete” and “idiot”.

  8. Andy Says:

    What Marc does, advocates anarchy, voluntary interactions. Clint says what Marc does is dangerous. No rulers is dangerous? So Clint isn’t an expert on his own life to know when he wants someone to leave him alone — he doesn’t know when he wants to interact voluntarily — so to not be dangerous, Clint needs a ruler(s)?

    Who’s idea was it to have Jan Irvin as a moderator? He wasn’t a moderator. More like a prosecutor or a judge siding with his counterpart.

  9. Andy Says:

    Everything aside, I had several laughs at Clint and Jan’s expense.

  10. Boxer Says:


    I don’t know, I don’t think this is Marc’s best work. I think he was way too generous to Clint and Jan (they are on the same team, right?). Marc should have stuck with the Marcratic method. If Clint believes that a government exists, Marc should have just asked (forced?) him to prove it. Marc allowed Clint to go off on so many tangents that, had I not been familiar with Marc’s work, I would have been lost and thought Marc was on his heels. The strength in Marc’s arguments is that you don’t make any, you let the statists force their religion on you.

  11. Andy Says:

    Jan, why must seven billion people have to understand and use the definitions set forth by half a million people calling themselves government?

    When is initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion not initiation of violence, threat of violence and coercion? When is having the initiation of violence against an individual a voluntary act by the individual on the receiving end of the violence?

    “…a myriad of mental disorders, like schizophrenia, where sufferers actually believe in things that are not there and that defy objective reality.”

    Clint, show me the four elements of a contract wherein I agreed to “government’s” use of force continuum, aka, comply or die.

  12. desertspeaks Says:

    and of course CLINT did not produce the magical unicorn case that turns his “friend” into a private citizen that cops bow to.
    CLINT, seek therapy, nothing you have to say is any more believable than what resident ovomit has to say!

  13. Andy Says:

    Clint said at least twice “the law under God”. Okay Clint, factually prove with facts, empirical evidence, the existence of a God. A definition won’t do it.

  14. Andy Says:

    Boxer said, “had I not been familiar with Marc’s work, I would have been lost and thought Marc was on his heels.”

    Would you have thought Jan was an impartial moderator or a participant siding with Clint? A person not familiar with Marc’s work, could perhaps “see” Marc as being on his heels because it was more akin to a judge-prosecutor duo against Marc.

  15. Andy Says:

    If they decide to do a Part two, get a different moderator. Have Larken Rose or Richard Grove be the moderator.

  16. Boxer Says:


    “Would you have thought Jan was an impartial moderator or a participant siding with Clint?”

    Is that rhetorical? I think its fairly obvious. I just think Marc gave him way too much slack.

  17. Boxer Says:

    Alright. Finally finished the entire audio segment. That was painful. Here is my brief take: The parallels between the statist religion and the Christian one are rather interesting. Clint believes that, in order to understand the statist religion, you need to spend an inordinate amount of time defining each term and studying (catechism?) their scripture. Then, and only then, will you be viewed, in the eyes of the statist Church and members (parishioners), as knowledgable enough to protect yourself (or at least minimize the damage) by the statist Church elders.

    In fact, I believe Clint even made reference to the fact that he studied the Bible but historically disregarded it and now, it somehow makes more sense…?
    Additionally, when discussing the definition of terms, Clint could not comprehend that defining a term does not make the thing being defined exist. For example, when Marc used the word “citizen”, Clint would believe that this is proof that “governments” exist. He was confusing the abstract with reality. This would be the equivalent of defining parishioners, and, because we’ve identified (defined) what parishioners are, this becomes evidence and proof that God exists. I mean, how could God NOT exist if there weren’t parishioners?????

    Marc’s position seemed to be consistent (though unclear to new listeners) – “we” are free to hallucinate as much as “we” want; its when you force others to believe in the same hallucinations that you destroy liberty and autonomy. And since there is no proof of the existence of the statist “god”, its all based on force. What statist forget is that arguing statist “scripture” is pointless because “we” will never know what the people who wrote it actually meant. And, like the Bible, maybe it was meant to mean more than one thing or maybe they wrote what they did because of threat, duress, and coercion.

  18. citta Says:

    Only 56 minutes into this and it is hard going, may i suggest that any future follow up takes place on twitter ,, where there is a character limit!
    OR if you really must do a talk then please have definitions agreed before the show starts .. easy enough, just each one submit the definitions they are using… without the preamble!

  19. dan Says:

    I offer this up in response to the Definitions Dynamic Duo:

  20. Eyal Says:

    You gotta stop saying “He acted as government”, and use “He calls himself government” or “claims to represent the government”

    Like this you leave no room for confusion

  21. Jeff Evans Says:

    Total waste of time. I would have been a more informative guest.

  22. Andy Says:

    Boxer said, “Is that rhetorical? I think its fairly obvious.”

    No. It’s a solid question. If you were unaware of Marc’s work would you have thought Jan Irvin was a moderator or sided with Clint — two debating one?

    “I just think Marc gave him way too much slack.”

    Do you mean, like enough rope to hang themselves, so to speak?

    Most people that are unaware of Marc’s work are unaware of non-contradictory logic. They’re use to hearing people state an opinion and cheery pick facts to support their opinion while omitting pertinent facts. That’s normal to them, especially when people speak with a mere tone of authority including belittling or talking condescendingly as opposed to using scientific reasoning based on statistics and probability based on facts/empirical evidence to draw conclusions from. Also, they’re mostly unaware of logical fallacies, which Jan and Clint spewed many.

  23. Mike Says:

    if I never heard of Marc and listened to Clint for the first time, I would have changed the channel within the first minute. This is not a debate. Clint is so self absorbed bore

  24. Daniel Says:

    Seems like Clint is in denial of facts. Hey clint! Why don’t you write down on a piece of paper that your an asshole. (Define) urban dictionary! Term= being arrogant, rude,obnoxious, or being a total dickhead. Than call yourself a govtard. Doesn’t change how your acting. Or makes it OK. Therefore your still just an asshole. How’s that for defining terms. I can feel Marc just wants to just reach through the mic and do a BIM bam boom. They really put the non aggression prinple to the test.

  25. oooorgle Says:

    Clint, WOW!

  26. Thad Says:

    The thing is Clint and maybe even Jan think that all these magical laws/citations or the like mean those men and women play acting care to recognize a set of rules. Those rules we are forced to follow was not meant to ever be what they follow. It is why they write policy/procedures for themselves that override “law”. Which oddly always seems to have wiggle room to be subject to change as they please. Clint stating that he sited a certain code to a TSA agent and that she “saw the error of her ways” is a fallacy because ( He ASSUMES they let him free because he envoked magically thinking/words. For all Clint really knows they my of thought he was a crazy loon and decided to cut their losses. Then again, that is a guess as to why they let him go as is Clint was a mere guess why the TSA let him go. I at least know I am guessing, Clint believes it is true because of magical thinking.

  27. oooorgle Says:

    “Laws” mean about as much to me as the opinions of a drooling idiot- because that’s exactly what they are: idiotic opinions, backed up by bullies with guns, which you and I were forced to buy for them to use against us.

  28. Reeodd Says:

    You can tell when Clint’s intelligence has been overcome in this discussion. It’s when he interrupts and changes the direction of the discussion back down to a level of intelligence he feels more comfortable with. By the way people never practiced healing other people before any government reared it’s ugly head.

  29. Boxer Says:


    Of course I thought Jan was teamed up with Clint. Jan even spoke for Clint a few times (similar to how a “judge” speaks for a “prosecutor”).

    I think Marc just gave them too much time. He should have cut Clint off and said “Clint, stop. Just stop. Let me finish my thought and you can have yours. It would be nice if we were both allotted equal time. What say you, Jan?”

  30. Jim Says:

    The constitution is rules for government. Ref: Art. 1, Sec. 8, clauses 14, 18 and the 10th ammendment. There is no reference to the government having power to make rules for the people. The 50 USC’s are therefore rules for government.

    Understanding Spooners essay “No Treason…”, Calif. Gov. Codes 11120 and 54950 and Penhallow vs Doane’s Administrators where it says that all governmennts are artificial persons and can not attain parity with the tangible(humans), and that gov’s can only interface with other corporate atificial persons, I believe explains things quite clearly.

    “The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest unless expressly named. ….” People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)
    Where in any legal definition of the legal term “person” can be found the words “people or sovereign”?

    It is a maxim of law that “the creation is never greater than the creator”.
    Government was created by man, no???

    Capacity was mentioned but not discussed. Marc was speaking from the capcity of autonomy, while Clint was claiming the need to escape the presumptiom that we are assumed to be in the capacity of some governmentally created entity when confronted by gov. reps. If the people are sovereign, then public servants are the fiduciaries, trustees and protectors of the peoples rights.

    Wasn’t the great American experiment in government that man can and should govern himself(Autonomy)? Therefore exercising the principles of non-aggression and do no harm?

    What facts and evidence exists that a creation can have jurisdiction over its creator???

  31. Boyntonstu Says:

    Clint said that the Bible uses capitalization. Wrong! The Hebrew Bible is written with all capital letters and without vowels or punctuation points.

    Question for Clint: “What facts do you rely to state that 1,000,000 people wandered in the desert for 40 years as described in the Bible?”

    (Show us bones, broken pottery, garbage, or excrement as proof.)

    Without the Exodus being a fact; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam fail the truth test.

  32. desertspeaks Says:

    @ Citta

    Citta said “citta Says:
    June 14th, 2015 at 3:09 am
    Only 56 minutes into this and it is hard going, may i suggest that any future follow up takes place on twitter ,, where there is a character limit!


  33. El Says:

    Men are hypocrites.

  34. El Says:


  35. Inigo Montoya Says:

    Is this guy Clint some kind of low-grade moron? He is doing just what Marc says statists always do — equating written law with government. He cannot accept empirical facts or evidence rather than his own predetermined, preordained conclusions. Marc is showing through ACTUAL EVIDENCE that flesh and blood persons acting as governments DO NOT conform to the DEFINITION of the stated purpose of government, i.e. the protection of life, liberty, and property.

