Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Sept 19, 2015 – Guests: Eyal and Tim

Posted on September 20th, 2015 by Calvin

Eyal Lior from No STATE Project Israel joins the show to continue our conversation about the ethical case for veganism and Tim from the Phoenix valley joins to share his latest #AiLL with us and to strengthen his Socratic litigation techniques by role-playing courtroom procedure.

Show Notes:

  • Gary Francione’s animal activism.
  • What degree of suffering is unnecessary?
  • Everyday products made with slave labor.
  • The crime of being forced to support something you are morally objected to.
  • Overcoming learned helplessness.
  • Tips for producing a successful radio show and writing a book centered around making a case for anarchy in Israel.
  • Universally Preferable Behavior/NAP as it applies to animals.
  • Call into the show before you have a court hearing so you can better prepare for the shenanigans you’ll likely encounter.
  • Challenging a RedFlex ticket in a Phoenix, AZ court.
  • Keeping the burden-of-proof on the one bringing forth the accusation, complaint, and/or arguement.
  • Jurisdiction is a threshold issue that is considered a reversible error if it is not clearly established.
  • If you file a complaint against a government agent, they’d move to dismiss on the same grounds of jurisdiction that you’ll be challenging.
  • The three different types of jurisdiction: personam, in rem, and subject matter.
  • The prosecution claimed a valid cause of action “doesn’t apply” in civil traffic proceedings.
  • Past courtroom damage-control success stories achieved by effectively challenging the evidence and impeaching the witness(es).
  • “Every question should be a leading question on cross-examination.”
  • Three elements of a valid cause of action: 1) actual damage, 2) the violation of someone else’s legal right, and 3) the court’s ability to provide redressability.
  • The significance of independently verifiable instances of people utilizing Socratic questioning with the Scientific method to achieve the same outcome of effective damage-control.
  • Looking for opportunities to broadcast the No STATE Project live in a public space for an audience.
  • Upcoming workshop on October 24th in Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Sticking to objective nomenclature to lessen the intimidation factor.
  • Objecting to the inherent conflict-of-interests in the courtroom.
  • Ultimately (according to them); their rule of necessity trumps your right to a fair and impartial hearing.
  • Courts may only hear justicable cases or controversies.
  • “Prove it.”
  • Don’t accept the common judicial lie that “jurisdiction is a trial issue.”
  • Making proper and assertive objections.

21 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    Calvin! I wuz beginning to think you’d gone over to the dark side. 🙂

  2. Calvin Says:

    @NonE: Back to Windows? No way, some evils are easier to kick than meat. 😉

  3. desertspeaks Says:

    excerpts from judicial code of conduct for judicial employees in Arizona.
    Canon 1, Rule 1.3.
    Judicial employees shall not use or attempt to use their position for personal gain or to secure privileges or exemptions for themselves or any other person.

    When a judge attempts to carry the burden for the prosecution “and we all know they do/will”, hit them with the following.
    To Judge; Objection!
    IF “more like when” you, “the judge” give an exemption to the prosecution of their burden of proof of jurisdiction “which is an essential element of any charge”. Is that not giving an exemption to another person, in violation of judicial canon 1, rule 1.3 AND showing partiality in violation of Judicial Canon 2, rule 2.3?
    Then they’ll squirm!

  4. Steve Says:

    @ Marc Stevens, Sorry to shatter your delusions about peanuts. They’re full of mold/fungus. The same thing all antibiotics are made of. No matter what you do to them… Can’t get the fungus out. They are not a true nut. They are Legumes. They grow underground, not on trees.

    I’m glad you are careful to protect your health, but peanuts are not helping your agenda.

  5. Thad Says:

    Eating meat has nothing to do with the NAP. If I buy from the store or butcher I did not participated in the animals death nor did I initiation of force on the animal from the mere act of buying from a 3rd party and such.

    “The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom) is a moral principle that prohibits the initiation of force by one person against another”

    The initiation of force is absent in eating meat after the fact from another persons actions. It is merely a happy coincidence that one can enjoy meat with no guilt…as I did not kill said animal.

