Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Jan 9, 2016 – Guests: Bill Church, Eyal Lior, and Keith O’Brien

Posted on January 10th, 2016 by Calvin

Guests Bill Church and Eyal Lior join the show in the 1st and 2nd hour to continue our ongoing discussion on the consistency of our moral conduct; where do you draw the line of violently asserting yourself against other living beings? In the 3rd hour Keith climbs aboard to share his last success story (dismissed on appeal!) and a recent fallacious admission from a judge.

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:


51 Comments For This Post

  1. Matt Says:

    Do we own plants? They are also lifeforms that have to be killed and consumed…

    So either way, killing to live is just the natural order, can’t change that.

    Maybe dying isn’t actually bad, who actually knows?! Especially for animals who don’t care about “losing” their “buddies”, like a fish, do fish care about their fish buddies losing their life to a fisher? Do they even notice or remember it long enough to care?

    I got lucky with quiting meat because I never liked the taste anyway… except chicken and fish, so I gave up chicken but still eat certain types of fish now and then, and still some cheese and eggs but I am trying to quit that too.

    Not because I believe the killing is wrong, but because the torture, suffering and slavery is wrong… it’s actualy harm being done to them and ultimately to us.

    Btw giving up meat also eliminated my migraine problems.

    I agree with the Inuit who say that killing animals is only justified if you use it for survival and you won’t waste anything…

  2. Stuart Says:

    Mark you are 100% right, I am from Scotland and the Law is applied exactly the same way because some wee cowardly fart sitting with a hard on of false power, say “because I said so” that’s it nothing more than the Police cartel to enforce their extortion. They awnser nothing and place you into involuntary servitude as soon as you awnser to their Corporate name which if you don’t they send their gansters to round you up, many of these hamsters live within our comuntties

  3. damon Says:

    ◦”It is pro-life to be pro-choice; you are respecting people’s life by allowing them the freedom to choose.”

    A wholly ignorant statement and a bit of an oxymoron.

    This comment of course coming from the mindset (spirit) that it is o.k. to compel benefits and welfare at their neighbors expense by asking benefactors to do the taking. All the while claiming the benefactors stole it even though the people are the ones asking them to “steal” it for them by taking the benefits.

    Now murdering the unborn is “pro life”.

    All I see is more evidence of people not wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. I had sex, got pregnant, and now I will murder the child because…

    this is how selfish people have become. they will murder their own rather than take on the responsibility of their own actions. If these folks are willing to murder their own to avoid responsibility, they will have no problem asking the benefactors to murder and eat out of your substance to avoid their responsibilities.

    “Respecting peoples choice” … ya right.

    Like when people here take benefits from benefactors that exercise authority over their neighbor because the people (YOU) asked them to do it to provide for your welfare…This is hypocrisy. If one really respected their neighbors choice they would stop asking authoritarians to take from their neighbor to provide welfare and benefits. The people asking and taking the benefits are the ones with the guns forcing their neighbor. The government is a reflection of the peoples heart. Agents of your heart.

    Wholly ignorant statement. Why would I expect anything less. More of the same, not wanting to take responsibility for oneself.

    Murder is pro-life…

    of course there will be people who will defend the position of murdering their own. But be reminded these are the same folks who “claim” they want voluntary interactions between people while simultaneously compelling offerings from their neighbor through the agency of government, then turn and blame the government agents for doing what they asked of them. If they are willing to murder their own children what do you think they will do to you to save their own lives when it comes time…?

    Do you think the people murdering their own children will have the sand necessary to make the sacrifices required to set people at liberty? Nope, they will kill and devour you too.

    To promote the murders is to promote the selfishness.

  4. NonEntity Says:

    I remember reading someplace in the last few years that research into fish has discovered that they have a lot more feeling than previously thought. The arrogance of the human animal is quite impressive.

  5. NonEntity Says:

    I must say however that listening to Demon’s interminable illogical rants has put the concept of murder on a much more favorable mental plane that that where previously held.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    than that

  7. Chex Says:

    You want to know how corrupt govern men/woman are; the who’s in charge “persons” the 28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges are?

