Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Feb 8, 2017 – Commercial-free Wednesday, Episode 11

Posted on February 8th, 2017 by Calvin

A very aggressive YouTuber, ICBMCatcher, seems to be on a mission to put me out of business, he’s been posting a long copy and paste warning all over my channel.  So I invited him on a live broadcast, but he never showed up.  I’m not surprised, my critics don’t want to confront me on real time, they just want to accuse me of being a scammer without having to actually prove it.

For all those who think I’m a scammer, there’s four hours of live broadcasts every week.  You can call-in at (218) 632-9399, the code is 2020, or you can also Skype me to join the show.

Show Notes:

Caller’s Topics:

  • Shahid from MO: arrested a year and a half ago for traveling without permission, charges are “no driver’s license, no tags, no insurance, and resisting arrest” <> railroaded though the proceedings and denied an appeal; how can I get the judgement vacated or a petition for writ of prohibition? <> and convicted using Eddie Craig‘s material.
  • Cory from CA: continuing his call from last week about his “no proof of registration” ticket <> is it a advantage or disadvantage to appear in a small-town courthouse? <> is registration fraud really a misdemeanor? <> the probability of the cop driving a few hours to make multiple traffic hearings <> should I question the cop on what evidence he has before the hearings? <> and what is a motion in limine?
  • Jay from TX: finally got a hold of somebody at the tax assessor’s office <> potential Call-of-Shame where the agent goes right into the state-department two-step <> talking directly to Ron Wright‘s office where circular logic, among other logical fallacies, was deployed to counter the questions of evidence <> setting another time to call the tax assessor’s office to get some more questions in about what evidence to prove their laws apply <> and joining the NSP Skype group-chat.
  • Chris from OK: is it morally wrong to subject children to the unnecessary risk of death or injury? <> and makes an inaccurate analogy of not eating meat with traveling in cars with children.

              

422 Comments For This Post

  1. NonEntity Says:

    there’re…
    Compliments of your Very Aggressive Grammar Nazi 🙂 (who is impatiently awaiting the mp3)

  2. Calvin Says:

    @NonE: thanks for impatiently hanging-in there for the .mp3 archive, I hope there was no resort to cannibalism in the between time. “Donner, party of… NonE; your table is ready.”

  3. Richard G. Souder Says:

    Hello Marc,
    I sent you a prior message asking for some possible help in what I am facing coming up. My 92 year old mother who I take care of have two bad apples that my mom decided she did not want to provide for either either of them. After being forced to defend the whole case against an attorney, and a bias court blocked every legal due process that would have given me any kind of edge towards a fair trial. They denied us a jury trial overturned a Revocable Trust and will on complete allegations. I am now trying to write my brief for my appeal. Any thoughts or help would be appereciated, Greg

  4. i.n.rem Says:

    holy crap, Marc ..
    You should actually read eddie’s “stuff” before you proclaim “it has no merit”
    friend Shaheed made the mistake of applying a TEXAS issue of applicability of Law, to his own STATE of MO
    that was his mistake, not a reflection on eddie craig

  5. staljanski Says:

    Eddie Craigs stuff is good to know, been listening to him for years, but i would disagree with the “contact” the cops make..when an thug with a gun and an attitude trained in “submission and controll of the situation” force you of the road, and DEMANDS papers (yah? paperz pleaze,jew”) and you HAVE them pieces of plastic and insurance, GIVE THEM TO HIM… once your pulled over he WILL give you a ticket for any excuse he has, cause they are trained to do so, its re- venue time for his donut fund.. that said if you DONT, you KNOW you will be hurt real bad, your car (might you have a 69 camaro ss/rs restored?) stollen, err i mean impounded, your windows broken, you bloodied at least, cuffs on you thrown in a cage, and then loose your Mcjob, loose your girlfriend,dog, and teeth?.. as far as i see now, were living in the beginning of 1939, and ALL of you n me, regardless of colour and sex, are the new jews. PAPERZ PLEAZE , OR ELSE..bang bang, bang, he was coming straight for me, and he wasnt following MY ORDERS. YAH? ..ahh yes JUSTIFIED assasination, officer gets a raise, more stripes, and a vacation, paid , triple time. unstalicited.

  6. NonEntity Says:

    Hyperthetical morality question: the chicken is crossing the road while on a bus with its seat belt properly secured. While doing so he runs over a human BEFORE entering the proper pass code. Is this immoral?

  7. desertspeaks Says:

    marc, after going around with the idiot that calls itself ICBMCatcher i finally got him to admit that the socratic method of challenging jurisdiction/applicability does in fact work, it was like pulling teeth though and I caught him lying several times to support his opinion that it didn’t work; see the following.

    ICBMCatcher11:19 PM
    +ocsob007 I’m sure it does work, but HOW OFTEN ? How many times out of say 100 attempts does this BS prevail? I never said it never works … it PRACTICALLY never works. So, how many times, out of 100 attempts does this BS work?

    As you can see, even when he conceded that it does in fact work. he then lies and say’s he never said it never works!

  8. desertspeaks Says:

    and yes my id on youtube is ocsob007.

  9. John Cokos Says:

    A spirited debate ! I’m inclined to side with ICBM strictly from my legal background.
    Marc I think that your proposition is more a rhetorical question with no real answer.
    Statistically, the jurisdiction approach is of no real consequence , as any other tactic could be just as effective. I’ve been in court, Federal and local, and if I had no realistic defense to say getting caught with 10 pounds of weed in my back seat, and it doesn’t look like I can buy my way out with a Call Saul Lawyer, I might give it a shot.
    I think that ICBM Catcher and I are on the same sheet of music. A Judge will dismiss a case for ANY number of reasons. It’;s almost never the Law and facts of a case, but the Politics that play a major part in a dismissal.
    After all Marc ” It’s Only a Parking Ticket” 🙂

  10. NonEntity Says:

    John, factually, what is a law? (Hint:someone’s opinion backed by a gun.)

  11. Andy Says:

    John said: “I’m inclined to side with ICBM strictly from my legal background.” Are you a lawyer?

    John said: “It’;s almost never the Law and facts of a case, but the Politics that play a major part in a dismissal.”

    I suspect that’s more accurate than you may have intended. The politics is: do not admit or acknowledge that neither the prosecutor nor judge can show evidence to support the claim of territorial jurisdiction, which is an essential element when charged with a code violation. The politics is to camouflage their criminality and that they don’t abide by their own written rules. Especially Rule 601.

  12. Andy Says:

    John said: “A spirited debate!”

    Did you unintentionally post your comment to this article where the debate isn’t included. The debate is here: NSP – Feb 11, 2017, http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20170211.html

    Spirited debate? I suppose I can get there considering Marc’s logical consistency to the facts trounced ICBMCatcher’s many logical fallacies. Do I need mention ICBMCatcher’s many implications that Marc was censoring him? “Oh, can I talk now…?” as he fumbled for an issue to change the subject to evade answering Marc’s questions which often required no more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer/response.

  13. NonEntity Says:

    186,000 miles per second. It doesn’t just make good sense, it’s the LAW!

  14. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    @ NonE:
    Dude, you’re forgetting that Marc’s audience is world wide…
    So ya got ta show metric also.
    300,000,000 meters per second. Plus or minus a few.

    @ Mr. Cokos:

    Even though NonE doesn’t like my style, I’m firmly convinced these three questions should assist in you understanding where Marc is coming from:

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?
    Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
    Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    The answers are self-evident in my mind. If you don’t see those answers as I do, then you won’t answer them as I do. If that is the case, then I will have a few followup questions for you.

  15. John Cokos Says:

    Well boy’s and girl’s, needless to say, I’m not one of the true beliver’s inthis
    controversy. The Lion doesn’t give a rats behind what the Lamb thinks when he is next on the menu. A nihilistic approach to be sure( if it works, then it’s right).
    The law and the Court system is a zero sum game, if you can put together a counter offensive that will work for you, go for it. I would try it as a shit’s and grin’s approach for a trivial matter (oh those wily traffic ticket’s!), but not for a matter that was of anything critical.The Jurisdiction ploy is far to much of a transparent attempt that the Courts for the most part will see thru.
    There are far more effective weakness’s in the system to game. You might even say that winning in Court is successful Game Theory. Putting a moral equivalent face to it just wishful thinking.
    If I have Gun’s and Manpower, I NOW HAVE JURISDICTION ! See how easy that was.BRING BACK ICBMCATCHER FOR AN ENCOUR PRESENTATION ! 🙂

  16. John Cokos Says:

    Well boy’s and girl’s, needless to say, I’m not one of the true beliver’s in this controversy. The Lion doesn’t give a rats behind what the Lamb thinks when he is next on the menu. A nihilistic approach to be sure( if it works, then it’s right).
    The law and the Court system is a zero sum game, if you can put together a counter offensive that will work for you, go for it. I would try it as a shit’s and grin’s approach for a trivial matter (oh those wily traffic ticket’s!), but not for a matter that was of anything critical.The Jurisdiction ploy is far to much of a transparent attempt that the Courts for the most part will see thru.
    There are far more effective weakness’s in the system to game. You might even say that winning in Court is successful Game Theory. Putting a moral equivalent face to it just wishful thinking.
    If I have Gun’s and Manpower, I NOW HAVE JURISDICTION ! See how easy that was.BRING BACK ICBMCATCHER FOR AN ENCOUR PRESENTATION ! 🙂

  17. NonEntity Says:

    “The Jurisdiction ploy is far to much of a transparent attempt that the Courts for the most part will see thru.The Jurisdiction ploy is far to much of a transparent attempt that the Courts for the most part will see thru.The Jurisdiction ploy is far to much of a transparent attempt that the Courts for the most part will see thru.The Jurisdiction ploy is far to much of a transparent attempt that the Courts for the most part will see thru.” (If twice isn’t enuf maybe four times will make jurisdiction irrelevant.)

  18. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show Mr. Cokos ignored the questions.

  19. Griffin woodward Says:

    Mark, I think the reason that guys like ICBM have so much trouble is because he is just baffled by the fact that the state would no longer have the power to pursue victimless crimes. What he can’t understand is that our “forefathers” never setup the court to handle such things. Unimaginable to them. The government was never given this power. The courts were properly setup to handle disputes between people who have an actual grievance. Also, you handled yourself much better than I might have.

  20. Boxer Says:

    @John Cokos

    Do I understand correctly that you are admitting that the people dba “politicians” are nothing more than a criminal gang of thieves and liars and prove to be so every time they assert justification?

  21. Boxer Says:

    *jurisdiction*

  22. NonEntity Says:

    It works either way, Boxer. 🙂

  23. desertspeaks Says:

    John is saying THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF IT APPLIES TO ANYONE and there never will be any such evidence!