    Using fuzzy logic to try and bridge that gap between eating meat and the NAP is like trying to say 2+2=5. Good day and no response will come after this from me, as some seem to be true believers and emotional attached to this vegan/NAP view. I wish you well all the same.

  6. Matt Says:

    Is death really evil or bad? Is it the end? What if this 3D experience IS hell or some type of simulation/matrix and death is actually freedom and the best thing possible for a “soul”? What if the body is a prison?

    If you murder a human, there will be negative blowback in many ways, that’s why it is immoral ie wrong as in “it doesn’t work”…

    If you murder certain other mammals, there will also be suffering and what we might call grief etc, same goes for torture ofc, it creates needless suffering and we can sense it with our empathy…

    So torture is ALWAYS wrong. But what if someone shoots me in the head and I am dead instantly, where is the suffering for ME? Do I suffer?

    Do animals suffer if you kill them painlesslessy ie instantly? Do fish mourn their dead friends?

    And then again, we have to KILL LIFE either way! Plants are also alive, we have to KILL in order to live, it’s a constant cycle…

    So is death without needless suffering really a bad thing?

  7. NonEntity Says:

    Thad, do you similarly consider it acceptable to knowingly buy stolen property as long as you did nit personally perform the theft?

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Matt, you bring up a very interesting thought. I suggest it ties in with the idea of property “rights” and ownership. If, as I suggest, ownership is a social function rather than a personal “right,” then your suggestion makes much sense. In fact it maybe the only way that life can continue while considerstion against harming others is respected. In instantly and painlessly killing another you are not causing that other any suffering or loss. The loss which may be sustained is not by the one killed but rather by others who depend upon or treasure the company of the one who is killed. Which is one of the reasons our current animal industry is so terrible as it makes the lives of the animals a living hell. I see a big difference between treating other lives with respect, including being respectful when you take those lives, and the treatment of other lives as commodities over which you have no concern other than your own profit. (Did I hear someone say “citizen?”)

  9. Andy Says:

    NonEntity steals eggs from chickens… Just kiddin’

    I don’t suppose you were thinking the stolen property was eggs a chicken farmer stole from chickens, were you, Sister Sleazious?

    If killing a chicken is murder, is “harvesting” chicken eggs stealing?

  10. NonEntity Says:

    Yes. Just like harvesting taxes.

  11. Andy Says:

    You can’t have your cake and eat it too because it’s got milk, and eggs and sometimes cheese in it. Also, fruits, vegetables, wheats and grains aren’t living entities either.

    Long horn steer have come as Mckenzie friends to support corn in, Corn vs Monsanto.

  12. Andy Says:

    @NonEntity (aka Sister Sleazious), do you consider it acceptable to knowingly buy stolen fruits, vegetables, wheats and grains as long as you personally didn’t steal/pick the fruit, vegetables, wheats and grains? Just like “harvesting” taxes, right?

  13. Pete Says:

    I’m a vegetarian, not a vegan. I eat eggs. I think it is okay to eat eggs from hens that are treated humanely and not slaughtered after they quit laying.

    I also think the same goes for eating cheese and milk from dairy cows that are humanely treated and not slaughtered.

    I also think it is okay to kill pesky flies, mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas. Mice that enter my house are fair game to kill because they are a definite threat to my stores of grain that I need to survive.

  14. NonEntity Says:

    Pete, Dr. William Davis is the author of the book Wheat Belly. He has solid documentation that grains are not healthy for the human animal. I’ve been off most grains for a couple of years now and have noticed significant benefits. You may care to investigate Davis’s work.

  15. Andy Says:

    Grains aren’t living entities and neither are fruits and vegetables. /sarcasm

  16. Boxer Says:

    I’m going to goal Sister Sleazious and grammar nazi here; justicable? Maybe you meant justiciable?