  36. Inigo Montoya Says:

    Clint starts out by breaking his own rule at the outset for this discussion to define each of the terms to be used.

    So is a bench warrant for someone’s arrest, and the authorized force continuum not codified in “law”? The fact that this occurs thousands of times each day. People are locked who are not, or have not caused any injury or damage to another human being, or his/her property.

    Clint seems to worship laws made by others when there is no proof whatsoever that those laws apply to him or anyone else. I’m wondering when he will come up against people who don’t believe in his magic words or ‘constitutional rights’.

  37. Inigo Montoya Says:

    So Clint is pushing the idea that people, yet unborn, can be bound by a small group with a piece of paper, witnessed, but not signed by anyone, elected by another subset of the People. And, any and all subsequent laws/codes must be obeyed without question. Who defined these Peoples, the same one’s establishing the government/laws? Where is the consent? Is consent optional? If not, then it is not consent, but coercion. Any relationship/agreement entered into under threat/duress/coercion is not valid by anyone’s definition — legal or otherwise.

  38. Inigo Montoya Says:

    I have to give Marc credit for endurance on this one. I don’t know how he could find a moderator who is not also a statist — immersed in religious rhetoric and definitions. The whole point behind Marc’s approach of using simple logic and the Socratic method is to bypass all the charlatans who believe that the laws/constitutions/etc. are laced with ‘magic words’, that if only we understood them, we would be victorious.

  39. Inigo Montoya Says:

    So, according to Clint, if you do not show any ID or offer your name or evidence of who you are, then the government will leave you alone? I’m sure he is also one of those who will also tell you that ‘silence is consent’.

    I am a little curious as to why Marc does not press a little harder on the question of “What evidence do you have that the laws you quote apply” to anyone at all?

    Clint dodges the question of whether or not government uses threat duress or coercion when the answer is obviously yes. I wonder if he stops his car when a cop puts on the red lights behind him.

  40. Inigo Montoya Says:

    So these guys are arguing the “State” is merely a collection of abstract definitions backed by people with real guns, therefore we must obey them no matter what?


    If you are on a plane that crash lands in the wilderness, and the only one who can help you or your family was medically trained, received an MD, but no longer has a license, would you turn him down? Is he no longer a doctor?

    Would people who were veterans, but no longer soldiers be able to help fight off headhunters?

    IF you were all stranded on a desert island, would people go totally nuts without the presence of police or government bureaucrats?

  41. frost jack Says:

    where does government get authority ???

  42. Rick Says:

    Marc, you did better than I could have done. Thumbs up! I don’t know how you remained so cool. I think I would have hung up and ended the interview. He side tracked the conversation with definitions more times than I could count and refused to answer direct questions. On top of that you were ganged up on. Jan was not impartial.

    I totally concur with your idea of a doctor. I myself am a Naturopath that works privately. I don’t call myself “doctor” but my patients certainly do. I have no state sanctioned licenses of any kind. Like Lysander Spooner correctly said, “the only two people that need to be concerned with my qualifications are me and my client (patient)”.

  43. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer, you may be right.

    Maybe Marc should have stayed on point on Clint as he did with the court on Ian Freeman’s case. At least in that case the judge hung up on him and didn’t drag it out for seventeen hours or however long this was.

  44. Thad Says:

    I think you did as well as you could considering. I was told but have to yet confirm a video on youtube showing Clint was using a laptop to recite his scripture. In fact even if that is not true, the guy uses the same citations and so forth for any interaction when “debating” Pre-made arguements of others or defined words he refused to give wiggle room too. You both was to come to a agreed terms, you tried but Clint and Jan wanted only their terms/words to stand alone. As well as they demanded you cite where you got your definitions from, while they mantained and even mocked/ridiculed you for not taking their citations/definations as gospel truth/factual. Sad little men those two were…sad.

  45. Eye Gore Says:

    Wow, just… wow.

  46. Greg Says:

    90% was Clint avoiding the questions and talking about definitions. He is so caught up in being technical, he tries to mumbo jumbo his way out of answering simple questions. After all this talk he have provided 0 facts. Instead he just recite some “the kings law” magic but dont have any evidence. Mark won the debate by letting Clint talk his definitions nonsense

  47. Matt Says:

    Clint is delusional… he actually claims that men and women don’t exist becaust there is “no proof”, but somehow “government” is a real entity, a sentient being, because he said so or because psychopathic men and women wrote down these opinions on a piece of paper?! LMAO pure comedy gold…

  48. Matt Says:

    Clint BELIEVES that legality equals reality… that de jure “laws” are somehow magically de facto FACTS…

    For example, this is a de jure constitution (a piece of paper with an opinion):

    Kentucky Constitution
    Section 2

    Absolute and arbitrary power denied.

    Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.

    Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.

    But is that still FACTUALLY true tho?

    These morons keep asking for facts, yet the internet is full of videos that show how cops are physically attacking people and violate their own rules all the time, same with judges and prosecutors etc… and he ADMITS that psychopaths exist and how they IGNORE their own rules, yet somehow magically everyone will obey their own magical rules…

    Believing that OPINIONS/DEFINITIONS are somehow also facts is indeed delusional and a mental disorder.

    Clint is rude and moronic…

  49. Matt Says:

    When Jan was a guest on Marc’s show, he actually said “Government doesn’t exist, can you point your finger at it?”, yet somehow he now agrees with Clint delusions… he’s clearly a flip flopping fraud.

  50. Jeff Says:

    Posterity in the constitution only applies to those who signed. I am not one of “we the people”

  51. Jeff Says:

    Objection, non responsive.

  52. Jeff Says:

    If their rules apply and matter so much, then why hasn’t he become a private citizen? I’d try it it if I had more evidence it would keep THEM from assaulting me.

  53. Steve Says:

    Wow, Talk about a lopsided debate. The moderator was very biased for Clint and against Marc. We think you won Marc because we understand your logic and position. But as far as bringing them to your camp… it was a bust. Jan the moderator was obviously not unbiased and clearly unfair. The whole debate was unbalanced because it was 2 against 1, instead of 1 against 1.

    Debates are good, but not when you set yourself up for failure.

    If I were ignorant and a newcomer to all of this… I would have to side with Clint and Jan. Legal quotes seems to impress people.

    I found myself yawning thru Clint’s rants too if that is any consolation to you.

    My suggestion: No more biased moderators like Jan.

  54. Ben Says:

    I don’t give a big-red-rats-ass what any of them believes in. The fact of the matter is that Marc’s research and discoveries are proven facts and they can be utilized, in your favor, in the real world. Just within the first 20 min. of this interview Marc already proved it, beyond a reasonable doubt, with facts that there is no government. Just lying, thieving, murderous psychos operating under a presumed title and a compulsory system through fear, threats, and coercion through jail, physical violence and/or death.

  55. TOM MIXX Says:


  56. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Tom, yeah, I considered it many times, but the more Clint talks, the less sense he makes. Also, I went into this thinking we were all friends, and we’d be getting to the facts, that Jan would be moderating; that is not what happened though. Clint misrepresented my position a few times e.g., “I’ve been to jail, listen to me” and Jan never called him on it. In a sense it was a waste of time, but, those who listen with an open mind will come to the same conclusion, Clint didn’t provide any facts to support his argument there are citizens, states and governments. So it does discredit his arguments as all he does is use definitions as if those negate the facts I presented. His devout followers are impressed with his monologues with endless definitions, they are not looking at the facts though. I’m not impressed with endless definitions with no connection to any facts.

  57. TOM MIXX Says:

    like arguing with the wall otherwise know as a judge.

  58. TOM MIXX Says:

    “Statism is a Mental Disorder”
    this makes that statement quite clear doesn’t it?

  59. Darrell Says:

    Warning: Before listening to this interview please take a minimum of two mild pain relievers of your choosing, pad all sharp corners to stop any cuts from bashing you head on table, and avoid the urge to rip your speakers out of the wall because you will want this painful “debate” to stop but it never gets past the first question.

    I am sure Clint did not tell the truth about his encounter at the airport because he said he was let go after 15 minutes. This “debate” shows clearly that Clint cannot say anything in just 15 minutes.

    Clint and Jan acted as prosecutor and judge, both fed off each other to stop any form of rational discussion to avoid answering any questions.

  60. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Darrell, Why mild pain relievers? I would suggest extra-strength or using a vaporizer and get pretty stoned first. Not only can’t Clint make a point in less than 15 minutes, it also shows Clint cannot show any facts to support his argument there are citizens, states, and governments, which was the point of this “debate” anyway.

  61. Inigo Montoya Says:

    I’m reading ‘Government Indicted’ for the third time.

    Marc quoted Groucho Marx, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes!”

    That sums up this ‘debate’ perfectly. Millions of documented instances of government acting as no more than thugs and bullies are undeniable FACTS. Apparently not for Clint and Jan, however.

  62. Sinon Says:

    Clints voice is just like agent Smith from the Matrix!
    Awesome…. your being trolled by the best.
    No one could actually be as stupid as Clint pretends to be and I’m not sure anyone could be more annoying.
    I made it to 1hr 5min and cracked. We all got Trolled!

  63. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Sinon, very possible, but it looks like Clint and Jan believe the garbage Clint was putting out. You listened to more than I could, I can’t bring myself to go through that again. It was awful, I felt like Michael Scott when he has to listen to Toby.

  64. Boxer Says:

    @ Marc Stevens:

    It became readily apparent that Clint and Jan consider “law” to be factual. In other words, you can’t prove that its comply or die unless it is written in fancy books or on parchment paper. This is the schizophrenia part of it; they don’t know where reality stops and fictions begin.