  24. John Cokos Says:

    Well, you might as well draw a circle in the sand, throw some chicken bones in and divine the outcome from them. The issue of jurisdiction in Marc’s approach has been transformed from the question of “does this court have jurisdiction in this case” to one of does the court have ANY jurisdiction at all ? Nice if you can pull it off. In a rhetorical question such as Marc propose’s there is no correct answer,yes jurisdiction applies, no jurisdiction does not apply. Both are equally correct because there is no correct answer.It doesn’t make any difference.
    Marc tell’s the flock, go out and buy a gun, and I will sell you the bullets.(Metaphorically of course!) Just don’t come back to me if you are out gunned 10 to 1 and get shot in the process. Caveat Emptor !

  25. NonEntity Says:

    My thoughts: they are the aggressors. They have the guns. But they also have propaganda which is the most important part of their arsenal. So if you bring up their sacred rules and show that they are violating them it’s VERY BAD for their propaganda machine. That’s why it’s ALWAYS “only ask questions.” You need to get them to provide you with the rope with which they will hang themselves. This really is the crucial point. It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about getting them to hang themselves with their own rope.

  26. NonEntity Says:

    I was in a cotton today as a witness. My first time. I was stunned by the general acceptance that all of this authority they throw around is right and proper, that it is natural to now and scrape before “your superiors.” It’s like the idea of fish in water, they’re swimming in it and they have no concept that there is any other reality.

  27. NonEntity Says:

    cotton should be court
    now and scrape should be bow and scrape
    Apologies for the missed typo errors.

  28. Boxer Says:

    @NonE

    I’d say it works either way but my smoke signals would be crossed.

  29. Boxer Says:

    @John Cokos

    “In a rhetorical question such as Marc propose’s there is no correct answer,yes jurisdiction applies, no jurisdiction does not apply. Both are equally correct because there is no correct answer.It doesn’t make any difference.”

    Maybe I am mising what it is you are attempting to convey here. Is it something along the lines that since jurisdiction (as a concept) itself is a fiction, it doesn’t make sense to give it credibility by using the word itself?

    Marc has never proposed asking whether the “court” has jurisdiction or whether juridiction applies. The question is as follows:

    “What evidence do you rely upon to prove that the code/law applies to me?”

    Please note the very important distinction that it is a question of facts and evidence, not law. We know that those dba “government” assert jursidiction; what we are trying to get at, and hold them accountable for, is whether there is evidence to support their assertion. If there is no evidence, then they are nothing more than a criminal gang of thieves and liars.

  30. Boxer Says:

    If you, as a statist, believe that the “court’s” rules apply, then the prosecutor has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, or by a preponderance of the evidence, that the code/laws apply before any allegation can be made by an unqualified witness (i.e. cop) that you violated said code/laws. What statists fail to understand time and again is that in order for there to be a violation of the code/law, there has to be evidence that the code/law applied in the first place (element of the charge).

  31. desertspeaks Says:

    john cokos.. why don’t you trot out your tangible, factual, personal firsthand, irrefutable evidence proving that any constitution applies to anyone and shut everyone up?? What? you don’t actually have anything that would remotely qualify?? you have no personal knowledge?? JUST YOUR LESS THAN WORTHLESS OPINION??

    Hmm you seem to be suffering from stockholm syndrome, just like your buddy, icmb!

  32. Boxer Says:

    I did a quick seach on John Cokos. Something from PINAC pops up with a video suggesting that Mr. Cokos was falsely arrested on drug charges. Perhaps this is the same person?

  33. Boxer Says:

    @desertspeaks

    C’mon bud. Let’s not attack everyone who comes on here. We’re trying to “win” people over, not treat them like children who have to be told how stupid they are. As Larken Rose once said, he had to give up statism kicking and screaming. Consider this a bad habit and we’re trying to get them to see a different path in life.

  34. desertspeaks Says:

    @ boxer
    The success stories speak for themselves, and prove there is no evidence.. that isn’t chicken bones!
    judges dismiss charges and specifically cite no evidence of jurisdiction.. that dispels any such nonsense that we hear from those who are conditioned to be helpless.

    He’s been on this site for a while, learned nothing and still clings to his indoctrination!
    conditioned helplessness has taught him that he has no control, and he gave up trying.

  35. Andy Says:

    Marx teaches people how to be in the catbird seat. And that it’s not the government criminals with their guns, judges and jails that have the upper hand or moral high ground.

    The Marcratic method is effective at exposing the true colors of government criminals, especially judges and prosecutors — fake critics too.

  36. Andy Says:

    Correction: Marc teaches people…

  37. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Cokos wrote:
    “The issue of jurisdiction in Marc’s approach has been transformed from the question of “does this court have jurisdiction in this case” to one of does the court have ANY jurisdiction at all?”

    @ Mr. Cokos,
    Those are two concurrent issues. Marc’s questions are for the, ahem, members of the court. My three questions are for everybody else.

    You chose to make the above comment because of MY three questions, yet you continue to refuse to address those questions. I have my personal speculation as to why, but I’ll keep them to myself.

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?

    It’s a simple question Mr. Cokos. Please put your answer on the record.

  38. NonEntity Says:

    With my mother’s voice in my ear I’d have to say that I CAN delegate an authority I don’t have but I MAY NOT do so. – NonMarx

  39. NonEntity Says:

    All your base are belong to us.

  40. John Cokos Says:

    Ok, gather around the the old professor: School is in session…
    The Jurisdiction issue is what is known as a “Legal Fiction”. This is a statement or assertion that is taken as a valid legal principle.
    This issue as far as I can determine has never been ruled on by a Court of Record and entered into the record as having been and declared settled law.
    The Jurisdiction question is not settled law, but try to tell that Lysander Spooner and his JurisBots…
    It’s not a issue, just a clever argument….

  41. NonEntity Says:

    Other people are not your property.

    Now I grant you that there may be some disagreement regarding the definition of “property,” but I’d wager there is very little disagreement over claiming ownership of another person (leaving the vegan argument for another day.) Ownership means “control over.” Jurisdiction implies control over, I.e. ownership. I’m not debating that there is defacto slavery in the world. I would suggest that it is perfectly justifiable for anyone held in slavery to kill those who do so enslave. Would you care to make the argument that it is not acceptable for someone who is being held captive to do ANYTHING to achieve redress and freedom?

  42. NonEntity Says:

    John sed, “The Jurisdiction question is not settled law…”
    Would you also agree that the burden of proof is upon the claimant? All Marc is asking is for the evidence the prosecution relies upon to prove jurisdiction. Do you find this an unreasonable request?

  43. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show that Mr. Cokos has again ignored the question(s).

  44. NonEntity Says:

    Yes Habby, we’re already well aware of the size of your unit. It’s so impressive I’ve been rendered speechless. For this I apologize.

  45. John Cokos Says:

    Let me see here, on page 31 of Marc’s Little Red Book on Jurisdiction that all of this useless chatter has absolutely no bearing when you get yourself in the real world of courtroom politics.(Actually it only goes up to page 30, my bad). As to that fellow that got jail time on Bad Advise Good luck with that Habeas Writ, I’D LIKE TO SEE YOU PULL THAT ONE OUT OF THE HAT.
    If you’ve ever see a Judge totally dismiss a 20-30 page Habeas Writ like he was throwing out a week old newspaper, your attempt will end in a dead end. The most difficult trick in the book

  46. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show Mr. Cokos is still ignoring the questions.

    Also let the record show that Habenae Est Dominatus is ignoring the twit labeled NonEntity the best he can.

  47. NonEntity Says:

    Good luck with that Habby! 🙂

  48. eye2i Says:

    NE: “I’ve been rendered speechless.”

    *sigh* if only! (speechless… is that anything like your “ignore” dogma you’re preached and preached as The Way? THAT big hypocritical unit?) Paging Dr Phil, paging Dr Phil: How’s that workin’ out for ya?

    HED: you’ll probably just have to put himity (and the whorse he road inn own) on “speed dial”…

  49. Boxer Says:

    Mr. Cokos

    Was that you that made a plea deal on drug charges??

  50. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Boxer, he can’t answer that…
    He would use items proscribed by his owners and masters…

    If he admits to using proscribed substances that automatically makes him an anarchist.

    Eye2i, what was that number? 3825968 ext. 263 843 46773 968 7633 46 66?

  51. eye2i Says:

    Jenny Tutone’s speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_YueZ4fi8

    (and jic dial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ebiwO4O70) 😉

    –NonTommE²2own (the artist formerly known as №#6§ixVI)

  52. ICBMCatcher Says:

    stevens afraid to tangle with me again. Changed his mind about having me on the show again. Feeling the heat are we stevens?

    Unless I am missing something it looks like stevens deleted my last comment from here as well

  53. Marc Stevens Says:

    You comment is there, I don’t log in everyday. I’m not backing away, we’re going to record another show, stop trying to mislead people or I will start posting your emails. You were on for so long 10+ callers could not make the last broadcast, I only have an hr on Wed and I’m not putting off people who need help. Feeling the heat, wow. You made a fool of yourself and if you want to do it again, that’s cool, we’re just not going to dedicate an entire live broadcast. We’re gonna record, and there no commercial breaks.

  54. spooky2th Says:

    “There is no discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.”
    Joyce v. U.S. 474 2D 215.

    “Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.” Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York 37 F Supp. 150

    “The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven.” Main v. Thiboutot , 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980)

    “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time.” and “Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.” Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co. 495 F 2d 906, 910.

    “Defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any time, even on appeal.” Hill Top Develope
    rs v. Holiday Pines Service Corp.
    478 So. 2d. 368 (Fla 2nd DCA 1985)

    “Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist.” Stuck v. Medical Examiners
    94 Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389.

    “There is no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.” Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215.

    “The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction.” Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.
    Challenging jurisdiction 2 / 5

    “A universal principle as old as the law is that a proceedings of a court without jurisdiction are a nullity and its judgment therein without effect either on person or property.” Norwood v. Renfield
    , 34 C 329; Ex parte Giambonini, 49 P. 732.

    “Jurisdiction is fundamental and a judgment rendered by a court that does not have jurisdiction to hear is void ab initio.” In Re Application of Wyatt, 300 P. 132; Re Cavitt, 118 P2d 846.

    “Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term.
    ” Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

    “A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide that question in the first instance.” Rescue Army v. Municipal
    Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549, 91 L.
    ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=challenging+jurisdiction&kak=-1&kp=-1&kz=-1&kac=-1&kn=1&k1=-1&kam=google-maps&kao=-1&t=ha&ia=web

    Objection, object, object! Make the criminals follow their own rules!!!

  55. NonEntity Says:

    Great reference, spooks. You might consider adding that to the wiki.

  56. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Jurisdiction
    The geographic area over which authority extends; legal authority; the authority to hear and determine causes of action.

    Jurisdiction – a geographic area over which a court has sway

    In order to prove jurisdiction, a prosecutor must show where the accused was when the crime was committed.

    According to your reasoning all courts … the entire judicial system, should be dissolved. Good luck with that.

    Your pal,

    ICBMCatcher

  57. John Cokos Says:

    Boxer: Do your research, and you will answer your own question.