    This is supposed to be our justice system? No the end result was “Currency”, not just at the barrel of a gun but in a court of law.

    Watch this true documentary Making a Murderer‘s Written by: Laura Ricciardi Moira Demos: Directed by: Laura Ricciardi Moira Demos.

    Making a Murderer, as it deals with defendants who are essentially tried in the media and failures in the criminal justice system.
    Brendan Dassey. The court removed him from that role — after he’d allowed his then-teenaged client, said to have an IQ of 70, to be interrogated by police without an attorney or guardian present.

    While a White House petition has reached the requisite 100,000 signatures to force a response, President Obama issued a statement, noting that the federal government could not overturn Avery’s state conviction (and, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has said he has no plans to issue a pardon). In the meantime, non-profit legal organization the Innocence Project has said that one of its members is “looking into” Avery’s case.

    Read more

    Read more “Explosive” is an apt word for “Making a Murderer’s” viral success.

    The 10-episode docuseries has gripped viewers with its tale of possible police corruption since it was released in late December.

  8. Chex Says:

    Also take notice if you watch the docuseries.

    President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that:

    “A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides.”

  9. damon Says:

    What is “illogical” about expecting you to pay for things you take?

    The only thing that is illogical is thinking that one take benefits at others expense and not be put under the same yolk of bondage. These are not “rants” as you suppose. Evidence of your bondage is all around you starting with the licensing and tax schemes. One cannot take benefits that come at the expense of their neighbor then turn and blame government for taxing you when they were acting as agents for you to take from your neighbor!!! Snap out of it. You cannot buy stolen property knowing it is stolen and then claim ignorance. You become complicit in the act by your actions and YOU KNOW THIS.

    You like others, pseudonym, try to justify being able to take from the loot you believe they stole without having to suffer the consequences of being a thief yourself. This is “illogical’ and down right ignorant.

    Like the one poor chap on here who keeps contending

    “We are just taking back what they stole”.

    To which if this were true then there would be no debt, I humbly remind you again. What he is taking is coming from the future generations and even his own children he has or will have. But what does that matter to a people who are willing to murder their own children and the unborn because they are so selfish already, right?

    No wonder your rights are vanishing at the rate in which they do. I tell you how to free people and no one is really interested in that here because of selfish covetousness. If anyone were really interested in their neighbors welfare, they would engage me instead of trying to “demonize” me. If anyone was really interested they would attempt to answer my repeated questions.

    But they cannot answer let alone even attempt too because the honest answers to them results back to square one…people having to look at themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. their own selfishness and covetousness.

    The hypocrisy becomes more and more evident here with every response. People “praising” the idea of “voluntary interactions” between peoples. what a crock! That is all it is here is a fantasy. Imaginations and people in love with the idea but no one really willing to take steps or make sacrifices for one another and that are necessary.

    Instead we want to “crucify” (your implication of murder)the only one that is willing to tell you the truth of your slavery.

    these reasons are exactly why your bondage will remain. to too busy trying to gnaw of your own chains instead of trying to save the guy next to you while the ship sinks while blaming the guy across from you for your chains.

  10. Eye Gore Says:

    I would have to say that I’m still not convinced that it is immoral to kill and eat animals.

    On numerous vegan youtube videos, as well as here, I’ve made arguments and asked the question about the moral difference between killing animals for food and killing them for technology and other general ‘living’ requirements, such as building houses, mining, and so forth.

    I have never received a rebuttal or acknowledgement on any of the questions I’ve asked or arguments I’ve made.

    NonEntity, Marc and Eyal – I have utmost respect for you and your positions on not wanting to harm animals. But I ask again, how do you reconcile and justify killing animals for technology (that is, the by-product killing from mining, logging, textile manufacture, etc), but find it so immoral to kill for food? It may be true that we can ‘survive’ on plant matter alone, but I also think we can all live without cell phones and computers.