  65. RAD Says:

    Did Clint ever produce any facts or did he just keep citing the scriptural dogmas and rattling off definitions? Jan kept on Marc to produce scriptural/legal citations to “prove” his conclusions. What does quoting dogmas as “proof” have to do with the trivium? He was on Marc to provide some sacred dogma that explicitly states how the government operates as if just because the dogmas say so that is the truth? I think when you push aside clint’s faith in the dogmas of the state religion, his website probably does have some interesting info. Also, the beard is a good look for both Marc and Clint IMO. I don’t think this is just a big “waste of time” unless your goal is to “win” or persuade the other side, thich is ego, not trivium or “reason”. The point of this type of debate, if you study socratic reasoning is to get the ideas out there and examine them, not to prove you are righter than the other “side”. You notice often Socrates does not persuade the other side, even if his questions do bring contradictions to light. Often people will cling to their dogmas DESPITE the contradictions or lack of evidence. People often believe what they WANT to believe.

  66. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Rad, no, Clint didn’t present a single fact, he admittedly only presented definitions and legal opinions. He used the definition of evidence as an attempt to excuse his lack of facts. Again, Clint exploded because I kept mentioning “threat, duress and coercion” because his definitions cannot negate the actual facts.

    My main point was to give Clint another public change to support his argument, and use his own words to discredit his arguments so people will see them for the nonsense they are and stay away from them. “Everything is commerce” is complete garbage. We’re all “voluntary government agents” is false whoever is spewing it.

  67. Paul Nz Says:

    The old cup and ball switch by Clint. Reminds me of ‘sleight of mouth’ from NLP.

  68. Paul Nz Says:

    Of course I have no facts to support my opinion that Clint was using NLP. Clint has no facts that he was instead using “law”.

  69. RAD Says:

    If you look at pinac, copblock, the statistics on police killing etc (1000/yr) there is so much factual information just on those 3 sources. If we based this whole conclusion on Marc’s story, maybe you could call it anecdotal fallacy, but there is so much info to cite, it’s not a few cherry picked instances. 1000/ yr killed by cops(approx). Literally thousands of stories shows a pattern, it’s not a few cherry picked isolated instances.

  70. desertspeaks Says:

    a question comes to mind,.. COULD Clint be a paid disinformation agent?? he certainly works hard at it!

  71. Matt Says:


    nah he is just mentally ill, he actually BELIEVES that when a psychopath writes down his or her claim, like for example that all people wearing red shirts enter their jurisdiction and become their slaves, it magically is a “contract in commerce” if you actually wear a red shirt… so the good old “because I said so” fallacy…

    That’s how utterly retarded and delusional these people are…

    He also believes that “government” has the magical authority to regulate commerce no matter what lmao… because the constituion said so!

  72. RAD Says:

    I think he and Jan actually believe in the scriptures of government as sacred truths. In my opinion the religion of government, the state religion, is the root. You can say forcing people to pay, but to go even further: WHY do they force you to pay? When you ask someone like Clint who I think obviously believes in these dogmas on religious faith if they force people to pay, they go into cognitive dissonance panic mode and can’t even process the question. Clint and Jan are obviously intelligent in their own rights, but I think they are both devoted to this religion of Baal. The ironic part is Clint even acknowledges it is all based on lies, fictions, and presumptions. Yet he still preaches this dogma as sacred truth and does not see a contradiction there. That is powerful cognitive dissonance.

  73. Avery Mann Says:

    Clint/Ian certainly enjoys the sound of his own voice. It’s possible I have never witnessed such a pointless and intellectually masturbatory exercise in self-promotion and ad hominem attack.
    Reciting the Declaration and reading the verbiage of Section 1983 proves nothing other than this “government” has codified an official avenue for remedy against its actors who commit deprivations of “rights”. No-knock SWAT raids, closing 10 year olds’ lemonade stands, multiple DUI “exceptions” to the Constitution, suspicionless border and inland checkpoints, beat-the-rap-but-not-the-ride arrests, mass surveillance, money, war…the list of officially sanctioned offenses is massive. 1000 daily injustices. None of them leaving any recourse or remedy to the victims.
    I cannot take seriously anyone promoting the idea (as Clint/Ian did here) that a Gov practicing deliberate indifference to, and obfuscating the plain meaning of words, law, and the foundational nature of its relationship with people is somehow NOT coercive. May I enter a truly voluntary and contractually legitimate relationship with an entity that lies by commission and omission during the negotiation? Somebody find me the definition of fraud, please.
    This episode could have used true moderation. The endless definitions (relying on Black’s especially) only serve as a tool for manipulation. This whole thing was entered into and executed in bad faith. Just my opinion.

  74. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Avery, yeah I agree, it was the longest 3 hours of my life. You have to be rude and interrupt Clint or he won’t stop talking. The man thinks using definitions without any reference to actual facts is evidence. Evidence of reification is about it.

  75. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Avery, Jan is also calling my reference to the violence, the threat, duress and coercion as a “jingle” as a means to negate the way “governments” operate. I gave the example of the force continuum, but that is not grammar or is just anecdotal evidence, not real evidence. He then congratulates Clint for his solid grammar and evidence because he spent 2 hrs reading definitions. When you point to the threats in their own code,then that is negated by endless definitions, as if that somehow changes the facts, how people called government actually operate. They are operating in the abstract and I kept making reference to how things go in the real world.

  76. Thad Says:

    I also want to point out when they created term “catchphrase” two things went on with that on their part. For one, since Clint and in some respects Jan are well…..windbags, it felt they might of been upset with your words. See, you keep it simple, short and sweet and to the point. They mostly do podcasts so can enjoy talking/ranting about a whole lot of nothing. It was upsetting to them that you made it look easy when for Clint it would take ten minutes to get to a point ( well some point in his head) Second is that THEY used that term and directed to you in a negative way. Jan would normally call that a Discrediting tactic/ad hominem, but he was not in the office that day it seems. They create that and other terms at you, and if you go to his website he lists THAT( and more) as errors in logic on your part. Jan posted “catchphrase” as if it was your doing when in fact they created the strawman. In other words they created a fallacy attack, then turned around and created another to cover up their mess. I did point out to Jan on his site and asked when was he going to list all of Clint’s fallacies in turn, unless he fully believes his buddy is fallacy free. One negative point I wish to make though is that a topic or a few topics should of been listed and stuck with from the get go. Jan as the “moderator” should of hammered that out with both parties before the show started. Not your fault though, Jan and Clint carried it out in pure amateur fashion, the rest us including you paid the price of Clint’s random/free range ranting.

  77. Jeff Says:

    This guy is the Rube Goldberg of this stuff. I can’t imagine going into court trying to win with this method. He is over complicating the whole thing. Murder and rape is not a victimless crime. They are arguing two different concepts. I agree that he understands the way THEY are suppose to operate. It is all secret, occult language that they use to confuse by design. Marc has reduced it all to the least complicated method that is possible to learn by most people. It has worked for me. I will use it again until I find a better way.

  78. Incubus Says:

    @ Thad,

    I don’t mean to derail the discussion, but I’m going to usurp NonEntity’s role as grammar nazi and just point out it’s “should’ve”, as in should have, not “should of”. The latter makes no sense, ya know?

    Alright, I’m done. Pet peeve out of the way. Carry on.

  79. dan Says:

    @Incubus, Do you really wish to usurp NonEntity? Do you know what a pain in the rump he is? That is a rhetorical question because I am sure you know.

  80. Avery Mann Says:

    @Marc, Time and again you patiently allowed Clint to divert, ad nauseum, after he had interrupted the beginnings of your responses. You showed much more patience than I could have. Quantity does not equal quality.

  81. RAD Says:

    Another contradiction I find
    1. Clint references the “law of agency”
    2. Claims there is a “voluntary” contract w/government
    3. Tells story of how an agent went “outside the law”, which would violate the terms of the contract if we are calling it that
    4. Acknowledges there are psychos who act “outside the law” and that it’s common among police.
    5. The contract, if there was one has therefore been broken
    Conclusion: There is a legal,voluntary contract based on “lies” and “fictions”(his words). In other words, the contract has been broken repeatedly and on the regular, it is based on lies and fictions and although he doesn’t want to admit people only deal with them because they’re threatened, how do you still have a contract if there ever was one(since it has been broken by those supposed “agents” and it is fraudulent?

  82. Matt Says:

    Clint and Jan are so smart, they can’t even see the obvious:

    MON-ARCHY = one ruler

    OLIG-ARCHY = many rulers

    AN-ARCHY = no rulers

    “Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse.” -John Hasnas, Professor of Law, Georgetown University.

  83. Boxer Says:


    I think you’re on to something there. If I recall, I believe if one party is found to be in breach of contract, it nullifies the contract altogether. I’ll see if I can find a supreme court case opinion (or, as Clint calls it, “facts) to support that.

  84. RAD Says:

    Well, near the end he even acknowledges it is based on “lies” and “fictions”. How is that not contract fraud, assuming for the sake of argument that the Birth cert, driver license, ss card etc show a contract(ignoring the TDC). If there is a contract, these “agents” nullify it second of every day…

    Okay, but going further
    WHO ARE THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST? The “straw man” or “evil genius”/ “legal person” or whatever we call it and the “United States”?
    Is there any evidence the “United States” even exists other than as an article of faith?
    If the parties in interest are fictions, how is a real person bound to this contract between one or more “fictions”? To me this is like how in the Roman pagan religion, one could make sacrifices to Mars or a deity and then they would have a “contract” with the deity. Perhaps not coincidentally, what we call contract law is basically taken straight from Roman law. Also, Clint uses the term “genius” to refer to the strawman. In Classical Roman Religion/language “Genius” was kind of similar to the idea of a “soul”, it was the meta-physical “essence” of a thing or person and each person had their own Genius and the “State” also had its own “Genius”.