    Those citations don’t argue to the fact of jurisdiction being an issue, just that doe’s the subject matter cause of action apply to a PARTICULAR venue…

  58. Andy Says:

    @ John, If I did as government types do and forced perfect strangers to give me money would you consider me a criminal?

  59. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show Mr. Cokos is still ignoring the question(s).

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?

    It’s a simple question Mr. Cokos. Please put your answer on the record.

  60. John Cokos Says:

    Andy, I would say that that would put you leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the pack. What was it Mao said about “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
    Jurisdiction is one of The Six Impossible Things…

  61. Andy Says:

    John, was that a yes or no?

  62. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show Mr. Cokos is still ignoring MY question.

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?

    It’s a simple question Mr. Cokos. Please put your answer on the record.

    1.5

    —————————-

    I see Andy has asked Mr. Cokos another “extremely hard to figure out” question as well.

  63. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    ICBMCatcher…

    How many times a day do you walk past the Stargate Command broom closet?

  64. John Cokos Says:

    ICBMCatcher: My contention is one of that all the augments about the question of the REALITY of the Jurisdiction Argument are just rhetorical, Marc challenges the premise of something unproveable with an equally unproveable assertion. It’s how many angels can dance on the head of pin? Who cares?
    It sounds like we are basically on the same sheet of music on this, it’s using debating class tactics, when you need to be grounded in the mechanics of the system. I don’t think that the entire court system should be dissolved, it would be a nice gesture, but it aint gonna happen. It’s too much a cash cow to toss in the corner.
    What I think is a better approach to the legal system is the art of turning a defendant into a plaintiff, and the art of intimidation. There was a GREAT book on that published in 70″s, My Bible of sorts. I worked for a very prominent Trial Attorney in Philadelphia who was a past master at this, and winning is just a series of steps with back up scenarios, and not Anarchist Psycho-Babble. Bring a Stinger Missile to a knife fight, and I have Settlement Checks to prove it !

  65. John Cokos Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus: “Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?” You bet your sweet ass they can. If my gun is bigger than your gun, “F**k You, pay me”(Where did I hear that before :-)?

  66. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I asked:
    “Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?”

    To which Mr. Cokos replied:
    “You bet your sweet ass they can. If my gun is bigger than your gun, “F**k You, pay me”(Where did I hear that before :-)?”

    I admit that your answer leaves me confused.

    Could you please identify who is delegating authority in your answer?
    And could you please identify who is the recipient of this authority being delegated in your answer?

    Because it seems to me that in the scenario you painted, you are claiming might makes right, That is, you are claiming threat, duress, coercion, and extortion are legitimate acts of authority.

    Is this what you are claiming? Are you saying pointing a gun at somebody gives the gun holder authority over the one being threatened?

  67. Boxer Says:

    @John Cokos

    “Boxer: Do your research, and you will answer your own question.”

    How about you stop dodging questions and make it easy for everyone?

    “Those citations don’t argue to the fact of jurisdiction being an issue, just that doe’s the subject matter cause of action apply to a PARTICULAR venue…”

    No idea what you’re talking about here.

  68. Boxer Says:

    @ICBMCatcher

    Say, how many women have you raped with your logic?

  69. Boxer Says:

    @John Cokos

    For the record, I am only asking if you are the same John Cokos mentioned in the news settling a lawsuit for false arrest for $35k.

  70. Boxer Says:

    “Government exists not to provide for the people, but to create an environment where everyone is kept safe, treated equally, has their rights upheld, and has the same opportunity to succeed. In short, government should govern, not rule (an important, yet subtle distinction).” – John Cokos

    http://www.commonsenseagenda.com/john-cokos

  71. Boxer Says:

    @John Cokos

    “Bring a Stinger Missile to a knife fight, and I have Settlement Checks to prove it !”

    You wasted four years of your life for $35k of your neighbors money. All you did is turn the same people who attacked you against your neighbors to steal from them so they could pay you. #winning

  72. juan galt Says:

    Marc makes philosophical claims. Law is NOT philosophy!! Jurists are typically interested in the question: What is the law on a particular issue? This is always a legal question and answers to it are bound to differ according to the specific jurisdiction in which they are asked. In contrast, philosophy of law is interested in the general question: What is Law? or in Marc’s case How and why does the Law apply? This is where Marc is mixed up. He tries to apply rules of a philosophical debate to a legal argument which is governed by different rules and methods. There are five types of legal arguments: Text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy and NONE of them use logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. Legal reasoning differs in a number of ways from the sort of reasoning employed by individuals in their everyday lives and in academic debates. It frequently uses arguments that individuals do not employ, or that individuals employ in different ways. All legal reasoning follows one path. No legal argument can be accepted or rejected without all of the following pieces: Issue; Rule; Facts; Analysis and Conclusion. There’s is no such thing as “material” evidence of jurisdiction. The evidence of jurisdiction is proven by text, intent, precedent, tradition and/or policy methods of legal reasoning because it’s a conclusions of law. It doesn’t matter how much Marc misunderstands or whines. There are also procedural rules of engagement (like when and how to object) and standards of evidence for findings of fact. The proof this is true is that the assertion of logical fallacies never wins a legal argument. Trying to use the rules of a philosophical debate to make a legal argument is like trying to apply the rules of soccer to the NFL – DOESN’T WORK!!

  73. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ juan, you can try to argue the issue away, but to think basic principles of logic do not apply is just wrong. You just can’t make a written instrument apply just by saying it does. And saying it is “different” is just using a double standard, and it is not any less invalid because you claim to use different logic with this magical piece of paper. When you claim things are real, then you need evidence. Only criminals think otherwise.

  74. spooky2th Says:

    ICBM,
    The courts should be relegated back to their original and one true function, to settle disputes between people. No rulers, so the courts would not be able to steal money and property for the corporation. No fiction/imagination would be accusing one of violating a code that they cannot prove applies. No victim and/or no harm done means there is no case! That is how America was set up to begin with, voluntary.

  75. spooky2th Says:

    Cokos, is saying that a blatant initiation of force is jurisdiction. By his and ICBM’s logic, any other group of thieves and liars can claim they are a govt and all their crimes would be legal???

  76. TaeSean Says:

    Listening to that guy was a pain in the butt… He agreed there is no evidence… Stop right there… let it go…… You wasted my time.. You violated my rule now pay up…

  77. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    spooky, I don’t agree yet.

    That’s why I’m asking questions…
    So I can understand where Mr. Cokos is coming from, what he thinks, and how he thinks.

  78. Boxer Says:

    @Spooky

    That is the way I understand their position as well which is why they have such a difficult time answering questions. I’ve found many statists that simply believe no matter what, there will be a gang that rises to power so they’d much prefer the type of gang they think gives them a voice in all the violence.

  79. NonEntity Says:

    Spooks sed,”The courts should be relegated back to…” In effect what you are saying is that you don’t like reality and you would prefer a fantasy world of your own envisioning. Let me suggest that the solution is not to claim how the world “should” work, but rather to create a new world in which the problems you don’t like can gain no traction. This is why I am such a fervent fan of bitcoin, it allows* the creation of a level of privacy where the statist’s actions are simply irrelevant. I find it beneficial to my mental health to eliminate the “should” word from my vocabulary and to focus more on creating a different reality.
    * if it is as good as I understand it to be

  80. NonEntity Says:

    In a way, this is what Marc is doing. He’s ripping the very foundation out from the statist’s fictions, at which point they crumble. They are left stammering, “But but but… we SHOULD have jurisdiction!”

  81. John Cokos Says:

    juan galt: It looks like there are at least tow of us who are not drinking the Koolaid ! Your and my positions are grounded in reality and not philosophical arguments that carry no weight.
    The logical conclusion for ignoring the realities of the mechanics are contempt of court and getting escorted out by a beefy bailiff with a loaded weapon on his hip. If you are on the end of the receiving end of this, you’ll think twice about advice given at a distance…

  82. Boxer Says:

    Hey look it’s John “I-don’t-answer-questions” Cokos!

  83. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show that Mr. Cokos is again ignoring questions.

    I asked:
    “Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?”

    To which Mr. Cokos replied:
    “You bet your sweet ass they can. If my gun is bigger than your gun, “F**k You, pay me”(Where did I hear that before :-)?”

    I admit that your answer leaves me confused.

    Could you please identify who is delegating authority in your answer?
    And could you please identify who is the recipient of this authority being delegated in your answer?

    Because it seems to me that in the scenario you painted, you are claiming might makes right, That is, you are claiming threat, duress, coercion, and extortion are legitimate acts of authority.

    Is this what you are claiming? Are you saying pointing a gun at somebody gives the gun holder authority over the one being threatened?

  84. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt,
    Feel free to answer any of the questions I have put to Mr. Cokos.

    They are:
    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?
    Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
    Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    The answers are self-evident in my mind. If you don’t see those answers as I do, then you won’t answer them as I do. If that is the case, then I have a few followup questions for you just as I had for Mr. Cokos.

  85. juan galt Says:

    Marc Stevens, I don’t have to argue “the issue” away, but I get it. To accept the truth I offer would be against your self-interest and livelihood. But the Fact is, and you claim to want facts, you are basing your arguments on the philosophical musing of Lysander Spooner and others which are out of place in Court. A philosophical debate about Law is not the same as a legal argument. When in the legal system, the rules of legal reasoning and argument apply and your favorite logical fallacies do not. AND this is NOT a double standard. No jurist you have spoken with has given you this valuable info – take heed. Logical reasoning and fallacies do not apply to the types of legal argument –

    TEXT – Textual arguments are arguments that center around using methodologies for interpreting the language of these texts. There are three main methods of textual interpretation: plain meaning; canons of construction; and intra-textual arguments. The plain meaning rule relies on the definitions of particular words and phrases in the text to interpret the text. Canons of construction are rules of interpretation that draw inferences about the meaning of a rule from its textual or legal context. Finally, intra-textual arguments use one portion of the legal text (document) to interpret another portion. To determine the meaning of a provision, intra-textual arguments either look to the placement of a provision of a law within the organization of the document; or look to the use of similar/dissimilar terms in other parts of the document.

    INTENT – Another type of legal argument is based on the intent of the people who wrote the text– for example, the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution or the intent of legislators who drafted a statute. Evidence of intent may be drawn from: 1) text of the law itself, 2) previous versions of the text, 3) drafting history of the text, 4) official comments to the text, or 5) contemporary commentary.

    PRECEDENT – Another type of legal argument, the one most well-known to first-year law students, is argument based on judicial precedent. Making an argument based on judicial precedent includes analogizing or distinguishing your client’s case from the facts of precedent cases, and, in the case of arguing for a particular rule to be adopted, also includes examining what rules past courts have adopted on the issue, and why, and arguing which courts are correct and which are wrong based on how they interpreted the constitution, a statute, or important binding precedent such as a U.S. Supreme Court case.