    To me it seems so much less arrogant and aggressive to at least eat an animal that has been killed for food, rather than for ‘things’.

    Please also keep in mind, that I am excluding the typical slaughter houses. Specifically I would be talking about my food animals.

    I also ask to the general feeling that from what I have seen, that vegans would have no problem killing people who would kill an animal for food, calling it ‘animal defense’ and that people who eat animals ‘don’t deserve to live’.

  11. Eye Gore Says:

    I would also point out that youtube vegans have deleted my comments asking the same questions. Which leads me to believe that there is a lot of moral cherry picking happening.

  12. NonEntity Says:

    Eye Gore,
    My personal perspective, the logic which drives my sense of veganism, is that any use of animal products is unacceptable. That includes animal derived glue, leather products of any kind, and so on. Any other interpretation is, in my view, inconsistent.

    A question for you: can you give me your definition of “moral” so that I might better understand your thinking on this issue?

  13. NonEntity Says:

    Eye Gore,
    Let me add that I find most people to be logically inconsistent, something that causes me a sense of disgust with most of humanity. That said, I like most people until they prove themselves unworthy of that. I think most people tend to be good when they are dealing one on one with others. It’s when group dynamics come into play that people tend to become monsters. At least that’s what I think I think at this moment.

  14. Eye Gore Says:

    NonEntity –

    Basically, just the first definition given when searching:

    “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.”

    Where I see the inconsistency is when the concern is with harming an animal, that it is OK to use a product whose manufacture or material resulted in the harming of an animal, versus simply just not using a product that *contains* animal.

    So, how to reconcile:

    It is ok to use a cell phone with a lithium ion battery that the mining of the metals and resultant pollution for processing that resulted in the harm and death of an animal, versus wearing a leather jacket that resulted in the death of an animal?

    To me, there is inconsistency with that logic.

  15. Eye Gore Says:

    Let me add also, that I’m really not trying to ‘justify’ eating animals, I just don’t see the connection.

    But I don’t see the inconsistency of being non-aggressive to eat an animal as opposed to aggressiveness toward other people.

    I’m definitely getting the feel that I’m not being 100% clear still…

  16. Rad Says:

    How many animals do you have to kill just to plow a field. Even if organic you still have pest control etc.

  17. Rad Says:

    Why is it a double standard to eat meat but not a carrot(vital organ of living organism)

  18. Andy Says:

    The hierarchal structure of government is strong. Individuals that fill high positions are weak. Look at their lack of integrity. It’s a hierarchal system that’s not predicated on a person having strong/honorable integrity to exploit those weak in hierarchical power. The hierarchical structure of nature, the ecological web of nature, is that big fish eat little fish. Field mice are eaten by hawks and other predators. Lions eat gazelles, when they can catch them. Newborns are easy prey if the mother/parent(s) can be averted.

    Ostracism and boycott seems to be the moral and consistent with honest ethics means of advancing/spreading veganism.

  19. NonEntity Says:

    Eye Gore,

    Your definition of morality is circular logic. You say it has to do with right and wrong. Okay, what is your definition of right and wrong? (The dictionary probably says that it refers to morality!… 😉 )

    Seriously, what defines a moral act versus an immoral one? There must be something concrete that you can point to, don’t you think? Otherwise isn’t it a rather nebulous and hence meaningless term?

  20. desertspeaks Says:

    @ damon, read the credit river case “you can look it up online” there is no debt because nothing is ever loaned! Nice try though!
    Oh it applies to the federal reserve “which is as much of a government entity as federal express”

  21. Eye Gore Says:


    You could be right – perhaps it does end up circular. So maybe we can give up on defining immoral vs moral, right vs wrong, although I don’t think it address my original question:

    I still have to understand the reconciliation of what seems to be a double standard:

    That it is OK to kill an animal in order to have access to or posses some type of technology, be it fire, a cell phone, computer, gasoline, harvest corn and so on, but not OK to kill an animal for food.