  85. Matt Says:


    Yes it’s basically the roman/babylonian empire that never fell, hence the IRS/FED eagle, and on flag poles etc… here in germany the “government” has “its” own distinct flag, with a roman eagle in the middle (and sometimes golden fringe)…

    IMO this whole legal system or language (spell-ing, spells etc) is obviously based on their occult religion, bail = baal etc, black robes (saturnian priesthood) and aaaaall this stuff that Clint and other were quoting and claiming (golden fringe, all caps and whatnot), yes TPTB created this system and they BELIEVE it gives them some kind of magical powers, they actually BELIEVE that it’s some kind of “contract” and that it somehow relieves them of “karmic burden” or whatever, that’s what THEY BELIEVE, but it’s not fact…

    In REALITY tho (DE FACTO), it’s still just men and women forcing us to pay and obey them, it’s still immoral, slavery…

    So basically, every single thing that Clint was quoting, was merely the OPINIONS of psychopaths and nothing more.

  86. Kevin Reno Says:

    It’s turtles- all the way down!

  87. Inigo Montoya Says:

    Even if the arbitrary ‘laws’ had any validity, their implementation is never more than selective, and ‘justice’ or protection is no more than lip service. Why? Because of the built in immunity of the rulers which leads to sadism very quickly.

    As for ‘written proof’ of the force continuum, there are plenty of references. Amazing how quickly cops move through every step, then beat or kill people who are bound in handcuffs or otherwise in custody. All they need is the vaguest pretense or lie of ‘probable cause’, or mysterious ‘complaints’ that never materialize.

  88. RAD Says:

    Matt Says:
    June 16th, 2015 at 2:59 pm


    Yes it’s basically the roman/babylonian empire that never fell, hence the IRS/FED eagle, and on flag poles etc… here in germany the “government” has “its” own distinct flag, with a roman eagle in the middle (and sometimes golden fringe)…

    From wikipedia on totemism
    Group totemism

    Social or collective totemism is the most widely disseminated form of this belief system. It typically includes one or more of several features, such as the mystic association of animal and plant species, natural phenomena, or created objects with unilineally related groups (lineages, clans, tribes, moieties, phratries) or with local groups and families; the hereditary transmission of the totems (patrilineal or matrilineal); group and personal names that are based either directly or indirectly on the totem; the use of totemistic emblems and symbols; taboos and prohibitions that may apply to the species itself or can be limited to parts of animals and plants (partial taboos instead of partial totems); and a connection with a large number of animals and natural objects (multiplex totems) within which a distinction can be made between principal totems and subsidiary ones (linked totems).

    Group totems are generally associated or coordinated on the basis of analogies or on the basis of myth or ritual.

  89. NonEntity Says:

    Incubus, Incubus, Incubus. … Well done lad! The devil may yet find a position for you. Work hard, you have a large posterior to fill.

  90. summer apple Says:

    …said the larger posterior to the guy who could give a damn.

  91. summer apple Says:

    I would ask:

    If you claim to have authority over me just because my body is in a certain geographical area, why bother asking me about my name and address?

  92. Eric Says:

    Definitely categorized right Marc, call of shame hall of fame…you need a new category for face-pullathon calls.

    Jan Irvin is a crappy interviewer and an even worse moderator. I’ve followed both his and your website and podcast stuff for years and I can’t believe what a doofus he is; he’s simultaneously a Larken Rose fan AND believes Clint’s garbage obviously without having done HIS due diligence of parsing it with the trivium.

    Marc, you’re on my short list of real heroes doing heroic work, in the trenches of the real world, every day. Keep it up and don’t let these (hopefully) well meaning morons discourage you.

  93. Jake Witmer Says:

    “If our philosophy is virtuous and correct, then we owe it to ourselves to learn how to win.” Paraphrase of similar quote by Morton Blackwell. The problem with redefining “anarchy” to mean “no rulers” is two-fold:
    1) we know there are lots of high and mid-level sociopaths, because they populate government hierarchies, and because they want theft more than we want freedom, they’ve learned the tactics necessary to win those offices of power. If those offices of power were easy to win, we’d simply win them, and then not use the power, effectively abolishing it. So, what of the lower-level sociopaths, like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, and many others? The general public is aware that the ISU (a small non-corrupt portion of the FBI) and local and state police regularly arrest such murderers, and, when faced with a murder victim’s family, you wouldn’t argue that the police shouldn’t arrest them. (Or if you did, you’d be discrediting freedom, even though most people, if forced to face the contradictions in state collectivism support minarchy, as defined by the Bill of a Rights, but nowhere followed.)
    So, the coercive collectivists ask, and the almost-libertarians also ask, “would your system stop thd police from arresting serial murderers?” Because anarchy, if you look it up in a dictionary, doesn’t say “no rulers” …you just pulled that out of your ass, much like Clint does his “magic incantations” that allegedly are going to get the totalitarians to go away. So, when you complain about government sociopaths, the average person wonders if you will curtail the “public relations” portions of the government that even minarchists agree with. Generally, you pull some utopian bulk shot out of your ass at this point claiming, with no evidence at all, for none is possible as it’s all 100% theoretical, that “there would still be rules,” blah, blah, blah.. But they’ve already stopped listening, because you just referenced philosophy and theory, and they lack the intellectual machinery to assess either one of those things. So, you admit sociopaths are numerous, but have no plan for dealing with them in a “zero government” situation. This then perfectly matches what they’ve been taught to think about anarchists: that they’re murdering whack-job sociopaths themselves. True or not, that’s very clearly what they’re thinking. So, you form a subset of libertarianism, smaller than the already small libertarian demographic. This is strategically stupid, using Ray Kurzweil’s definition for stupidity: “the unwitting tendency toward self destruction.”
    2) aside from not dealing with sociopaths in the minimally-acceptable way they are often dealt with by the current state (like it or not, this both reality, and if is how most people view reality), you are redefining anarchy in a new way that fits your desired conclusion. Most people define it as “the absence of government”) I hate to break it to you, but, again: sociopaths don’t even want “self-government.” They want to rape you, right now, based on their whims! If you don’t want the man with the badge to stop that sociopath, then you strike them as “crazy” and “obviously not a movement they can defen joining to their currently mainstream, politically-unsophisticated families.”
    3) We’ve had more and less government, throughout America’s history, and having less government was, compared to the rest of the world, …a runaway success! Heck, compared to the bureaucracy of starting a business in India RIGHT NOW, our current “more limited” government is a runaway success! So, when people who love the Bill of Rights hear “anarchy,” they tune you out. You don’t have to like that for it to be true. If they don’t tune you out, at best, they join your tiny minority, legitimizing it as a growing (but doomed to max out at 1-2%) movement.

    All of the prior make “anarchy” a loser. However, they make the same level of radical freedom labeled “libertarianism” or “minarchy”(when defined as “what the Bill of rights, or founding fathers intended”)
    a huge winner. When Spooner wrote “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery” he promoted exactly the same viewpoint for exactly the same reason. Some dilettantes may point out that he later wrote “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,” but he had already arrived at those conclusions when he wrote “The Unconstitutionality of Slavery” as evidenced by his noncommittal criticism of the constitution inside of it, right in the beginning of the work. Even so, he makes the argument. Why? Because Spooner had more integrity than Garrison: his heart bled for truth and justice, and he earnestly wanted to free every individual slave.

    Freeing slaves(like Ross Ulbricht) THEN AND NOW, absolutely requires us to follow Blackwell’s advice and LEARN HOW TO WIN.

    Have you noticed the courts believe in “MIGHT MAKES RIGHT”? I have. Politics is the art of winning adherents to a cause, with persuasive words, not coercion (threats, violence). Our enemies exclusively use threats.

    That’s how we beat them. But we cannot have allegiance to the word that makes us a cool more-radical-than-thou minority. We must be smarter than our enemy. We must do what our enemy does not want us to do. We must be convincing. To be convincing, the term that means “absence if government” must go.

    Alexander Hamilton would be considered an anarchist today. He prevented Harry Croswell from being punished under the Aluen and Sedition Act. He nullified the law by making an appeal directly to the Jury.

    The Jury is the branch of government you belong to. It’s all the power you hold in the system. Learn to use that power. It’s more fun to win freedom for an innocent person than to do what your enemy, the totalitarian state, wants you to do.

    Thd totalitarian state loves it when you call yourselves anarchists. They love it when you stay home on Election Day. They love it when you look sloppy and “counter cultural.” They love it when you marginalized yourselves by acting like the lunatic fringe. They love it when they can say “Thank goodness the lazy dipshit anarchists sat this election out! Our tyrant won by 1%!” Or “Thank goodness the pro-freedom ballot measure failed!” They love it when you don’t man polling places conducting exit polling for Rand Paul, handing out information about how the delegate ballot access laws make it impossible for non-millionaires to ACCESS THE BALLOT. (They were taught everyone has a right to access the ballot, and have never been shown proof to the contrary. Yet, such proof is online and easy to find, at ever Secretary of State website.)

    They hate it when you look nice and clean cut, and make persuasive arguments to incoming jurors that they prepare themselves for voir dire, not get kicked off thd Jury, allowing them to stick it to the judge and prosecutor. They hate it when you successfully convince conformist soccer moms that it’s their constitutional duty to nullify laws that lack the two elements of a valid corpus delicti, as referred to in the 4th Amendment, and Jacob’s New Law Dictionary that the Founders had all read.

    They hate it when we WIN.

    For those who study Bayesian statistical methods, this is a “Newcomb-like problem.” It’s the problem of persistent, entrenched tyranny networks.

    Food for thought, I hope. BTW: I agree with counter-economics, and all of agorism EXCEPT “political relinquishment.” Political relinquishment fails for the same reason Bill Joy’s (and the unabomber’s) “technological relinquishment” fails: it provides our enemies a useful tool for winning (a framework for drawing in additional support from the uncommitted) while denying it to us.

    That’s well, …stupid.

  94. Calvin Says:

    @Jake: I thought we covered this well enough during the show, maybe not, but we are not redefining “anarchy” to mean “no rulers.””