    TRADITION – Another source of legal authority is the traditions of the American people. The Supreme Court has identified tradition as a principal test for determining our fundamental rights. Tradition is looked to in various areas of law, such as the law of commercial transactions, where courts consult industry customs and traditions. Similarly, social traditions play a role in the allocation of liability for tort.

    POLICY – A policy argument construes the law by inquiring into the underlying purposes of the law. It determines the meaning of the law based on the values the law is intended to serve. Policy arguments are different from the other four types because they are consequentialist in nature; that is, unlike the other four types of arguments, which look to the past in that they are appeals to authority, policy arguments look to the future by arguing that a certain interpretation of the law will bring about a certain state of affairs – and that this state is either desirable or unacceptable in the eyes of the law.  Whereas equity arguments focus on what is fair to a specific litigant in the case.

    As you can clearly see legal arguments are very straightforward – evidence and proof are provided by citing competent legal authority. First state your conclusion, 2. state the rule that supports the conclusion, 3. prove the rule through citations to authority, through explanations of how the authority supports the rule, through analysis of policy, and through counter-analyses and 4. application of the rule’s elements to the facts with the aid of supporting authority, policy considerations and counter-analyses, thus completing proof of the 5. conclusion.

    You make claims of circular logic, strawman, Argumentum ad antiquitatem, Argumentum ad populum, Non Sequitur, et al. but they have no place in or affect on a legal argument.

    What you don’t realize, Marc, is that when you object or ask the court for clarification on the issue of your challenge as to whether the laws apply to you just because you are in a particular geographic area (jurisdiction) or are asking for evidence that the law applies – you are making a legal argument that goes to your defense – called the “merits” of your case. You will claim – “I’m not arguing, I’m asking a question!” You should know that assertions and questions of law are called “arguments” in court proceedings. A judge will not make a ruling on any of the merits of a case until trial and all evidence is in. Since the question of jurisdiction (the law doesn’t apply) is part of your defense, the burden of proof required to established the court’s authority to hear the case (jurisdiction) and get to the merits is extremely low. Only a prima facie showing is required by the Plaintiff and the standard of proof is “more-likely-than-not” to establish jurisdiction (authority) of the Court to hear the case. In other words the Plaintiff (state) need only show that it is more-likely-than-not that the court has jurisdiction (authority) to hear the case. Within this standard of more-likely-than-not is even a lower standard of “slightest possibility”. These low standards are met by the asserted facts in the complaint that a statute was violated. The legal reasoning behind these low standards of proof of Court jurisdiction is that justice is best served when both parties are allowed to fully argue the merits of their positions.

    Judges take judicial notice of this low standard of the burden of proof needed to establish jurisdiction. Now you must understand the definition of jurisdiction that judges are taking notice of is – “the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.” The issue of “does the law apply to me?” uses a different definition of jurisdiction – “the power or right of a legal or political agency to exercise its authority over a person, subject matter, or territory”. THAT definition of jurisdiction is argued at trial and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important to note that your arguments have been tried and have failed from the 1980’s on in Appellant Courts. Here’s what the US Supreme Court established over 130 years ago –
    “One of these principles is that every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.” Pennoyer v Neff, 95 US 714 (1878)

    This SCOTUS decision, IN A LEGAL ARGUMENT, is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to a reasonable person) that the law DOES apply to you just because you are in a certain geographic area. The legislation that conferred jurisdiction is further proof. The ONLY proof or evidence REQUIRED for jurisdiction – IN A LEGAL ARGUMENT – is the text of the law, the intent of the legislators, case law, tradition or policy. Note I am talking about the rules governing A LEGAL ARGUMENT not the rules governing a philosophical political or law debate. I don’t expect you to agree with this knowledge I am offering because you would lose out on selling your scripts, motions, etc – even though you are setting people up for failure. I used to give seminars and sell info like you in the 1970’s but I got ashamed of conning people.

    You get emotional and say I am “crazy and illogical”, a real Argumentum ad hominem. But Robbie lost at jury trial with your incorrect arguments and Ian as well. It is NOT a solid winning legal argument. You may have “wins” but a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. As I have said before – trying to use the rules of philosophical debate in a legal argument is like trying to apply the rules of soccer to the NFL. DOESN’T WORK.

  86. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus Are you asking for a philosophical answer?

  87. spooky2th Says:

    galt?
    Prove some of your multitudes of claims/arguments!

    What “facts” do you rely on to prove jurisdiction in any victimless so called crime??? What facts do you rely on that prove the Constitution and code applies??? And, what facts do you rely on that prove territorial jurisdiction???

    Judges, prosecutors, law professors and more cannot prove any of the above!

    You seem to not realize that we do not make arguments here. We only ask questions. And prosecutors & judges cannot answer them and criminally violate their own court rules, lie break laws and convict good, honest people that have not harmed anyone.

    I think marc, said that his method of asking questions works around abouts 70% of the time too. And on several continents.

  88. juan galt Says:

    Spooky – If you have taken time to read all my comments you would find I have answered your questions. If you’re asking philosophically – my answers would be different.

    You seem to not realize that in Court, the questions you are asking are part of the merits of a defense. Therefore, in court-speak, you are making an argument which is part of your defense – “the laws don’t apply to me”. That’s why people in Court use the word “argument” for your questions. God I hope that’s not over your head. See, not only are the rules different for a legal argument, but sometimes words in a legal argument mean different things than in a philosophical debate. How come people that listen to Marc can’t grasp the difference?

    As to your last statement – talk is cheap. Like Marc, I would require evidence/proof.

  89. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Gault wrote:
    “Habenae Est Dominatus Are you asking for a philosophical answer?”

    Mr. Gault, I’m asking for whatever answer you wish to present in reply to this question: Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have? And as I wrote earlier, if you do not supply the (to me) self evident answer, I will have follow up questions so that I may understand our difference in conclusions.

    Something Mr. Cokos does not appear to want to assist me with.

  90. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Mr. Gault is hard to beat eh fellas?

    Gault, please contact me at ICBMCatcher@gmail.com

    <<>> ICBMCatcher will be engaging marc stevs in a recorded debate tomorrow at 11AM. stevens will post on YouTube later. I have no doubt he will post the entire discussion, but I will be recording it myself, just in case there are any technical difficulties.
    <<<>>>

  91. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus Philosophically and legally – NO. My opinion.

  92. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt, My apology, I just noticed I misspelled your moniker.

    Mr. Galt, Thank you. We agree that no one can delegate an authority they don’t have.

    So, the next question is: Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?

    Innate:
    Existing from the time a human is born.
    Existing as part of the basic nature of the human.

  93. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus – a philosophical question. Answer – philosophically NO. Some cultures believe differently.

  94. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt,
    Again, Thank you for providing an answer.

    Now that last of the initial trio:
    Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

  95. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus – Ah, a philosophical political question. Human history has shown us it’s a result of the philosophy of Majoritarianism.

  96. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt, Interesting answer.
    Would I be correctly interpreting your answer as saying the alleged authority of those called government is/was delegated to them by the majority?

  97. Boxer Says:

    @ICBMCatcher

    Hard to beat? When is asking a question not actually asking a question and making an argument? in legal land where black is white and white is black and anything you say means what others want it to!

    When does ICBM think women are being raped? Only when they refuse!

    “What I am saying is I am only forced if I refuse” -ICBM

  98. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus – That is the essence of the philosophy. You have a keen grasp of the obvious. LOL
    Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda that asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society.

  99. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Boxer –

    Take a breath and think about what you’re saying. One cannot be forced to do something until they refuse. It’s called doing something voluntarily. Your rape analogy is nonsense.

  100. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda that asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language, social class, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society.”

    Didn’t you just agree nobody can delegate authority they don’t have and nobody is born with authority over anybody else?

    Who had the authority to entitle a portion of the population to have authority over other portions of the population?

  101. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – Actually that is the definition of rape – non-consensual sex.

  102. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus – “Didn’t you just agree nobody can delegate authority they don’t have and nobody is born with authority over anybody else?” To the first my answered turned on the word “authority” in your question. I didn’t say that the authority couldn’t be obtained. To the second I answered philosophically based on my cultural experiences. I added that some cultures have believed differently throughout human history.

    “Who had the authority to entitle a portion of the population to have authority over other portions of the population?” This is a philosophical question and I gave a philosophical answer – those who believed in and adopted the concept the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society. Just like Marc, who wants everyone to accept the philosophy of a No State.

  103. John Cokos Says:

    Marc has his own “Greek Chorus’ that comes to his defense when he’s challenged. Nice work if you can get it…It’s good to be the King ?

  104. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher said: “One cannot be forced to do something until they refuse. It’s called doing something voluntarily. Your rape analogy is nonsense.”

    Debunking black is white and white is black.

    An individual approaches me and I decline/refuse to interact with her. She ties my wrists and puts me in a car then drives to a different location and puts me in a cage. I did not voluntarily interact. She initiated force against me and kidnapped me. When she tied my wrists she could have rapped me rather than kidnap me and it would still have been a crime. There is no evidence that I agreed to interact with her. There is evidence that she initiated force/violence against me.

  105. Marc Stevens Says:

    Wow, today I learned that unless I refuse a demand first I’m not being forced. “Pay me or I will kill you” is not coercion unless the victim refuses to pay me initially.

  106. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ John Greek chorus really? Base your position on verifiable facts and sound logic and people will be persuaded. Keep posting irrational arguments and they won’t. It’s that simple, post a logical argument and watch what happens.

  107. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show that Mr. Cokos is again ignoring questions.

    Mr. Cokos, Are you saying pointing a gun at somebody gives the gun holder authority over the one being threatened?

  108. spooky2th Says:

    Pay or else! People pay because there is a real threat against them if they do not. People that say and / or think otherwise are either complete idiots or there is a sick minded, corrupt agenda at hand!

    And then there’s the “obey or else” in the equation too! People claiming jurisdiction over others is the same as a slave owner claiming ownership of slaves.

    Can anybody even prove “jurisdiction” is a real thing? You cannot see it, touch it, feel it, smell it or hear it. It is just a word for mind control, to fool the gullible.

  109. NonEntity Says:

    It’s informing to watch this dialog. It’s like trying to have a rational conversation with a fundamentalist. Whenever you get to a situation which makes no sense whatsoever and you press the fundamentalist to help you understand the position, the fundamentalist says ->GOD!!!LAW!!!<- and that is supposed to cancel out any ability for you to apply rational analysis to the issue.

    And what is even more amazing than this is the inability of the rest of the players to realize that the fundamentalist has embedded these lies so deeply into his core mental game set that he's totally incapable of thought.

    So who is more incapable of rational thought??? Porcine vocal lessons…

  110. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “To the first my answered turned on the word “authority” in your question.”

    I failed to take Voltaire to heart and define my terms. So I define authority as the highest (legitimate) claim on a person, their actions, and their property. For the purpose of this post, and keeping in line with our discussion, I am narrowing my definition to the right to command, control, and order another about as if one owns the other.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “I didn’t say that the authority couldn’t be obtained.”