    Animals are killed all the time by farm equipment harvesting edible plants. I see it every day (I live out in the sticks) – foxes, rabbits, birds unfortunate enough to get in the way of a combine. Is it just that because the killed animals are eaten for food, that it then becomes non-aggressive?

    We can all survive without fire, cell phones, computers, gasoline, etc, although without a certain level of comfort, as one could survive without eating animals – although it is probably unlikely to be able to even grow enough edible plant matter to survive on without some level of animal killing (in the process of protecting crops and crop harvesting).

    I’m just not seeing the connection as to what constitutes an aggression toward an animal by eating it, as opposed to killing it for agricultural purposes – that is, killing a rabbit for eating one’s lettuce and the like.

    Yes, I do agree that it is an act of aggression to kill an animal for food, but, how can it be reconciled that one would be able to own a computer without the same said aggression, and I would argue, even worse, because the animal killed for the mining and processing doesn’t even get eaten. It is completely wasted. The same could be said for someone eating corn that was harvested by a combine that killed a vole or a rabbit.

    Maybe I’m way off base here. I am just a country bumpkin, after all… I like to think of myself as a ‘good’ person and really do my best to only have voluntary relationships with others. I have even passed on very well-paying jobs, because I won’t work for the government, or any company that has government contracts, nor will work for a company that would use my productivity for anything that can be used for spying or killing of people (I’m a software engineer), so I find it troubling that for all that I don’t do in order to adhere to the NAP, that because I raise my own food, that all that simply goes out the door because I eat my own chickens and pigs.

  22. Eye Gore Says:

    I have to clear up this mis-typed sentence:

    “Is it just that because the killed animals are eaten for food, that it then becomes non-aggressive?”


    “Is it just that because the killed animals are eaten for food, that it then becomes aggressive?”


  23. NonEntity Says:

    Eye Gore,
    I understand your question. It’s a good and valid question. Let me suggest to you that “right and wrong,” i.e. “morality” is the core issue. When a tree falls on an ant hill it is regretful but I doubt you feel the same concern as you are revealing here, correct? So it appears to me that what concerns you is that you want to be a good person, a moral person,.and yet you are not sure how to do that. Am I right? If so then the question comes back to morality. What is it? Until you can answer that for yourself you are caught in an insoluble bind. Does that make sense?

  24. Eye Gore Says:

    Hmmm – it is interesting food for thought – I’m not sure that my question has been answered, but in this circumstance, maybe it doesn’t need to be.

  25. NonEntity Says:

    Eye Gore, as I see it the answer to your question is dependant on the definition of morality. If a falling tree or a hurricane are not wrong to do what damage they do to various living.(and non living) things, then what is it about a tractor piloted by a man growing food to feed others which is somehow wrong? I personally believe it all hinges on the meaning of morality, but perhaps I am mistaken in this.

  26. Thad Says:

    @eye gore, that is because marc and his work has been officially ranover by cultural marxist of certain Israeli persuation. Cultural marxist ideas alone fail so they tend to take over others ideas….and take something beautiful and make ugly and unreliable. I feel bad for marc and his once qonderful cause has been turned to a left leaning mentality of vegan scam.

  27. Eye Gore Says:

    Yes – I get what you are saying – and it’s like Marc has said before, that we all have to come to our own conclusions as to whether or not we are living consistently with our own values, removing the contradictions until we are left with the conclusions we draw from that.

    It is something I wrestle with everyday, how easy it would be to just do what feels good in the moment without thought or care as to how our actions affect everyone and thing around us, for our own benefit.

    It may just be how I was brought up, living off food we raised ourselves, I have a real hard hard time not seeing animals as food items. I just can’t seem to find that ‘click’ as it were to get to the point of pure veganism. I don’t know if it’s conditioning or what, I really don’t know. I just know that for me right now, I have a hard time bringing up the emotional state to not see animals as food. Now, it’s true, I don’t see dogs as food, maybe someday I’ll see chickens in the same way. And I have no idea as to how I would ever see that taking a chicken’s egg could be considered ‘theft’. It would definitely have to be a real change in my conditioning to see it that way.