    The very origins of the word “an” (no) “archy” (leaders/rulers) literally means no rulers. That’s it, no redefining. Those accusing us of redefining the word are often doing so to serve their own rhetoric and/or motives OR are confused with our objective use of terminology.

    You also said “Because anarchy, if you look it up in a dictionary, doesn’t say “no rulers”…” I am not going to unpack this one until you let us know whether or not you listened to Marc’s so-called debate against Jan and Clint. Sufficed to say; these revisionist dictionaries don’t trump the etymology of the word.

    All that being said; I agree that some movement in the right direction can be achieved within the system, but that success can take an enormous amount of energy and yield less than desired results. Remember, the LP/minarchism has been hacking at what you’re proposing for decades now, are we to continue such an ineffective strategy? Or could be broaden our playing field to be more adaptive and asymmetric when PEACEFULLY countering adversaries that are adaptive and asymmetric?

  95. Jake Witmer Says:

    I meant “threefold” but didn’t edit it. Or I can’t count. You be the judge. LOL

  96. RAD Says:

    How about creating a “civil disobedience day”. An international holiday for libertarians and anarchists: one day out of the year to go to court naked or smoke weed at the police station or whatever form of social disobedience. Where everyone knows that everyone else knows that’s the day, so they all plan to disobey on the one day when the authorities can’t get all of em since there would be too many.

  97. Andy Says:

    Calvin said: “Remember, the LP/minarchism has been hacking at what you’re proposing for decades now, are we to continue such an ineffective strategy?”

    I content that minarchism is awkward at best as a meaning of minimal rulers. When anarchism is no rulers, it’s logically consistent to attribute minimum rulers to minstatism, since statism has rulers to begin with. Minarchism tarnishes anarchism. Minstatism doesn’t tarnish statism.

    I tend to think whoever coined the word “anarchism” or set about popularizing it understood the difference.

  98. jim witt Says:

    thoroughly enjoyable and enlightening. The roman civil law thing I heard about years ago. Goes along with deity thing, this imagined, amorphous, hallucination…THE GOVERNMENT???, THE STATE???. Fictions, and all on paper like Marc has saying. Maybe they thought it was a good idea at the time. Not me, not a party to the “contract”? Best “government”, self government. Honor all contracts written and verbal. Time was a mans word and a hand shake was all it took. There’s a scene in Yankee Doodle Dandy when George M.
    Cohan and his partner were splitting up they wanted to see their contract. Standing in the door way George this was our contract, shaking hands After taking a picture of them, he commented “we gotta show this to our legal department”. I believe that’s the way it should be. After all real talking to real. Not pieces of paper with words, personal integrity. Something sadly lacking today.


  99. jim witt Says:

    After reading the post I forgot to say there was a group of reporters covering the event. It was one of the reporters that made the comment “we gotta show this to our legal dept. Fun movie with James Cagney in an entirely different setting, something other than a gangster setting

  100. JeHeretic Says:

    Man, these two guys are so stupid, why do they want a site in the legal opinion, they speak in circles and cannot hear what is being said. Men and women who call them selves government use the force continuum to get you to comply, they keep asking for a legal citation, they are just trolls. Fricken straight up trolls. This guy is an ignoramus

  101. Avery Mann Says:

    “Everything has to be positive law…”, says Clint (10:42). Why?
    So he may attack “Comply or Die” for not being codified in positive law. The implication being that de jure law (Sec. 1983, etc.)precludes de facto law (Comply or Die). Absurd.
    Am I to conclude that Clint is intellectually deficient? Or morally so?
    How am I to interpret Jan and Clint’s insistence that only “legal citation…some law, some citation…on the books” (20:30) may properly constitute evidence, fact or truth?
    From 13:20-16:00, Marc utilizes possibly his longest stretch of uninterrupted time to reasonably expose the myth of government, concluding with “Comply or Die collapses the entire argument.” I thought it was devastating. So did Clint. He was speechless for 10 seconds before sputtering something about bears.
    That’s the nub. Everything else was lawyerly noise, interesting only as a demonstration that anything…reason, logic, grammar, law may be used as methods for obfuscation. Just add bad faith.

  102. Jonny Luxifer Says:

    I can’t even continue, this is just terrible. Clint sounds like he needs to slow down on the amphetamines hahaha. The part where he mentions the Dr just came out of no where.xD As though by refuting a reification you’re assuming the individuals involved don’t exist, he seems to fail to make the distinction between the archetype and the man.

  103. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Jonny, yeah, it was brutal to be a part of it. I should have bailed after the first 1/2 hr. I basically sat here facepalming the whole time.

  104. Jonny Luxifer Says:

    Same, and I was just listening! I can’t even imagine how annoyed I would have been.

  105. Markavelli Says:

    This was a wonderful adventure in legal land👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 now I just hope sum of this bullshit keeps me from being shot stolen or any other misery the state which doesn’t exist might do to me 😍

  106. Markavelli Says:

    The federal reserve is as federal as the federal express; which is not federal at all 🙈

  107. Jake Witmer Says:

    Clint may not be the best representative of “democratic libertarianism” or “voluntaryist minarchism” possible. LOL

    Also, this quote from Calvin clearly reveals the problem with having an inadequate debate partner, “Remember, the LP/minarchism has been hacking at what you’re proposing for decades now, are we to continue such an ineffective strategy?”

    1) The LP has not been “hacking at what you’re proposing.” The LP is infiltrated “controlled opposition.” They are run by one man who is a single failure point for the entire party, and this one man can easily be replaced by another FBI/CIA/GOP/goon/unknown at any time he ceases to be useful. However, the “moderate anarchists” in the LP have kept this man in power for 16 years. This means that (1a) The LP is a poorly-designed system. (1b) Theoretically, the LP could be corrected or replaced with a well-designed system.

    2) Minarchism only works if the people pursuing it are actually pursuing it whole-heartedly. Sadly, Marc Stevens, Larken Rose, and many other “anarchists” have never bothered to get involved with the LP and figure out how it works and/or why it’s failing. It’s “too much of a hassle” and “too risky.” After all: If you figure out how the sociopaths are accomplishing their objectives, you run the real risk of retaliation.

    Then, the mainstream majority simply sees the LP’s failure from a distance and says, “There must be some reason it doesn’t work, I guess I’ll believe the blather from Larken Rose, et. al that ‘it cannot work’.” Well, OK, but trust me, Larken Rose has no idea what is going on inside the LP, and has never bothered to learn. He’s also never bothered to try to correct the LP. He’s also committed to the belief that it’s not even possible.

    OK, well, libertarian electoral success is impossible with that approach.

    It’s too bad that the LP has no “George Soros.” Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, etc. all contribute to things they consider to be “libertarian in nature” directly, but they don’t pursue actual libertarianism (individual freedom itself) directly. There’s a huge difference between the two things, a distinction lost on most “anarchists.”

    Pursuing individual freedom with intentionality requires stripping sociopaths of their power to punish. Nothing else is actually “pursuing individual liberty.” It might make you feel good, but it’s essentially masturbation.

    Larken Rose is the worst offender here. He is so committed to the term “anarchy” that he literally compresses all opposing views into straw men that he then proceeds to batter down with glee.

    If you define “anarchy” as “absence of rulers” you ignore the fact that every dictionary defines the term differently. Further, you ignore the fact that both terms are derived from the same root as “cybernetics.” Cybernetics comes from Greek κυβερνητική (kybernetike), meaning “governance.” Anarchy is defined, by all dictionaries, as “absence of government, with government being seen as a synonym for “rulers.” (But this is splitting hairs, because in self-government, a person’s thalamus+neocortex is their “ruler.” People with an inadequate thalamus and neocortex lack “discipline.” They do not “govern” themselves. But “anarchists” like Rose never get to this line of reasoning, because they are committed to a word, instead of committed to honest assessment of patterns found in nature.)

    Most “anarchists” and “minarchists” have an emotional commitment to the terms they use. Neither term maps to reality, except as a never-before-attained goal. As such, “minarchy” maps to reality better, because the USA of the 1950s was a “minarchy” only by comparison to the USSR, and Communist China. The USA didn’t undergo a democide during that time period. The USA didn’t experience absolute totalitarianism during that time period. There were valid reasons for this that Rose and other “anarchists” ignore. Why do they ignore this? It relieves them of the onus of doing things that actually diminish tyranny.

    I’m an “anarchist” with respect to “this government.” But to say I’m an anarchist with respect to all government would be absurd. I want to maximize self-government. The best way to do this is to begin pruning away all areas of obviously illegitimate government.

    Because no portion of government is obviously illegitimate to all people, the areas that are most-easily-attacked as illegitimate should be targeted first. There is absolutely no reason not to target these areas for destruction using all available tools:
    1) corrupted elections (if used, efforts should be simultaneously made to eliminate the corruption of the elections, strengthening them as a tool for freedom).
    2) corrupted jury trials (if used, efforts should be simultaneously made to eliminate the corruption of the jury by voir dire, strengthening jury trials as a tool for freedom)
    3) Decentralization of the capacity for retaliatory offense and defense. (firearms ownership and practice), or (the purchase of systems that make such practice unnecessary + operational security practice).
    4) Counter-economics as a means of tax-avoidance. (Forcing the state to deficit-spend more, diminishing the legitimacy of attacking people for nonpayment).
    5) Thousands more examples of “political technology,” some of which use existing portions of western civilization’s governance expectations, and some of which do not.

    Both minarchy and anarchy attack all forms of coercive “taxation” as illegitimate. Neither does so successfully, and both ideas currently have no viable strategic plan for implementation coming from any mainstream source. Tom Woods is probably closest on the electoral front, with his advocacy of “State Nullification.” (Of course, until you get the CIA guy out of his position of absolute control in the LP, the LP will be able to accomplish NOTHING.)