    As a former welfare whore (US Army soldier) I am aware of something called “chain of authority”.
    Authority is delegated.
    Unless you are going to claim authority is created out of thin air by magic, authority must be delegated from someone, somewhere.

    I have no issue with your claim that “authority can be obtained”, But simply ask, can this authority you write of be obtained legitimately? From who, and where?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “To the second I answered philosophically based on my cultural experiences. I added that some cultures have believed differently throughout human history.”

    Some cultures believed the sun rotated around the earth.
    Others still believe clitoridectomy is perfectly OK.
    And yet others still believe circumcision is perfectly OK as well.

    And don’t let me forget to mention a small town that believe it was perfectly OK to burn witches at the stake.

    This means I view your raising the issue of (errant) cultural norms as an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and an argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

    I asked: Who had the authority to entitle a portion of the population to have authority over other portions of the population?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “This is a philosophical question and I gave a philosophical answer”

    Actually sir, you did not give an answer because the question is, “Who had the authority…” Details will be requested.

    But I will address the details you have provided.

    Mr. Galt wrote a philosophical answer:
    “those who believed in and adopted the concept the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society.”

    Mr. Galt, do you have any evidence that those who believed in majority rules had any authority over me to delegate to those who call themselves government?

    What evidence do you have to show that any of those who “believe” have any authority to make me obey THEIR political philosophy.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Just like Marc, who wants everyone to accept the philosophy of a No State.”

    That is a non-sequitur to the topics of our discussion. Andy or Marc can explain the concept to you and ask you for your evidence.

  111. spooky2th Says:

    gault,
    If you try to use philosophy in court you are just asking to lose. Cases are decided by two things, the facts and the law. With the right questions, you can show that the prosecution has not got the facts to prove his argument. No foundation! And you have not answered a single question that I have asked. So typical of trolls.

    The facts and nothing but the facts is what I have asked.

    No theories, philosophies, claims or arguments will do when asking for facts.

    Each case is “fact” specific! And if an issue cannot stand up to simple logic, it is flawed!

  112. Boxer Says:

    @ICBM

    “Boxer –

    Take a breath and think about what you’re saying. One cannot be forced to do something until they refuse. It’s called doing something voluntarily. Your rape analogy is nonsense.”

    That you presume to know that I am out of breath is simply magical like your claims. I don’t think you even understand your own logic. When someone puts a gun to your head, nobody refuses. It’s comply or die.

    I realize your logic is flawed but I didn’t think you were so inept not to even be unaware of the Godfather.

    “Make him an offer he can’t refuse”.

    @ juan galt

    “Boxer – Actually that is the definition of rape – non-consensual sex.”

    Actually, ICBM claims that it is consensual only if one refuses.

  113. Boxer Says:

    **CORRECTON**

    @ juan galt

    “Boxer – Actually that is the definition of rape – non-consensual sex.”

    Actually, ICBM claims that it is forced only if one refuses.

  114. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus – For the purposes of our discussion I have been using the definition of authority as POWER (not right) to command, control and order another about as if one owns the other. I hope this helps to clarify for you, my answers. You agreed that such power could be obtained. I did not take into consideration legitimacy, morality or ethics in forming my answers.

    Your assertions of argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacies are misplaced. I was NOT attempting to justify if a cultural belief was morally or ethically right. I was simply stating historical facts (to which you agreed existed) NOT taking a philosophical position of conscience.

    What you call a non-sequitur was an analogy comparing the political philosophy of Majoritarianism to Marc’s political philosophy of “No Statism”. They both require the adoption of the philosophy by consent of the majority of those choosing to live under it. “No Statism” (or any political philosophy for that matter) could not survive as a cohesive community if the majority of the people in the community reject or refuse to abide by it. That’s why in REALITY there are no successful “No State” communities on planet Earth – so far. The “No State” philosophy has been rejected by modern communities going back to the States of early dynastic Sumer and early dynastic Egypt, which arose from the Uruk period and Predynastic Egypt respectively at approximately 3000BCE..

  115. juan galt Says:

    Spooky2th – “If you try to use philosophy in court you are just asking to lose.” That’s EXACTLY what I’ve been saying! Marc is trying to use a philosophical point in Court.

    “Cases are decided by two things, the facts and the law.” Correct! Facts require evidence and law requires support by citing legal authorities. THOSE ARE THE RULES IN COURT.

  116. Boxer Says:

    @ juan galt

    “What you call a non-sequitur was an analogy comparing the political philosophy of Majoritarianism to Marc’s political philosophy of “No Statism”.”

    Marc doesn’t have a political philosophy that I am aware of. The NoStateProject is not a philosophy, rather, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that there is no existence of a “state”. The “state” is a fiction at best, and a group of people dba a gang of criminal thieves and liars willing to kill you if you don’t comply at worst. Marc is simply stating the obvious; there is no “state”, just the belief in the existence of one by “statists”; it’s religious adherents. Like unicorns, simnply believing in them does not make them any more real.

  117. Boxer Says:

    @ juan galt

    “THOSE ARE THE RULES IN COURT.”

    “THOSE ARE THE RULES IN NARNIA!”

    FIFY

  118. juan galt Says:

    Boxer –
    THOSE ARE THE RULES IN THE NFL!
    THOSE ARE THE RULES IN THE NBA!
    THOSE ARE THE RULES IN MLB!
    THOSE ARE THE RULES OF THE GAME!

    Don’t like or agree with the rules? Stamp your feet. Yell objection repeatedly! Insult the character of the rule makers. Whine. Throw a verbal fit. Get emotional. OR don’t play the game.

    FIFY

  119. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – You wrote – “Marc doesn’t have a political philosophy that I am aware of.”

    Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society. Individual rights (such as the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, self-defense, etc) state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society.

    Political philosophy asks questions like: “What is a government?”, “Why are governments needed?”, “What makes a government legitimate?”, “What rights and freedoms should a government protect?”, “What duties do citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any?” and “When may a government be legitimately overthrown, if ever?”

    And you are not aware that Marc has a political philosophy? That’s all he talks about! Your problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know.

  120. Boxer Says:

    @ juan galt

    “THOSE ARE THE RULES IN THE NFL!
    THOSE ARE THE RULES IN THE NBA!
    THOSE ARE THE RULES IN MLB!
    THOSE ARE THE RULES OF THE GAME!”

    Am I being forced to play in the NFL, NBA, MLB? That you refer to it as “game” only further solidifies the psychopathic nature of it all.

    “Don’t like or agree with the rules? Stamp your feet. Yell objection repeatedly! Insult the character of the rule makers. Whine. Throw a verbal fit. Get emotional. OR don’t play the game.”

    Me thinks you haven’t even read Marc’s book(s).

    “Those who attack the rationale of the game, and not the players, are its most formidable adversaries.” -James J. Martin, in the introduction to Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.”

  121. Boxer Says:

    @ juan galt

    “Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society. Individual rights (such as the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, self-defense, etc) state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society.

    Political philosophy asks questions like: “What is a government?”, “Why are governments needed?”, “What makes a government legitimate?”, “What rights and freedoms should a government protect?”, “What duties do citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any?” and “When may a government be legitimately overthrown, if ever?”

    And you are not aware that Marc has a political philosophy? That’s all he talks about! Your problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know.”

    Thanks for all those opinions.

    One question: In order for an individual to have a political philosophy, wouldn’t that require, and be dependent upon, that same individual to believe in political fictions such as the “state”, “government”, et al? Yes or no?

  122. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “For the purposes of our discussion I have been using the definition of authority as POWER (not right) to command, control and order another about as if one owns the other. I hope this helps to clarify for you, my answers. You agreed that such power could be obtained. I did not take into consideration legitimacy, morality or ethics in forming my answers.”

    Thank you for setting me straight by admitting that you are ignoring legitimacy, morality, and ethics. With this information I see that I need be more specific regarding legitimate authority.

    I’m calling you on your equivocation that was based upon MY error. I did not agree that power could be obtained. I agreed that authority could be obtained.

    Power is the application of force. A lever is a method of applying force. A loaded gun is a method of applying force. Threatening to use force is the same as actually using force. Do what I tell you to do or I will hurt you. Or do what I tell you to do because you saw that I hurt that other guy who didn’t.

    To apply such force legitimately, one needs authority. And with your admission: One needs legitimate authority. Authority and power are NOT the same.

    It is clear to me by your writing, that you will agree that a car jacker can obtain power, which you call authority, by waving a gun at a motorist and demanding they vacate their vehicle.

    If I am in error, please correct me. If I am not, then please answer these questions:
    Is this “authority” legitimate?
    If this “authority” is not legitimate, doesn’t the owner have a right to refuse the demand and use whatever tools available to defend themselves from such illegitimate authority?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “I was NOT attempting to justify if a cultural belief was morally or ethically right. I was simply stating historical facts (to which you agreed existed) NOT taking a philosophical position of conscience.”

    Agreed, you were not taking a position.

    What you were doing was attempting to prove those who call themselves government were given authority by those who didn’t have it to give to them.

    End reply part 1.

  123. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “What you call a non-sequitur was an analogy comparing the political philosophy of Majoritarianism to Marc’s political philosophy of “No Statism”. They both require the adoption of the philosophy by consent of the majority of those choosing to live under it. “No Statism” (or any political philosophy for that matter) could not survive as a cohesive community if the majority of the people in the community reject or refuse to abide by it. That’s why in REALITY there are no successful “No State” communities on planet Earth – so far. The “No State” philosophy has been rejected by modern communities going back to the States of early dynastic Sumer and early dynastic Egypt, which arose from the Uruk period and Predynastic Egypt respectively at approximately 3000BCE..”

    Do you have any evidence to counter my claim that it was governance, ruling, and control by do what we say or we will kill you? Can you prove it wasn’t comply or die, just like it is now?

    Marc Stevens wrote:
    “A state is generally defined as:

    “A body politic or society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength, occupying a definite territory, and politically organized under one government…People, territory, and government considered in combination. Texas v White (US) 7 Wall 700…” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, page 1210.

    A citizen is supposed to be:

    “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the [political] society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.” Luria v. US, 231 US 9, 22.

    This is consistent with the above definition of state. An essential element of a state are the citizens making up the body politic. That hinges on the two reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection.

    To prove there are states such as New York, you have to first prove there are citizens, and to have citizens, there has to be proof of these alleged reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection.

    Government is men and women forcing us to pay them, support is coerced, you pay or go to jail. Given these facts, do you have any evidence, facts, proving such reciprocal obligations exist? Because it’s comply or go to jail no reciprocal obligations could be created. You’re left with what you start with: men and women forcing us to pay them.”

    That is why I’m not engaging on this.

  124. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Now you must understand the definition of jurisdiction that judges are taking notice of is – “the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.””

    Do you have evidence that the law you cite: “the authority given by law” applies to me?