    But the thoughts do go through my mind – I am rambling a bit here. I will continue to think on it and see where it leads me.

  28. NonEntity Says:

    Yep, sure izza.shame about that qonderful vegan scam. Oh well.

  29. Paul NZ Says:

    Great show.

  30. Eye Gore Says:

    For the record, my last response was to NonEntity’s response, not Thads.

  31. damon Says:

    @ Desert

    there are other court cases that claim there is debt or that “some of the vitality of the debt still remains”. How does one pay a debt at law with federal reserve notes? I posted the relevant parts of the case for your convenience;

    There is a distinction between a “debt discharged” and a “debt paid.” When discharged the debt still exists though divested of its character as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge. Something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist which may be transferred, even though the transferee takes it subject to its disability incident to the discharge. The fact that it carries something which may be a consideration for a new promise to pay, so as to make an otherwise worthless promise a legal obligation, makes it the subject of transfer by assignment. Stanek v. White, 172 Minn. 390, 215 N. W. 784.

    If you take something without paying for it there is debt. You would owe for the burger after you ate it. If you take without intending to pay and without asking that is stealing.

    You have been made surety for this debt. you have given up your right over your labor and entered into a “vow of poverty” in return for security. social Security that is. you have given up just about all of your rights and exchanged them for the promise of benefits, which consequently come at the expense of your neighbor.

    They “monetize” your promise to pay. they take your promise to pay them. the banks do. I agree they do not “loan” you anything. But you can make promises without getting loaned anything. You sign to this “promise to pay” for a fixed rate. Actually if you look up mortgage it is literally defined as a “death pledge”.



    It is not about whether or not they loaned you anything or not it is ALWAYS about YOU. The promise YOU made to pay THEM. You have to take responsibility for your own actions which people do not want to seem to want to do around these parts. You PROMISED to pay,

    Pro_6:2 Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth.

    You became surety to strangers for debt by “shaking hands” or making agreements in other words;

    Pro_17:18 A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.

    Instead of pay what you PROMISED, you are attempting to turn their unrighteousness into your unrighteousness now? Your not a man of your word? Are you saying that even though you promised to pay, now you do not have to pay the bank what you promised? Not very honest on your end Desert if that is what you contend. your not a liar are you Desert?

    Do you also believe you can take from those you claim to be thieves without also being a thief yourself?

    Do you think you can take benefits from authoritarians and not owe or have to pay for these benefits?

  32. Andy Says:

    People doing research and development of cultured meats will eventually remove cholesterol from meats and increase their nutritional value. The essentially non existent negative environmental impact is a definite plus. As is consistency with vegan ethics a plus. The biggest benefit will be low cost, widely marketed nutritious meats. Values measured according to conscious beings are the highest value. Exponential advancing technology is assisting the collapse of ruling class hierarchies.

  33. spooky2th Says:

    I doubt there is such a thing as bad cholesterol. You’re body makes it when there is not enough in your system. You’re brain needs it. Statins mess up your liver and keep it from producing cholesterol. This cause dementia and even alzheimers because there is not enough fat in the system. Refined sugars is poison causing a lot of problems. People drinking sodas and eating a lot of processed foods have the heart & cardiovascular problems. When there is a lot of sugar in the blood, it is like sand paper going through the arteries which causes soars. The body reacts to this by creating cholesteral and using it like a band aid on the soars to attempt to heal. If one does not change their diet, the soars get worse and more & more cholesterol is added which eventually clogs the arteries and bamm, a heart attack. If people consumed more fat than than they do processed refined sugars and foods, they would be a lot healthier over all. In the old days when a lot of fat was consumed there was not many heart problems as compared to today.

    I read an article a while ago about a study of coconut oil, a highly saturated fat. People with severe alzheimers and dementia were given aptitude tests and then given a spoonful of coconut oil and within 2 hours they were tested with the same types of tests and showed remarkable increases in the test scores.

  34. spooky2th Says:

    Here’s a good article about cholesterol.