  17. Boxer Says:

    goal = go

  18. NonEntity Says:

    Boxer sed: I’m going to goal Sister Sleazious and grammar nazi here…


  19. RAD Says:

    L Ron Hubbard did these experiments(not saying this is real science, but still) where he hooked up a meter to a tomato plant and pulled off leaves and it got a reading similar to how the meter would read when hooked up to human and you would pinch them, indicating the plant probably has some sense or reaction of “pain”. Also, plants have something like a sleep cycle and a wake cycle, they seem to have a sense of awareness of other plants and respond to music, etc. Speaking here also as someone who was vegetarian for years, and not trying to belittle the points Eyal made(some excellent info he presented), but why the double standard with assuming plants are somehow different from other life forms. Why wouldn’t NAP apply to mushrooms and algae, etc?

  20. Eye Gore Says:

    Here is another false dilemma to add to the one about coming across a ‘psychotic’ (man or child) with a bunch of cats, some dead, some alive.

    To go off the logic that it is moral to use ‘defensive’ force (probably including up to lethal defensive force) against the man to protect the cats:

    Imaging a burning house with some cats and a child in it. You can only save one or the other. Knowing full well that the child will eat meat and be responsible for the deaths of 1000’s of food animals, whom do you save, the cats or the child?

    From what I’ve seen on all the vegan youtube channels (who are actually omnivores, because they aren’t just eating vegetables, they are eating nuts and grains as well), your typical vegan would seem not to have an issue with a eugenics program against omnivores. They have no issue in participating in the deaths of millions of animals, for roads, iPhones, banana plantations, etc, but come to want to use deadly force to stop people from consuming animals as their food source. Seriously?

    As for owning a cat (or any pet), wouldn’t that be considered false imprisonment? Even if you were to say that the cat loves the family (which can’t be proven) and you let it go outside and it comes back, isn’t that more a case of indoctrination? Since the kitten didn’t have a choice in the matter of where it ends up, and you get a lot of “don’t let the cat out of the house!” reactions when people have them for pets. My cats are affectionate, but I’m pretty sure that the ‘love’ they show me is more a response to the fact I feed them, rather than on my honesty and virtue.

    As for the ‘rape’ of cows… wouldn’t all animal reproduction considered ‘rape’ except in the event of consenting human adults? Also, cows are like wet nurses – they don’t need to be re-impregnated constantly to produce milk; they continue to produce milk as long as they are milked. So should someone kill a male animal each time they see one reproducing with a female, because it is actually rape? And until artificial insemination was implemented, farmers would turn their cows over to the bulls to impregnate them. Would it be moral to kill the bull to stop the rape or the farmer for instigating it? Further, I spent my child/teenhood working on dairy farms. Each of those cows were given names and were treated with great respect. When they became too old to produce milk, they were turned to pasture and died of old age. When one of these cows died, there were emotional responses from the farmers, no farmer I ever knew was so callous. I get that many factory farms are not like that, but broad generalizations on how badly livestock are treated I think don’t hold up.

    All the vegan ‘moral’ arguments seem to me to fall apart under cursory scrutiny – they just don’t hold up. Would it be immoral for an alien species to see humans as a food source? I’d say it would really suck, but I don’t see the immorality of it. Anymore than I see a shark as being immoral for eating a person. Aren’t they just eating to survive?

    The idea that humans can survive on plant based diet; I don’t see how it is immoral to eat animals just because you can spend all day and all your money eating plants and estrogen creating soy beans. I tried a vegan diet for about 2 months, gained 10 pounds and felt either hungry or bloated the entire time. And the gas — good grief.

    I treat my chickens as well as I have any pet I’ve ever had and I am grateful for when I kill one to eat. And I do it in as calm a way as possible to prevent as much fear as possible.

    Vegans – the food police. I don’t see the moral high ground here. Please correct me if I’m wrong on any of the points above – but a warning to you vegans: try to use defensive force on me when I’m eating my chickens and see what happens…

  21. Eye Gore Says:

    I have to correct myself on one of the above points – I did know 2 farm hands who were pretty callous, so they were definitely a-holes. I’d been thinking back to those times and did remember that. I didn’t know them for long. Those cows were treated way better than I’ve seen video of how cops treat their dogs.

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 we can also 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. or Occupant 1496 N. Higley Rd., Suite 102-37 Gilbert, Arizona 85234.

Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter

Advertise Here