  125. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Political philosophy asks questions like: … “What makes a government legitimate?””

    Now that’s the question examining authority is attempting to answer.

    What makes alleged government authority legitimate?

  126. Boxer Says:

    @ juan galt

    ======================

    “Political philosophy is the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society.”

    That’s a very interesting opinion, even more ridiculous because you’re admitting that the law is nothing more than an opinion set forth by those who establish themselves as illegitmate rulers willing to use force against those who don’t comply! Moreover, if you read Marc’s book, you would see the following:

    A. A person commits first degree murder if
    without lawful authority:
    1. Intending or knowing that the person’s conduct
    will cause death, the person causes the
    death of another with premeditation.

    A.R.S. § 13-1508. Burglary in the first degree;
    classification
    A. A person commits burglary in the first degree
    if, without lawful authority, such person or an
    accomplice violates the provisions of either section
    13-1506 or 13-1507 and knowingly possesses
    explosives, a deadly weapon or a dangerous
    instrument in the course of committing any theft
    or any felony.

    A. A person commits molestation of a child if,
    without lawful authority, by intentionally or
    knowingly engaging in or causing a person to
    engage in sexual contact, except sexual contact
    with the female breast, with a child under fifteen
    years of age.
    B. Molestation of a child is a class 2 felony that is
    punishable pursuant to section 13-604.01.

    So when is crime not a crime? When done “lawfully”. So, no, your belief that “It is Ethics applied to a group of people, and discusses how a society should be set up and how one should act within a society.” is entirely incorrect. It is a proscription for how slaves should act for their rulers and if those slaves do not comply, they will die. Politicians use “laws” to absolve themselves of the responsibility of acting as individuals with absolutely no regards to moral or ethical behavior.

    ======================

    “Individual rights (such as the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, self-defense, etc) state explicitly the requirements for a person to benefit rather than suffer from living in a society.”

    Can you touch, taste, smell, see, hear a “right? In fact, can you just send me a picture of a “right”? These mythical things you speak of must be quite magical.

    ======================

    “Political philosophy asks questions like: “What is a government?”, “Why are governments needed?”, “What makes a government legitimate?”, “What rights and freedoms should a government protect?”, “What duties do citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any?” and “When may a government be legitimately overthrown, if ever?”

    Revised. FIFY. Hopefully, by removing your pseudo-religious language, you’ll see more clearly.

    Illegitimate power philosophy asks questions like: “What is a unicorn?, Why are unicorns needed?, “What makes a unicorn legitimate?”, “What dragons and absence of restraint should a unicorn protect?”, “What obligations do centaurs owe to a legitimate unicorn, if any?” and “When may a unicorn be legitimately overthrown, if ever?”

    ======================

    “And you are not aware that Marc has a political philosophy? That’s all he talks about! Your problem is that you don’t know what you don’t know.”

    Discussions about facts and evidence is a philosopy?

    ======================

  127. NonEntity Says:

    Hey Boxer, I wonder if you can state your thoughts with using “should.” Just something for you to consider.

  128. NonEntity Says:

    “… — what do I need philosophy for?” My answer is: In order to be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems — i.e., in order to be able to live on earth.

    Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It

  129. Boxer Says:

    By all means, NonE. I’m all ears, uh, eyes, uh, I mean open to critic-ism(s).

  130. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – “Discussions about facts and evidence is a philosopy(sp)?”

    Depends on the issues.

    Jurists are typically interested in the question: What is the law on a particular issue? This is always a legal question and answers to it differ according to the specific jurisdiction in which they are asked and the rules of evidence. In contrast, philosophy of law is interested in the general question: What is Law? or in Marc’s case How and why does the Law apply? This is always a philosophical question. The rules of the discussion vary by type of discussion. You must remember Spooner was a political philosopher. Philosophers are basically navel gazers.

  131. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus – “What makes alleged government authority legitimate?” Ask a political philosopher.

  132. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “Do you have evidence that the law you cite: “the authority given by law” applies to me?” Reread the post. The authority spoken of applies to the COURT – not you.

  133. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    In response to my question: “What makes alleged government authority legitimate?”

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Ask a political philosopher.”

    Mr. Galt, You are, by the context and tone of your written words, implying that the alleged authority of present government is “legitimate”. Am I in error in my interpretation?

    If you believe that the alleged authority of the present government is legitimate, then please answer the question, What makes the alleged authority of the present government legitimate?

    Or admit that it isn’t legitimate.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Reread the post. The authority spoken of applies to the COURT – not you.”

    Yes, I understood that implication. Now how does that authority apply to me?

    How does that alleged authority give the court the legitimacy to send men with guns to drag me into the court if I choose to ignore the court’s commands?

  134. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Jurists are typically interested in the question: What is the law on a particular issue?”

    What is the evidence that a particular law applies to me?
    What is the evidence that a particular legislator has authority over me so that I am required to obey his scribbles on a piece of paper?

  135. NonEntity Says:

    Habby!?! It’s the guns, stoopid! 🙂 He already pointed out the Mao quote, didn’t he? Now… let’s get back to the veganism debate, okay? (Wait. Mao wasn’t a vegan, was he? I mean, after all the millions of PEOPLE he was responsible for killing I hope he didn’t actually kill ANIMALS, too.)

  136. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Why do you keep asking philosophical questions? I’m not a philosopher.

    “In contrast, philosophy of law is interested in the general question: What is Law? or in Marc’s case How and why does the Law apply?”

    My question is why are you in Court in the first place? Why do you want to play their legal games?

    “How does that alleged authority give the court the legitimacy to send men with guns to drag me into the court if I choose to ignore the court’s commands?” I answered that already (the political philosophy of Majoritarianism adopted by the community you live in) – you’re starting to repeat yourself.

  137. spooky2th Says:

    That’s it, Habe! Galt, won’t answer those questions. He’s like a dishonest judge or prosecutor. He never answered my similar questions but said that he did.

    Most all legal authorities are opinions, unfortunately. With no facts/evidence to back them up. Only psychopathic lawyers would use and rely on opinions as fact.

    ***“What makes alleged government authority legitimate?” Ask a political philosopher.***

    What a joke! Asking that of philosopher will only get an opinion.

    The laws apply because they say so—-BS!!!

  138. spooky2th Says:

    Asking for facts or evidence is not asking a philosophical question. Asking for proof of your claim or argument is not a philosophical question. Is that the garbage that they teach kids now??? To believe in fairy tales??? What a joke!

  139. Andy Says:

    I go to court because if I decline/refuse to go to court people calling themselves government will find me, shackle my wrists, put me in a car, kidnap me and put me in a cage. If I refuse/decline to interact with them they might kill me. Comply or die. That’s why I go to court. It’s one method of self-defense against them initiating force against me.

    My first question is, do you have any witness with personal first hand knowledge that because I was in X location that your constitution and code/rules apply to me?

  140. spooky2th Says:

    In any victimless so called crime, there is no foundation to the case or argument against you. And it is easy to bring that out with simple questions. No foundation, no case! But unfortunately, psychopathic judges & prosecutors will break their court rules, their laws, codes and even lie to bust innocent people.

  141. juan galt Says:

    Can anyone tell me what the evidence, asked for, that the law applies to me looks like? Could I hold it in my hand? Touch and feel it? Hold it up and show everyone? How about the evidence of legitimacy of authority? What does it look like? What would satisfy your request for evidence?

  142. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Time to apply the KISS principle.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Habby – Why do you keep asking philosophical questions? I’m not a philosopher.”

    Is that your excuse for stonewalling my questions?

    Here’s the context: I wrote:
    Mr. Galt, You are, by the context and tone of your written words, implying that the alleged authority of present government is “legitimate”. Am I in error in my interpretation?

    If you believe that the alleged authority of the present government is legitimate, then please answer the question, What makes the alleged authority of the present government legitimate?

    Or admit that it isn’t legitimate.

  143. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I was not and am not implying anything as it relates to whether the alleged authority of present government is “legitimate”. I have no opinion on that and many other things in Life.

    “What makes the alleged authority of the present government legitimate?”

    Why ask me? I have no opinion on the subject and if I did, my opinion would only matter to me – not anyone else. I don’t have the time or inclination to “navel gaze” about the legitimacy of govt – it’s not my thing.

    I just can tell the difference between a philosophical discussion/debate and a legal argument as well as which is useful and successful in Court and which is not..

  144. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Habby – I was not and am not implying anything as it relates to whether the alleged authority of present government is “legitimate”. I have no opinion on that and many other things in Life.”

    Mr. Galt, you had enough of an opinion about government that you engaged my questions in the first place. Those questions were:

    Can anybody delegate an authority they don’t have?
    Was anybody born with innate authority over anybody else?
    Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    You have answered the first two questions with what I would call self-evident answers. So on those points we agree.

    You agreed with my assessment of your third answer, which was that “the alleged authority of those called government is/was delegated to them by the majority”.

    Here’s my three questions remodeled to assist in visualizing what they are about:

    Can anybody delegate (give) a pie (authority) they don’t have?
    Was anybody born with a pie (authority over anybody else)?

    So you have agreed that nobody has authority (a pie).

    How did pie (authority) that nobody had get delegated (given) to those who call themselves government?

    Returning to what you agreed was a proper synopsis of your answer remodeled to the analogy:
    You agreed with my assessment of your third answer, which was that “the alleged pie (authority) of those called government is/was delegated to them by the majority”.

    How can the majority delegate (give) a pie (authority) to those called government when NONE of the majority have any pie (authority) to give (delegate) in the first place.

    You’ve already agreed they have none to delegate by your answers to questions one and two.

    I find it interesting that you have no opinion on whether those who call themselves your government have legitimate authority or not. To my thinking, this means you don’t care if you are enslaved or not.

  145. juan galt Says:

    Habby – all this talk about an imaginary pie has made me hungry. Strawman fallacy argument. Trying to compare a philosophical political concept to a very delicious pie.

    We agreed one could obtain authority (or bake a pie). We agreed some cultures believe one can be born with innate authority (Divine Right of Kings) or whatever applies in N. Korea or Saudi Arabia.

    Legitimacy is a philosophical opinion of morality – is it justified or not. Justification or validation of a philosophical opinion of morality is not my thing. I only justify MY morality.

    If I’m “enslaved” – I wish everyone could be “enslaved” like me. More people would be happy with their Life.

  146. John Cokos Says:

    I think it’s about high time that Marc and his VeganPosse start consuming large quantities of Animal Protein. Vegans seem to have a certain fuzziness of thinking and are prone to foaming at the mouth at the slightest perceived insult. 🙂

  147. John Cokos Says:

    Marc: I base my observations on “The Paulie Principle”.

  148. spooky2th Says:

    galt,
    Go harm someone or their property and you will have a valid complaint against you with a valid cause of action too.

  149. Andy Says:

    John Cokos said: If I have Gun’s and Manpower, I NOW HAVE JURISDICTION !

    Does John have the manpower? How long will it be til the might-makes-right fallacy collapses?