    Too Much Dietary Cholesterol NOT a Problem After All, Says Government

    A federal panel has reversed itself on forty years of dietary guidelines. As usual, natural health physicians were way ahead of this news.

    In the late 60’s when studies came out that margarine was bad for people, the food industry started demonizing saturated fats and now every body believes it, including doctors. The truth is that there is no scientific basis for the food industry’s claim.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ” – Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945) was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was one of German dictator Adolf Hitler’s closest associates and most devout followers.

    “Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
    They are people of bad race and lineage;
    out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.”
    Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900),
    German philosopher. From: Thus Spake Zarathustra.

  35. Pete Says:

    @Andy: Your cholesterol comments reveal a non-thinking, poorly educated, rubbish-regurgitating parrot. Cholesterol is needed for human nutrition. Your body cannot make testosterone nor vitamin D without it! As for any claims that it is bad for you, these are myths started about 40 years ago, probably by rich agricultural interests to push high-profit vegetable oils upon the worthless eaters.

    The Inuits (Eskimo) ate a diet consisting of 100% animal flesh, like fish, caribou, seal, etc. They had no heart disease nor obesity until the western sugar and grain diet was introduced. Inuit only ate plants during famines!

    Another interesting fact is that men can increase their testosterone levels 100-300% by eating lots of cholesterol and getting plenty of sunlight on their balls.

    Even our wise government overlords have recently backed away from their cholesterol fear-mongering. When will Andy?

  36. Andy Says:

    Pete, Not exactly. I slipped. I about forgot the many benefits of cholesterol. I made one comment about cholesterol, not commentS. Shall I call you a: “non-thinking, poorly educated, rubbish-regurgitating” humanoid?

    “Even our wise government overlords”

    Speaking for yourself, obviously. It’s not my “government”. There is no government, there are no citizens, there is no state.

    “fear mongering”

    That’s a hoot. Is that all you got from my post? Probably. Argue for your limitations and sure enough they’re yours.

  37. NonEntity Says:

    Sew Pete, whut dew ewe reelie think? 🙂

  38. RAD Says:

    You became surety to strangers for debt by “shaking hands” or making agreements in other words;

    Who is the “handshake”/agreement with? Who is the other party to the agreeement? Why doesn’t this party’s signature appear in the four corners? Who’s hand was shook?

  39. RAD Says:

    If the agreement is with a figment of one’s imagination then can’t one simply alter the agreement by changing their own mind/way of thinking

  40. Andy Says:

    NonEntity said: “Sew Pete, whut dew ewe reelie think? :-)”

    Apparently Pete really thinks there is a government and that it is his government.

  41. Mark Says:

    I agree with Pete. I was very disappointed to hear so much talk about vegan ism on this show. It really turned me off. Many animals eat other animals for survival. That has been going on for centuries. Vegan ism can get into religious territory and I just didn’t want to hear about it on this show that I cherish so much.

  42. Troy Says:

    @ RAD – my thoughts exactly! Government is all about the attempt to control the mind. But they can only attempt – because we CAN change our minds at will. Government is always bluffing, threatening, and presenting fuzzy logic.

    The most critical mental “agreement” they rely on is your name. With so many sheep to account, they don’t know who you are until you tell them.

    @ Mark – boo hoo. If you don’t like the vegan topic why are you bringing it up?

  43. damon Says:

    @ rad,

    the agreement is with “strangers”. The people you claim steal from your neighbor.

    Your promises can be made enforceable. Just like when you lease a car or take out a mortgage on a house or rent an apartment or get utilities hooked up. Most of those are done with agents acting on behalf of a fiction (the bank, the corporation that “owns” the apartment complex, the car dealership the utility company). The fiction is not the issue, the issue is your promise and what are you asking the agent to do on your behalf.

    If you “change ” your mind this is usually called a default and they can collect and usually do when one defaults or , “changes their mind”.

    the change, as I keep stating, has to come from your heart. the “inner man”. your soul.