    When pressured for a viable plan to implement “anarchy,” people like Larken Rose respond with delusional garbage, character assaults, etc. that lack any concept of applying incremental tactics toward the achievement of their goal.

    I had to laugh when it was suggested that Larken Rose be a debate moderator.

    Something that “anarchists” are going to need to learn: The general public believes that you intend to stop arresting serial murderers. This unfavorable interpretation of your argument is the same thing you do to the few well-informed “minarchists” who exist.

    The failure of the LP to achieve individual freedom via electoral participation is not surprising, because it is an organization that is controlled by the enemy. This does not mean that the enemy cannot be defeated, it means that we have to reassert control over our own machinery, cast the enemy out, and then, once we have a functional piece of machinery, we need to use it against the enemy. No physical law prevents this from happening.

    Libertarians’ near total ignorance of Cybernetics is what prevents it from happening.

    One of the few people I’ve met who is immune from this criticism is John McAfee, who speaks English well-enough to comprehend the legitimate portions of both sides’ arguments, and is also aware of “the science of control.” (A few ‘unknown’ libertarians in Silicon Valley also understand, but they are too few and far between to matter much.)

    Control is not the enemy. It is our greatest ally.

    If we want to control where a bullet goes, we need to train our own bodies (cybernetic systems) with feedback and correction. If we want to control where a hundred bullets at once go, we need to train our social networks(a different kind of cybernetic system) with a higher-order “feedback and correction.”

    It’s hard to exert control over cybernetic systems. Most of the time, we’re not even in full control of our own plans for our own bodies (weakness, cancer, disease, inattention, etc.).

    Failing to exert control over cybernetic systems results in abject failure, 100% of the time.

    Advocating “anarchy” as if you are “educating” people is both insulting and easily-dismissed. In fact, if the courts worked as advertised, Marc Stevens et al. would simply show that there is no corpus in any “mala prohibita” prosecution, and we’d already be living in a libertarian society.

    So I ask: Will it be harder to:
    1) convince people who agree with the existence of government that the courts should work as-designed by western civilization? (All crimes requiring a valid corpus, juries properly-instructed about their right to vote their conscience even if it vetoes the law, etc.)
    2) convince people who agree with the existence of government that the courts should be abolished and replaced with an unnamed alternative?

    If you chose #2, you’re dishonest, uninformed, or both. That’s a far harder task than #1 prior. …And only experience of both approaches allows one to have a legitimate sense of this.

    Advocacy of “anarchy” is intellectually sloppy. It’s advocacy of “technological relinquishment,” because political technology is a subset of technology in general. It fails for the same reason the Unabomber failed: the rest of society is on a completely different page, for very good reasons.

    I advocate a sea change in the libertarian movement. I advocate “anarchists” getting involved in politics and realizing that anti-corruption candidates who could have improved the LP lost at the national convention(Andrew Jacobs) by 66 votes.

    If 66 blathering anarchists had showed up to the 2016 National LP convention in Orlando, the CIA-infiltrator of the LP could have been stripped of his power, but allowed to retain his position (So we know where the fuck he is, and his evil can be exposed).

    If a few hundred had shown up, McAfee might have beaten Johnson, and then we’d have a serious force on National TV advocating that juries veto the law in all victimless crime cases. What a difference that would have made!!!!

    But no. Larken Rose wants to be “more radical than you are.” He doesn’t want to get involved in battling specific sociopaths. That’s too distasteful, too unpleasant.

    So he jerks off online with the rest of the anarchists, and effectively neutralizes himself in the broader struggle for power.

    Without power, more people go to the same gulag he went to.

    And this is the greatest shame of anarchy: The attempt to “take all power from the state at once” always fails. It always fails because people do not act in unison. All-or-nothing political choices default in favor of those who currently hold power.

  108. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I would have read more of that long dissertation if it wasn’t so full of blather against Larken Rose… (That’s not to say I wouldn’t if it was presented in the proper place, that is, on the forum, which is much better suited to in depth discussions.)

    Is this you?

    If we are all supposed to be equal, then nobody is born with authority over me. If nobody is born with authority over me, then there is nobody to delegate authority over me to the criminals that call themselves government.

  109. NonEntity Says:

    There is no state. There are only people.

  110. Jake Witmer Says:

    I just finally listened to the entire “debate.” Both Clint and Marc are talking past one another. What a huge difference a little bit of comprehension of cybernetics would make!

    @1:39:00 Clint and Marc could have arrived at a point of agreement if he could have gotten Clint to admit that the laws are self-contradictory.

    @1:41:30 Clint removes himself from rational debate by referring to imaginary conceptions of reality.

    @1:43:40 All Marc has to say is “coercion” not “threats, duress, and coercion.” Coercion is properly-defined as “violence or the realistic threat of violence used to achieve a goal.” So, Marc is basically being redundant when he uses all three terms.

    @1:46:15 If “government acting under color of law” was the only problem, (and not the laws being grossly-self-contradictory), then people like Rick Stanley and Clint Richardson could have easily and quickly abolished the drug war.

    Clint actually has something of a point in that the sociopaths conspired about a century and a half ago to obfuscate the law in a more direct way, so as to bamboozle self-taught lawyers, prior to the law being purely sociopathic. This very rarely comes up in “home rule” cases.

    Of course, he’s totally full of shit when he claims that the sociopaths ever, under any conditions, obey the most-legitimate-formulation of the law.

    I prefer Marc’s interpretation of reality. I think it maps much better to actual, objective, measurable reality.

    @1:55:25 Marc: “No, please don’t do that” LOL!

    @2:00:00 The legitimate answer Clint should have given is “Yes” to defend his position. @2:01:00 Clint goes fully dishonest by not just saying “only under the condition where there is a viable, 2-part, legitimate, APPARENT CAUSE OF ACTION or CORPUS DELICTI.”

    This is one of the first things Stevens exposed in his youtube videos. It’s somewhat sad to me that he has drifted away from this position as a means of advocating “anarchism.”

    Of course, Stevens is totally right on each point in the argument against Clint, because the current laws go far beyond the tiny amount of codified law that is legitimate. So yes, if the law were to be confined to the small amount of law that’s legitimate, it would be possible for the government to operate legitimately. Of course, it would be .0001% of the size it currently is.

    In closing (from google):
    noun: anarchy

    a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    “he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy”
    synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
    “conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy”
    antonyms: government, order
    absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

    mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- ‘without’ + arkhos ‘chief, ruler.’

    Very simply: Those who do not aggress against others should be “without rulers.” Those who do aggress against others should have external rulers. Legitimate government solely exists to rule aggressors.

    Clint is right about one thing: If the existing government was legitimate, a private citizen would be able to arrest any cop who violated anyone else’s individual rights, if they tried to act without a valid corpus/cause. I think that, if the government actually operated like this (voluntaryist minarchy whereby the “archy” in minarchy was only directed against aggressors, and could be comprised of any voluntarily-acting citizen), Marc wouldn’t have a problem with it. That being the case, he shouldn’t call himself an anarchist, because his goal is not to remove external governance from sociopath aggressors.

    Now, the current government obviously enables sociopath aggressors more than it limits them, and is not worth the cost. It is not legitimate, and should not exist. But espousing “anarchy” as a solution, is basically espousing “no nuclear power plants” because of one malfunctioning plant, as opposed to espousing “properly functioning nuclear plants” as the appropriate goal.

  111. Jake Witmer Says:

    @2:42:00 This is where Clint really goes off the rails into dishonesty. Marc asks very clearly for EVIDENCE that cops EVER have obeyed the law. Clint fails REPEATEDLY to simply and honestly answer Marc. Clint then gives Marc a mountain of bullshit, claiming that a single government agent recognizes his declaratory statements, without providing a shred of evidence.

    The problem here is that Clint refuses to budge an inch toward honestly interpreting Marc’s view.

  112. Jake Witmer Says:

    FWIW: One of the first uses of “anarchy” in book form, used to argue against Marc Stevens’ position (John Lilburne’s position).

    Lilburne was a proto-libertarian who dramatically expanded individual freedom in his lifetime by fighting for due process, and individual freedom. He represented himself pro se in court during his sedition trial. He was sentenced to death four times, each time being saved at the last-minute by political machinations of his wife.

    The Law has always failed to live up to its own justification for itself.

    By the time Bastiat wrote “The Law,” the problems with surplus order were well-known and understood. Highly recommended. I’d like to hear Marc read The Law on his podcast, and address Bastiat’s minarchist arguments.

  113. spooky2th Says:

    Jake, You advocate anarchists getting involved in politics?!? Are you serious???

  114. NonEntity Says:

    NonEntertaining sed:

    “There is no state. There are only people.”
    It has been brought to our* attention that there are also cats.

    *that’s the royal our.

  115. Jake Witmer Says:

    “Jake, You advocate anarchists getting involved in politics?!? Are you serious???” Kind of. More precisely, I advocate classical liberal voluntaryist minarchist libertarians getting _effectively_ involved in politics.

    First of all, there is no “anarchy” and there are no “anarchists.” These terms don’t map onto cybernetic reality, except in outer space, beyond the reach of human satellites. There is only the “absence of (metaphorical)rulers” in bland places that don’t support human+ level life.

    Moreover, if you remove the “rulers”(a straw man) from anarchists without selectively doing so, you also remove the “rulers”(external feedback and correction) from sociopaths.

    Classical liberalism attempts to remove “rulers” (governance, etc.) from voluntaryists, without removing it from sociopaths. In fact, this has been proven true, simply by western civilization dramatically outperforming theocracy. (Now it’s true, even most libertarians cannot define western civilization very well, cannot map their ideas onto History, cannot think ideas through on their own merits. Freedom is a parlor game to them.)

    But those things are not true, “in and of themselves.” They are not inherent features of the idea set and domain.

    It’s just that it’s easier to say “I’m an anarchist” than to study the available options History has proven to be workable. It’s far easier to say “I’m an anarchist” than to get involved with painful, messy, boring, risky political feedback-and-correction.