    There’s 7+ billion individuals who want to interact with others on a voluntary basis; that they may accept or decline to interact with any individual. One percent of them, 70 million people, own over 100 million guns and live in what is commonly called the United States of America.

    900,000 of the 70,000,000 gun owners are law enforcement officers (LEO). 69,100,000 of them are not LEOs. Out numbered 77 to 1, the 77 act with logical consistency to their core belief that 7+ billion people also have, they interact voluntarily. The outnumbered 1 has a contradictory and delusional double standard. The 69,000,000 have the moral/ethical high ground. They have no need for the immoral/unethical/delusion that might makes right.

    Meaning, there’s 1 delusional/irrational individual who initiates violence and threat of violence to 77 rational individuals who don’t initiate violence and threat of violence.

    Anarchy is no rulers. Not no rules. 7+ billion people agree with the most important rule; that she/he may accept or decline to interact with any individual.

    “Mr.politician/Bureaucrat, if I did as government types do and forced perfect strangers to pay me, would you consider me a criminal?” ~ Marc Stevens

    “If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn’t be provided on a compulsory basis.” ~ Marc Stevens

  150. John Cokos Says:

    “If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn’t be provided on a compulsory basis.” ~ Marc Stevens

    A wooden outhouse in the backyard as compared to Municipal Sewage Service ? Even the Beverly Hillbillies would part company with you on that…

  151. juan galt Says:

    spooy2th – “Go harm someone or their property and you will have a valid complaint against you with a valid cause of action too”.

    No shit, Sherlock. That’s the only thing you’ve written that is correct.

  152. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Cokos wrote:
    “A wooden outhouse in the backyard as compared to Municipal Sewage Service ? Even the Beverly Hillbillies would part company with you on that…”

    http://whowillbuildtheroads.com/

  153. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    KISS principle.

    Mr. Galt, Is the present government legitimate or not? Yes or No.

  154. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “Mr. Galt, Is the present government legitimate or not? Yes or No”.

    You keep repeating yourself, like Marc does. Reminds of a child pestering a parent when they want attention or someone with Tourette syndrome .

    Legitimacy is a philosophical opinion of morality. Justification or validation of a philosophical opinion of morality is not my thing. I only justify MY morality. How’s this for an answer – maybe, maybe not – it depends.

  155. NonEntity Says:

    Habby, on John’s last post I have to agree with him. If there are no rights then the validity of your question is void. You may want to reflect on my discussions of “morality is a one-way street.” Keeping this in mind, Johns claim that his morality is his would also be a false statement and if he is not willing to be consistent in morality then he is not moral and so no one has any obligation whatsoever to him. None. Including any obligation regarding his life. The common definition of an outlaw.

    So we now have a very clear understanding of who John is and the potential danger he presents to all. Any of us may become dinner if we’re not careful in his company. He deserves exactly the respect he grants others. None.

  156. spooky2th Says:

    juan & john, both just spew complete nonsensical, illogical and irrational BS. That’s all they have to defend their mafia system that is harming good, peaceful people at home and abroad too, i might add. Both are hooked on double standards and legal fallacies.

    Just a simple observation…

  157. John Cokos Says:

    Calvin: I can only repeat my desperate plea for you folks MSNet to consume large quantities of animal PROTEIN and get your testosterone levels up to acceptable standards.The Peace and Love of the 60’s, it didn’t work then and it won’t work now…The World is a very dangerous and violence prone environment, you just need to come to grips with that and move on….

  158. juan galt Says:

    I love seeing people, like spooky2th, exercising their freedom of expression of their opinions which of course requires no proof or evidence

    Opinion – a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.

    It’s clear Marc and his follwers are die-hard believers in the political philosophical musings of people like Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard. Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Walter Block, et al. I have no problems with that, in fact I was a member of the Mises Institute for 20 years as I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics. I am, though, more of a pragmatist than an idealist. At this point in human development and interaction, I just don’t fully accept the propositions of those philosophers mentioned above. I don’t think it could work with 300 million people – at least not at this time – although I do believe the size and scope of our present govt could reasonably be reduced by 95%. However, I’m acutely aware of the unfortunate nature of man and his “inherent” frailties.

    May we agree to disagree like intelligent civilized humans?

  159. juan galt Says:

    Postscript – My position is and has been that political philosophical musing are not applicable in deciding a legal argument in Court.

  160. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    @ NonE

    I specifically made effort to not even pen the word “rights” in any of my posts. I used it once when I composed this: For the purpose of this post, and keeping in line with our discussion, I am narrowing my definition to the right to command, control, and order another about as if one owns the other.

    Please elaborate on the tie-in you are claiming exists between legitimacy and right(s).

    The only tie-in I see is the question of whether the alleged right I presented (the alleged right to command, control, and order another about as if one owns the other) is legitimate.

    As to your second paragraph, I agree completely…
    But I’ll continue to engage him as if I respect him.

  161. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “You keep repeating yourself, like Marc does.”

    That’s because you keep refusing to answer my questions.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Legitimacy is a philosophical opinion of morality. Justification or validation of a philosophical opinion of morality is not my thing. I only justify MY morality. How’s this for an answer – maybe, maybe not – it depends.”

    If I point a gun at you and demand you give me all your money, Is this action legitimate or not? Yes or no?

  162. juan galt Says:

    Habby – It depends. Did I steal “all my money” from you in the first place? From your business? Family? What is your motivation? Are there mitigating circumstances? Are you crazy? Mentally unable to know the consequences of your actions? Impaired in some way? Is someone forcing you? Et cetera.

  163. NonEntity Says:

    “The only tie-in I see is the question of whether the alleged right I presented (the alleged right to command, control, and order another about as if one owns the other) is legitimate.”

    And the converse.

  164. NonEntity Says:

    What aee the core underlying standards by which you would determine “legitimacy.” I can’t imagine they are any differentent from those issues by which one would judge “rights.”

  165. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Habby – It depends. Did I steal “all my money” from you in the first place? From your business? Family?”

    Did you?

    The scenario is, I’m standing there pointing a gun at you, demanding all your money.

    Mr. Galt asked:
    “What is your motivation? Are there mitigating circumstances? Are you crazy? Mentally unable to know the consequences of your actions? Impaired in some way? Is someone forcing you? Et cetera.”

    The scenario is, I’m standing there pointing a gun at you, demanding all your money. All you know is I am demanding all your money.

    Is this a legitimate action?

  166. Andy Says:

    If Juan truly believes what he has written he’s delusional. See this comment posted above: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20170208.html#comment-200561

  167. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    NonE wrote:
    “What aee the core underlying standards by which you would determine “legitimacy.””

    Am I being victimized?

  168. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “Is this a legitimate action?” What is your definition of legitimate?
    As the famous philosopher Bill Clinton said “It depends on what the definition of is is.”

    Legitimacy has been the topic of most news media since Nov 8th. The question has been asked “Is the election of Trump legitimate?” It appears half the country says yes and half says no. It seems to be a matter of opinion and political persuasion. Your question of what is to be considered legitimate is a matter of belief – especially when it comes to politics and religion. For example: Can a govt based on the “laws” of God or Nature be considered legitimate? It depends on a belief or non-belief in God as to how someone may answer that – wouldn’t you agree?

    If you ask “Is all govt legitimate?” or “Is all govt illegitimate?” you would get varied answers depending on a person’s belief system. Same thing if you ask “Is there a God?” or “Is it legitimate to believe in God?”

    Now to your question “Is this action legitimate?” If I knew I had stolen the money from you, your family, friend or business, I would have to admit to myself that your action is legit. If I have no connection to you and have taken nothing from you (in any form) – your action would not be legit. You on the other hand have obviously convinced yourself that your action is legit. So the legitimacy of the action depends on the person you ask and the circumstances initiating the action..

  169. eye2i Says:

    *side-bar*

    @ (nooNE in particular): ❝ And what is even more amazing than this is the inability of the rest of the players to realize that the fundamentalist has embedded these lies so deeply into his core mental game set that he’s totally incapable of thought.

    So who is more incapable of rational thought???”

    How might this be analogous to the guy standing outside a gym, questioning (sarcastically, or otherwise) the value of those within doing all that dumb [sic] weight training –aka resistance training?

    i mean, really, all they’re doing [sic] is letting the dead weights [sic] win [sic], time after time after time again, aye? Amazing [sic]? Wait (for it) training? (even if such training is only for one’s own visual/personal value? you know, like watching, say, a tv show, like “Survivor”, for value?) –that (how many episodes now?) “even more amazing???”?!

    [& how many times is it now, that this “players” “fundamental” line of reasoning [sic] here has come up? My, 1NE could almost think it’s amazingly foolish to do so by now, nay? “inability” -or- NonAbiliteE? /snarcasm]

    –deadwait2i

  170. eye2i Says:

    ❝ Hey Boxer, I wonder if you can state your thoughts with*out using “should.” Just something for you to consider.”

    Hey NonEntity, i wonder if you can, every time you read the term “should”, allow your thoughts to include as probability: “relative to valuing logical consistency” (instead of, say, only seeing “morality”; ditto, a right?)? Just something for you to consider. (something you should [sic] consider –IF you value reasoning logically consistently, then…)?

    [see/should one consider: working out circa dumbbells aka resistance training as needed]

  171. eye2i Says:

    fyc/mmv/etc:

    Semantic Stopsigns (aka terms for “think no further”):
    http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Semantic_stopsign

    Taboo Your Words:
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/

    37 Ways Words Can Be Wrong (including the word ‘wrong’?):
    http://lesswrong.com/lw/od/37_ways_that_words_can_be_wrong/

    The Tyranny Of Words (the book by Stuart Chase)

    :thinkinghard:

  172. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

    For you know who, and now you know why.

    I’ll actually respond directly a bit later.

  173. Andy Says:

    jaun galt said: “Legitimacy has been the topic of most news media since Nov 8th.”

    The quote below is from the forum here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8845-post-65619.html#pid65619
    “If it’s even possible to debunk the anarchist/voluntaryist philosophy then put “None Of The Above” on the presidential election ticket along side the other candidates on the ticket. I suspect with a high degree of confidence that voter turn out would increase by at least forty percent. Not to mention some of the current voters who regularly vote for republican and democrat candidates would instead vote None Of The Above. Thus not debunk anarchist/voluntaryist philosophy. Rather, the opposite, confirm the legitimacy of anarchist/voluntaryist philosophy. In other words, it would be a landslide victory for None Of The Above.

    Paraphrasing Larken Rose: I’ve known thousands of statists that have become anarchists, I don’t know any who went back to statism. It’s a one-way street, so to speak.

    If “None Of The Above” is ever on the ticket, I may actually vote for the second time in my life.

    Should a product or service be provided on a compulsory basis. In other words, should you be forced to pay for a product or service you don’t want?