    @ Andy,

    For there to be no “citizens” one cannot claim to be one. For there to be no “STATE” one cannot claim to be a resident of such. If one does otherwise, they are a hypocrite.

    If I run around claiming there is no STATE and no citizens, I cannot simultaneously claim to be this thing (citizen) and a resident of something that does not exist (STATE) without looking like a maniac and speaking like one as well. If I believes it I would not claim such things, otherwise I really do not believe it. How can one be a “resident” of something that does not exist?

    Same dead ends. Licenses will ONLY be issued to RESIDENTS of a STATE. If you have a license then you are “resident” of this “STATE”. A status is claimed. A membership is formed. Now one must abide. The “clincher” is that NO ONE HAS TO CLAIM TO BE A RESIDENT. Non-residents have no address “within” the STATE. they have no bank accounts. They have no licenses. They cannot take benefits that are only offered to “residents” of a STATE.

  44. Always Object Says:

    Totally off topic but for informational purposes only, to keep Mark from repeating that the constitution was never signed and thereby looking uneducated in that matter:
    Everything else you say, I agree with

  45. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ always object, they signed as witnesses only

  46. Troy Says:

    Damon – It is good to know how the system operates, and you seem to know this well. Light illuminates. However, did you know how the system operated before you made any agreements? If not, then there was no true “meeting of the minds”, thus no agreement that you can, in your heart, be held liable for.

    How do you suppose an agent will attempt to collect on a default if there is no collateral, such as a promissory note? This note is considered an asset to the holder, but at the same time a liability for the maker. The maker doesn’t know these details at the time of signing – so there is no full disclosure. Would anyone “take out a loan” if they knew the bank was creating the “money” out of thin air, while you are expected to work to pay it back? The bank is giving you nothing really, pieces of paper or digits on a screen that represent nothing, but they expect your repayment in the form of your labor.

    It’s a bluffing game. Is gambling honorable?

  47. Mark Says:

    @ Troy, Well said.

  48. Rad Says:

    “@ rad,

    the agreement is with “strangers”. ”

    So why don’t their signatures (or even their names) appear in the four corners of our “contract”/”agreement”? Or if I have a handshake with them why is there no handshake? Can a meeting of the minds be one-sided? Where are you getting the meeting of the minds with no actual signature from the other party nor actual handshake?

  49. Rad Says:

    “Most of those are done with agents acting on behalf of a fiction ”

    “Agent detection
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search

    Agent detection is the inclination for animals and humans to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one.”
    Hyperactive Agency Detection — A Just-So Story?

    “The hyperactive agency detection (HAAD), or hyperactive agent-detection device (HADD), is the most widely accepted explanation for religious belief in biology, psychology and sociology. It offers us a naturalistic explanation of the origin of beliefs which form the basis of every religion.”

    How do you know they are agents of these “fictions”? Because they themselves believe in it really hard? How do you know this isn’t another form of supernatural religious agent detection?

  50. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Quoting Robert A. Heinlein:
    There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who “love Nature” while deploring the “artificialities” with which “Man has spoiled ‘Nature.'” The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of “Nature”—but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-face absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers’ purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the Naturist reveals his hatred for his own race—i.e., his own self-hatred.
    In the case of “Naturists” such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
    As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women—it strikes me as a fine arrangement -and perfectly “natural” Believe it or not, there were “Naturists” who opposed the first flight to old Earth’s Moon as being “unnaturaI” and a “despoiling of Nature.”

  51. Rad Says:

    No problem with the vegan thing, actually I think a mostly vegatian diet is ideal but I find it contradictory that paying to have a farmer plow a field killing a bunch of animals in the process, spraying poison to kill a bunch of bugs, and then eating a carrot(vital organ of living thing) makes you less of an aggressor than paying a rancher to raise an animal for your consumption while still maintaining that it’s a double standard to practice NAP against humans but not other living things(but yet it’s ok to dig up a plant, a living thing, to eat IT?). Am I getting the argument wrong? To me it seems self-contradictory as a moral argument.

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