    If you want to know the first thing about politics (most “anarchists” and “minarchists” do not), then you should read the following essay and substitute “libertarian” for “conservative.” The principles are the same.

  116. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I see a post of mine is stuck in waiting for moderation limbo-land.
    It can be deleted. This is more germane to the discussion.

    If we are all supposed to be equal, then nobody is born with authority over me or anyone else. If nobody is born with authority over me or anyone else, then there is nobody to delegate authority over me or anybody else to the criminals that call themselves government. Therefore no person calling themselves government ever has any legitimate authority over me or anybody else.

    It’s all done under threat, duress, coercion, and indoctrination to keep people from considering the above paragraph.

  117. spooky2th Says:

    Me thinks that your mind is still infected with too many double standards. You still believe in a fiction called govt which is (if you can get your noodle past the double standard) just men and/or women forcing everybody to pay them and jump through hoops of control. Govt is nothing but “force.” The opinions of the ones practicing the govt religion is/are politics. Govt is just another “belief” system that cannot be proven. This web site is about voluntarism and the NAP. Any govt wipes out both concepts. Which makes “slavery” come to my mind.

  118. Jake Witmer Says:

    Calvin wrote:
    ” The very origins of the word “an” (no) “archy” (leaders/rulers) literally means no rulers. That’s it, no redefining. ”

    This is a huge problem for “anarchists,” because the etymology of the word doesn’t map on to “patterns found in reality.” Because this is true, let’s examine the meaning of what I’m saying a little bit more closely.
    1) If the “archy” in the word “anarchy” didn’t mean “government” in a broad sense of the term (but instead meant “human rulers” as you all assert), then the term “self-government” would be meaningless.
    2) “Government” is not just the executors of the program, as much as our corrupted and perverted current government masters would have us believe. It is also the programs(cultural practices, cultural standards, laws, common law, statute law, thresholds of aggression/rebellion, etc.) that are executed by and towards/upon that group of people and the offices of power(broad ranging, and narrowly-limited) that those people inhabit. For example: the Jury is the 4th branch of government, and in limited cases, they have the ability to limit the power of the other three sociopath-filled branches of government. The Jury cannot kick down people’s doors and confiscate their property, nor would they typically want to, because of the way they are selected. The DEA can get away with doing this, even though the common law states very clearly that they should not be able to. Gun owners, also a part of “the 4th branch” can ultimately decide to kill all the unconstitutional law-breaking sociopaths, and either start over with no government (anarchy) or start over with some sort of new government. All of the prior points to the fact that THEORETICAL “government” cannot narrowly be defined as “a group of people.” It is a cybernetic system (a goal-directed system subject to feedback). The science of feedback-and-control tells us how to interact with such systems to get what we want. Anarchist or “agorist” political philosophy DOES NOT. It is too simplistic and absolutist to accomplish its intended goals, as formulated by Samuel Edward Konkin III.

    “Anarchism” is a cool historical movement. Even anarcho-syndicalist Bachunin wanted to form a US-style republic in Siberia. (But, I thought he wanted “no government”?? Wait: by the definition of “anarchists” here, the minarchy of the USA, AS DESIGNED AND INTENDED, qualifies as “anarchy.”

    After all, in a voluntaryist minarchy, the Law only interacts with the initiators of force. No 2-part corpus? Then you’ll never see the police! Ever! (Even if you pay no taxes! Even if you grow a hundred acres of coca, cannabis, and opium poppy plants! Even if you manufacture and sell RPGs!)

    So why call it minarchy then? Because “principled nonvoting” or “political relinquishment” is not a part of it. In fact, this voluntaryist view reveals just how abjectly stupid that view is, just as Rothbard did. It also circumvents such misunderstanding among THE UNINITIATED, the most important group for us to convince, IF WE DON’T WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE SLAVES.

    Read my comments. Read them really slowly, and try to understand. Understand that I’ve read all of the same books you have, and more, and that I fully and completely understand your position, and have found it to be lacking because it presumes itself to be correct without subjecting itself to the intellectual rigor of far more advanced disciplines that discredit it.

    If you want to be an asset to the Democrats and Republicans, then advocate “principled nonvoting” (which is really a form of “technological relinquishment”). Also advocate “anarchy.” This will then drive support away from you.

    The mainstream support you drive away from the movement will be the same support we all desperately need to prevent the police state from sending innocent people to prison.

    Agorists are a joke. They are a joke that is incredibly useful to the Democrats and Republicans who administer the bloated prison industrial complex of the US police state. SEK3 was right about a lot of things. Political relinquishment isn’t one of them. He was right about what he called “counter-economics,” (already named “civil disobedience”+”black market activity”). He was right that black marketeers take the moral highground above those who comply with state power. He was right about wanting to abolish the fed, and use alternate currencies.

    But advocating “anarchy” and “political relinquishment” slows movement toward a voluntary society. All of the anarchists on this board, had they attended the National Libertarian Party convention could have voted for Andrew Jacobs to be seated on the LNC, and he could have stripped the FBI informants in the LP of their power. He lost by 66 votes.

    But most “anarchists” on this board don’t know anything about that, nor do they care, because they really don’t prioritize expanding individual freedom, or destroying tyranny. They are dilettantes who don’t care to exercise their full political power, or can’t be bothered to. They don’t want to learn about the political networks they are a part of, because the work that needs to be done is boring, shitty, and often thankless. They don’t want to lose, remeasure, lose, remeasure, lose, remeasure, and eventually win, due to a series of thoughtful feedback-and-correction loops.

    Doing all of these things SUCKS. It’s hard, thankless work.

    It’s easy to run away, stick your head in the anarchist sand, surround yourself with like-minded people, and have ZERO IMPACT ON SOCIETY.

    But that packs the prisons full of millions of innocent people. It does NOTHING to prevent the Democrats and Republicans from having their way with the rest of us.

    Political relinquishment is stupid, and it’s a seemingly a natural logical outcome of calling oneself an “anarchist” or “agorist.”

    To claim that “elections cannot be won” in material reality is very stupid or uninformed. It takes about 10 to 30 minutes to convince someone, face-to-face to vote for a LP candidate for State legislature. That means there’s a dollar cost or effort cost to winning control of a state legislature. The cost is surprisingly low, compared to how much Democrats and Republicans spend controlling those offices.

    …But that’s if all the voluntaryists are involved, and we’re a well-oiled machine.

    The cybernetic system of the Democrats and Republicans has made sure that’s not the case. They don’t fight agorists or anarchists, and, in fact, probably encourage them.

    They DO FIGHT LIKE HELL against intelligent, small-L libertarians getting on the ballot for State Legislature or Sheriff.


    Similarly, they don’t give a shit whether the LP is on the ballot for statewide races, or congressional races they cannot win. That simply discredits voluntaryist individual freedom as “a loser.” They especially like it when those statewide races conflate “anarchy” with “liberty.”

    They sure as hell don’t want voluntaryists running for office on a minarchist jury rights platform, offering to help defendants “get out of jail free.” They shot Randy Weaver’s wife in the neck after he ran for Sheriff handing out cards that said exactly that on the back of them. (“Get out of jail free.”)

    The most effective cybernetic systems in human societies are parasites. Parasites often help their hosts survive, in an enslaved state. They often turn off signals that would help the host remove the parasite. This is why they encourage political delusion, disorganization, and stupidity among voluntaryists/libertarians.

    They know that, were we to get organized, it would be attractive for Elon Musk, Thiel, and many other stated “small-L” libertarians to contribute to our then-rising movement.

    As the movement stands, it’s “self-limiting.”

    It’s also infiltrated heavily, in a way that it could not be, if anarchists were to learn the very first thing about political organization and cybernetics.

    Here’s “the first thing” you should learn:

    Substitute “voluntaryist/libertarian” for the term “conservative” in the prior article, and it becomes almost 100% true.

    In closing, none of the things I’ve stated here in any way imply agreement with the incumbent state. With respect to the current US government, I am an “anarchist” or “abolitionist” because it needs to be fought as efficiently as we can fight it.

    The irony is that calling oneself an anarchist, rather than the better term “voluntaryist” simply makes one less effective at marshalling the network resources necessary to efficiently fight the state.

  119. Rad Says:

    Jake, perhaps it’s more an issue of semantics/grammar but if they don’t charge taxes or initiate force then I don’t really consider that to be what I’d call “government” – I would call that “governance” – such as a tribal council or something like that or a hypothetical DRO or “road company” or private fire department. I think we’re just saying kind of the same thing but I think the thing is to get rid of “the government” and replace it with non-governmental governance.

  120. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “but I think the thing is to get rid of “the government” and replace it with non-governmental governance.”

    WHENCE COMES AUTHORITY (of non-governmental governance)?

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?
    Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
    Then how can they delegate this authority to those who call themselves non-governmental governance?

  121. NonEntity Says:

    Habby, I’m not so sure that governance necessarily implies force. If that is what you are implying by your cryptic message. I’m certainly for all interactions being voluntary, it goes without saying (which is why I’m saying it, I guess!) As I’ve pointed out many times over many years, Somali Customary Law is all done voluntarily, so this is an example of governance without force. The incentive mechanism is ostracism, where people who don’t honor reasonably arrived at judgments are seen by the community as not to be trusted and so they find it hard to function in a community where no one will deal with them. They can choose how to deal with this situation. They can leave and try and find another community who will have them, or they can reassess their dealings with others which caused the distrust in the first place, or they can even appeal to the community to review the original issue if they believe they have been treated unfairly. I see this as voluntary governance.

    Please feel free to correct me if you feel I’m in err.

  122. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Governance is to govern is to control.

    Senno ecto gammat!
    ~ Leeloo

  123. NonEntity Says:

    BECAUSE I SAID SO, DAMN IT!!! he reasoned.

  124. Jake Witmer Says:

    Rad wrote: “Jake, perhaps it’s more an issue of semantics/grammar”

    I reply: Yes, that’s precisely what it is. In fact, “anarchists” are irrationally committed to the term “anarchy.” Why call them irrational? Because terminology and *semantics* determines whether the average person will support the changes anarchists allegedly want. The average person will either join or not join a network, and they won’t tell you why the joined or why they refused to join. If they refuse to join, your network is weakened –maybe to the point of being the idiotic, powerless, enslaved, fucked-over “anarchist” networks we have today.

    So, we can choose to be committed to the “cool-sounding” word “anarchy,” …or we can actually gain the freedom that anarchists claim to want.

    rad wrote: “but if they don’t charge taxes or initiate force then I don’t really consider that to be what I’d call “government””

    I reply: I know. But nobody and no network gives the slightest fuck how “anarchists” re-define English words. …Especially when it has zero bearing on how the police state and its support networks actually conducts itself.

    rad wrote: “– I would call that “governance” – such as a tribal council or something like that or a hypothetical DRO or “road company” or private fire department.”

    I reply: …Once again: Nobody cares how anarchists redefine the English language. There is language that is politically viable, and language that is not politically viable. …And then, there’s the matter of what these voluntary organizations actually do, how they actually function, and it turns out that if they are not subject to democratic voting control (something the average person associates with “benevolence” and “good government,”) then, the public won’t support it. Not only will the public not support it, they will view it as all of the negative ideas they associate with “the absence of government” or “anarchy.”

    rad wrote: “I think we’re just saying kind of the same thing but I think the thing is to get rid of “the government” and replace it with non-governmental governance.”

    I reply: That’s fine if you want to say that’s what you’re doing, but it’s not precisely necessary, nor is it the most effective language to use with the largest voting demographics in the USA.

  125. NonEntity Says:

    Jake, I think you make some good points. Sadly you come off as almost a big a prick as I do, which, if you believe your own position, is counter productive to your stated claim. In other words, practice what you preach if you seek to gain traction.

  126. JU Says:

    This has to be the weirdest thing I’ve heard.
    Clint is talking about symbols and symbolismn as being evidence of facts, Marc of observable facts.
    Which would you rely on when examening a problem and trying to find a solution?
    Clint says the government does exists. Later on calls the government a lie and a fiction???
    He keeps saying that it is important to define words, but he might have forgotten to define the words LIE and FICTION.

    “It says so and so in the law” therefore the state is not allowed to use violence.
    Question: Does that mean they will let you go and not use violence if you continue to refuse to abide by “the law”?

  127. Marc Stevens Says:

    I don’t recommend listening to all of this, it was practically torture for me to sit through it live.

  128. Jake Witmer Says:

    Both sides in this argument have sacred cows that they define according to their own worldview, not using English definitions. Both refuse to reference reality, although Clint is a slightly guiltier party here.

    Korzybski: “The map is not the territory.” Kurzweil: “Human language is slow, serial and imprecise.” Intelligent machines of the future will communicate by beaming each other 3-D patterns, and schematics, directly into working memory. They are already billions of times faster than us, our neurons fire at around 100 Hz, Machines commonly fire at GHz and THz speeds. If we don’t recognize the drawbacks of human language, and attempt to describe patterns found in reality, we are totally unable to communicate.

    The first place to begin is that the state usually doesn’t follow its own laws. Take a guess about the percentage this is true, because this indicates “values” and “proper assessment of reality.” Sometimes the state does follow its laws. How is it that some attorneys are able to make a living gauging when this will be? What theory of the law explains this?

    The law now is degraded to the point of being meaningless. It typically serves money and power only, but does so in a way that pretends to be fair. This “pretending” fools unphilosophical, stupid people. (Technical definition of “stupid” is Kurzweil’s “unwittingly self-destructive.”)

    The law usually isn’t obeyed. But sometimes, when you can clearly reveal HOW it’s not being obeyed, the predators who pretend to obey and enforce the law are forced to stop victimizing you. They usually do not do so in the way in which they set a precedent that dissuades the system from future theft, because that may turn more powerful sociopaths against them. Therefore, when their bullying and lawlessness has been sufficiently exposed, they typically “dismiss the case.”

    If they were Charles Schumer exerting pressure on judge Forest in the “Silk Road Case,” they’d be able to exert more and more influence and pressure until they obtained the “guilty” verdict they wanted. But because most cases are not so “high-profile,” they exert less influence, and sometimes feel it’s wisest to dismiss a case.

    Keep in mind that most of what the state does is more evil than Jackals raping and eating a human baby.

    This is why they don’t want to call attention to what they’re doing: it’s bankrupted America, stripped us of our wealth, and eliminated the chance for most now-living people to live an unbounded lifespan. THIS GOVERNMENT is a government of flesh-eating bacteria. To call it a government of wolves would be a high compliment.

    That’s why it’s important to not exaggerate our position. The government is far more of a curse than a blessing, but there are elements of it that act as a “PR” (public relations) “blessing” so that the curse can persist.

    This is why it’s not smart to oppose “all government” “all the time.” You take their best argument away from them if you say that “yes, the FBI should continue to arrest people like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer.” That only requires the continuation of the “ISU” within the FBI (detailed in the book “Mindhunter”). Further, the people who created the ISU openly advocate abolishing all victimless crime laws, because they point out that it actually reduces the cooperation they need to catch serial killers, resulting in “more dead women and kids.”

    OK then. The rest of what the other portions of the FBI has done should be abolished. The few additional good portions could be merged into existing city police forces, as “special units” such as anti-fraud units. There should be no “political arm,” such as the one that probably assassinated MLK, and definitely murdered Vicki Weaver, and a bunch of innocent people in Waco, TX, and framed Schaeffer Cox in Alaska.

    Why have any government at all? …Because DROs and private security organizations don’t inherently allow non-payers to vote on how they use force. …And if they cannot use force, then they are lesser in power than the civilians they allegedly protect. …And if they protect noone, then they’re useless and make us less secure.

    The vote is critical. The vote must be open. The vote must be democratic.

    The vote doesn’t confer any additional rights to the government that the individual lacks. (For example, even in a minarchy, the citizenry must be allowed some means of doing everything the police can do.) This tends to “break down” in “hostage negotiation” situations: the police say, “If we have more men on this situation, it will alert the hostage-takers, resulting in dead hostages.”

    …But it’s a good “rule of thumb” that would technically outlaw putting flashing lights on your vehicle and pulling over “speeders.” (No victim, no crime.)

    A great many anarchists are not minarchists simply because they see the failed Libertarian Party and conclude that electoral politics “doesn’t work.” But this is not true. It does work, when it exists. In the USA, the Libertarian Party has been infiltrated by existing government goons since at least 2001. The same person controls 100% of the money that goes into the LP, purposefully resulting the political and electoral failure of the LP.

    Most anarchists are dilettantes who never bothered to figure out how the LP was compromised. The same is true of most LP-minarchists.

    But even the partial attempt at minarchy provided a pathway out of total enslavement.

    The sooner “anarchists” realize this, the more possible it will be to avoid a return to a thousand years of abject enslavement.

    Why would abject enslavement last longer this time, than after the leveller uprising?

    Because every square inch of the surface of the Earth is mapped from outer space, and you cannot
    1) hide
    2) explore and settle
    any new area of the Earth. It’s all been discovered. There is no “frontier.”

    You can only choose the ground upon which you wish to fight.

    The “Free State Project” stupidly chose a state to pursue electoral politics in that had closed off MOST electoral avenues….A State with terrible numbers, too-numerous and too-tiny state legislative districts, and no initiative and referenda.

    The FSP likely did this for the same reasons the LP is a failure: infiltration and dilettantish lack of commitment.

    Our window of opportunity is rapidly closing, and we have few significant victories under out belt.

    I suggest that “anarchists” and “sufficiently-radical-minarchists” realize that they are the same animal sooner, rather than later.

    The following 100 pages of Bastiat’s “The Law” might help that:

    In the USA, libertarianism means “classical liberalism.” See:

    Very sadly, the Historical thread that connects “liberalism” to “libertarianism” has often been blurred and obscured by the wretched government schools that teach servility to the result of any vote. This “suffrage only” teaching of “democracy” is an immense disservice to humanity.

    If the USA regresses into totalitarianism (further than it has), the rest of the world will do so as well.

    This means: a delayed Singularity. …Which implies that you get to die and go to an imaginary heaven, instead of extend your healthspan, and live a real paradise on Earth.

  129. Andy Says:

    “What’s the difference between the government and the mafia? The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime.” ~ Brett Veinotte

    Mr/Mrs. Politician/Bureaucrat, If I did as government types do and forced perfect strangers to pay me, would you consider me a criminal?

5 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP - June 13, 2015 - Co-host: Calvin - Says:

    […] Clint’s severe lack of factual support for his conclusions. […]

  2. NSP - Jun 20, 2015 - Guests: Brian and Derrick J - Says:

    […] Investigative flubs from critics of past and present. […]

  3. Statism Is A Mental Disorder | Beyond The Corral Says:

    […] | No amount of redefining your way out of the terms used in a question can compensate for an absence of facts and evidence to support your claims, but lets listen to a statist try anyway, here is a sample of some of the logical excrement: […]

  4. NSP - Dec 12, 2015 - Says:

    […] Anarchists of convenience. […]

  5. NSP - Jan 2, 2016 - Says:

    […] Chuck’s douchebag moves. […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

: Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and he can add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via You can join Marc live, or contact Marc to ask a question if you cannot make it on live. You can find archives of the Wednesday broadcast here on the website and on YouTube.

If you want to join the forum, you must email me a username so I can create the account. This is to stop the flood of spambots.

Contact update: If you email me a wall of text, then I probably will not read it. If you email me telling me to call you right away I won't. You'll have to set up a phone consult so we can set an appointment.

Mailing address has changed as of 1 October 2016. The new mailing address is: G.M. 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here