    Legitimate human interactions are voluntary interactions. juan galt is delusional. See this comment: http://marcstevens.net/radioarchive/nsp20170208.html#comment-200561

  174. juan galt Says:

    Obviously I didn’t order that word salad of philosophical navel gazing.

  175. Andy Says:

    Of course you didn’t. You’re delusional. Any rational person reading theses comments can see the truth to that most appropriate/fitting quote which you call a “word salad”, and see that you’re delusional.

  176. NonEntity Says:

    “For you know who, and now you know why.”

    Who ever it is that knows who is for and why, please clue in the rest of us okay?

  177. juan galt Says:

    Poor Andy with his ad homs. He’s got me mixed up with someone who gives a shit about his opinions.

  178. Andy Says:

    Two things are obvious. 1) jaun galt cares about my opinions, otherwise he wouldn’t have written the above, and 2) to rational individuals reading these comments it’s an obvious fact jaun is delusional.

  179. juan galt Says:

    Andy – Bless your heart. No one else was giving you attention or responding to your comments, so I thought I would. Carry on….

  180. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Dear Friends –

    Had a nearly 2 hr. conversation with stevens yesterday. Before my re-engagement of this worthy opponent, it was agreed that he would record and post the entirety of our conversation. Then, as we wrapped up, he mentioned a producer and editing. We’ll have to see what “editing” turns out to be.

    Here’s a recap of our conversation from my point of view;
    stevens stuck to his usual “show me the evidence” line, which he has down pat, as I was warned he would by a wise man who seems to have stevens number, even better than I do.

    Predictably, stevens employed the same tired tactics he always uses … asking leading questions that lead to nothing more than a dead end, re-framing what a critic says after they say it, to cast it in a different light … the usual.

    I didn’t penetrate his wall of nonsense completely, but some cracks are beginning to appear;

    When I again pointed out his tactic of “word-mincing” and went on to explain how he uses word-play to steer around tough challenges, I sensed that I had caught him off guard and bore in for a shot that landed right on the button! When stevens asks for evidence the constitution applies to him, he implies that it doesn’t. If pressed, he’ll actually say it doesn’t because there is no evidence it does. This is where I kicked at least one leg out from under his three-legged stool of theoretical babble — in one sense of the word “apply” stevens is 100% right in that there is no evidence the constitution applies to him, but in another sense of the word there is absolute evidence the constitution applies to him … (if he commits a crime and is caught, he’ll be taken into custody and tried) a clear example of the constitution being applied to him. That leaves him only with it doesn’t apply to me, yet it can be applied to me.

    Then I dropped an A bomb on his anarchist “philosophy” … by asking a simple question; let’s say you guys (anarchists) “won” … the U.S. government was dissolved and anarchy took over … what does it look like now? Then went on to ask about a few specific examples.

    WoW! — I had no idea it would knock him back on his heels like it did! He totally ignored the question and went back to his previous line of questioning about why I think he’s full of #$@% (obviously to give himself time to gather his thoughts, and formulate an answer) I had to ask him at least twice to go back to that question … it took him a good minute or tow to finally summon up the courage to address an issue outside the narrow confines of his lawyer act.(I no longer believe his act is aimed at gaining subscribers on YouTube) It’s just a plain old lawyer act.

    He has so much to say about his core opinions regarding the constitution, taxes, laws etc. But was surprisingly unable to expound much on what would happen if he and those who think like him were ever to achieve their goal.

    It was a real “dog that caught the car” moment.

    Stay tuned as I now move into phase two of my effort to curb this snake oil salesman’s assault on American values.

    ICBMCatcher – out

  181. Andy Says:

    More evidence juan is delusional if he truly believes any rational individual reading these comments believes juan replied to my comment because, to his knowledge, no one is paying attention or responding to my comments. That said, he has admitted that he “gives a shit” about my opinions. Not opinion, “2) to rational individuals reading these comments it’s an obvious fact jaun is delusional.”

  182. NonEntity Says:

    Woodent wanna upset no Mericun values. Nope. Sure woodent wanna do that.

  183. NonEntity Says:

    Itz so cool… SO COOL… how this thread has gotten long enuf to weave a blanket from. Marc? Calvin? I gotz an idea. Just like the YewToob situation, this could be dealt with by only allowing one comment to each post. That comment would be a link to a thread on the forum. Then all of my fans and sycophants could easily find each and every piece of praise heaped upon me by my adoring fans. (And the ignore feature could be easily applied to eYeToo, eTc.) Damn. Am I smart or whut?

  184. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Before I address Mr. Galt’s post, I want to thank him for taking the time to be involved in this dialog. And Mrs. Habby made comment regarding our discussion being civil, so I want to thank you for that also.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Your question of what is to be considered legitimate is a matter of belief – especially when it comes to politics and religion. For example: Can a govt based on the “laws” of God or Nature be considered legitimate? It depends on a belief or non-belief in God as to how someone may answer that – wouldn’t you agree?”

    I would agree with you with the stipulation that you agree that these beliefs could very well be delusion or indoctrination.

    I’ve yet to see verifiable proof of god’s existence… So I don’t believe in god. Without evidence of god, god’s alleged laws are just the scribbles of some long dead writer. To the question of the legitimacy of men and women calling themselves government based on the alleged laws of god, is a “government” based upon a delusion.

    Regarding Natural Law, John Locke wrote:
    “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions:”

    Mr. Galt, I do not see a connection of Natural Law to men and women calling themselves government. “Consent of the Governed” and “Social Contract Theory” can be blown out of the water with some simple questions.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “If you ask “Is all govt legitimate?” or “Is all govt illegitimate?” you would get varied answers depending on a person’s belief system.”

    If legitimacy is determined by belief, by refusing to address legitimacy, you are hiding your beliefs.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Same thing if you ask “Is there a God?” or “Is it legitimate to believe in God?””

    Evidence for god please?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Now to your question “Is this action legitimate?” If I knew I had stolen the money from you, your family, friend or business, I would have to admit to myself that your action is legit. If I have no connection to you and have taken nothing from you (in any form) – your action would not be legit.”

    What if I was an IRS agent? Would your answer be the same?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “You on the other hand have obviously convinced yourself that your action is legit. So the legitimacy of the action depends on the person you ask and the circumstances initiating the action..”

    Men and women calling themselves government have convinced themselves that there action is legit. In order for that to be the case, their authority must be legit.

    Chain of command is a chain of authority. What evidence can you provide to prove any cop has legitimate authority when he pulls anyone over for speeding?

  185. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Like this NonE?
    http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8850-post-65647.html#pid65647

  186. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Maybe I’m missing something. Describe to me what this evidence you keep requesting looks like? Can I see it? Can I hold it in my hand? Maybe I’ve misplaced it. If I only knew what I was looking for.

  187. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I just clicked that link you sent to NonE. Damn I’m jealous of your computer prowess.

  188. ICBMCatcher Says:

    an·ar·chy
    ˈanərkē/Submit
    noun
    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”
    absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

  189. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I too have enjoyed the civility and mental gymnastics.

    “I would agree with you with the stipulation that you agree that these beliefs could very well be delusion or indoctrination”. The source of the belief is irrelevant to me.

    “…is a “government” based upon a delusion.” Your opinion you can not prove.

    “Regarding Natural Law, John Locke wrote:” Locke used the word Nature instead of God in my opinion. The Bible teaches not to kill, injure(or otherwise harm) or steal. Its motto could be “Do no harm.”

    “If legitimacy is determined by belief, by refusing to address legitimacy, you are hiding your beliefs.” I think I answered what I believed about you wanting my money.

    “Evidence for god please?” Why is evidence of God needed to answer those questions?

    “What if I was an IRS agent? Would your answer be the same?” Funny you should ask. I have been in that scenario, way back when I was an associate of Irwin Schiff. Didn’t scare or bother me – I knew he wouldn’t pull the trigger. You – not so much.

    “What evidence can you provide to prove any cop has legitimate authority when he pulls anyone over for speeding?” Still waiting for you to tell what that evidence you want looks like.

  190. Ronnie Says:

    anarchy (n.) Look up anarchy at Dictionary.com
    1530s, “absence of government,” from French anarchie or directly from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia “lack of a leader, the state of people without a government” (in Athens, used of the Year of Thirty Tyrants, 404 B.C., when there was no archon), abstract noun from anarkhos “rulerless,” from an- “without” (see an- (1)) + arkhos “leader” (see archon).

    From 1660s as “confusion or absence of authority in general;” by 1850 in reference to the social theory advocating “order without power,” with associations and co-operatives taking the place of direct government, as formulated in the 1830s by French political philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865).
    Either the State for ever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant by another, and inevitably at the end of this development there is … death! Or the destruction of States, and new life starting again in thousands of centers on the principle of the lively initiative of the individual and groups and that of free agreement. The choice lies with you! [Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), “The State: Its Historic Role,” 1896]

  191. ICBMCatcher Says:

    In the previous post the poster transitions from the definition of anarchy to some other passage, obviously not part of the definition. This seems somehow disingenuous, so I’ll call it an honest mistake.

    The fact remains. Anarchy has been tried many times. It existed before the concept of government was even an idea. Why then, did it not thrive and grow into the dominant way of “organizing” society?

    Another common tactic among those that support nonsensical causes; find even one example of it’s success, no matter how obscure, and call it a “success” thereby implying it’s an overall success. Again … the notion that anarchy will ever become anything is hogwash.

  192. juan galt Says:

    “Either the State for ever, crushing individual….yada, yada, yada

    First off, the State is a political and legal fiction. It only exists in people’s minds. Therefore, the State is not evil, corrupt, power hungry, doesn’t wage war, doesn’t inflict harm, put people in jail, steal people’s money, doesn’t kill people, accept bribes or have sex for influence. People are and do those things. Yet these No Staters, who claim to be rational and logical, choose to ignore inherent human frailties and believe that at some magical time in the future people will deny their human emotions and frailties and adopt NAP and voluntarism. It’s become like a religion to them. Could it work with 300 million people? Only with mindless unfeeling robot “sheep”.

    It appears that Marc’s No Staters believe you can create “Heaven on Earth” without the benefit of a “state”. A theory promoted by Communists for over a century and proven not to work. Yet there are diehard believers. They believe people will live in harmony with “rules”without “rulers”. Some call it anarchy.

    My questions are – “Who makes the rules in the first place? How do you prove the rules apply to anyone? How is consent to abide by the rules established? What if an offender (or anyone) doesn’t agree to the rules? Who has the power (jurisdiction) to enforce the rules and compliance to remedies for harm done? Where did they get the power? What if I don’t consent to their power of authority? Is it like the Wild West before there were States where the “code of the West” ruled? Where in recent human history has this imagined world existed on planet Earth? Where is proof your imagined world does exist and is successful? Are just concluding your imagined world would work? Human history has proven that the concept of No State creates the perfect environment for a “strongman” dictator, domestic or foreign.

    No state? Pure fantasy, like John Lennon’s song “Imagine”. Fantasy: “the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable.”

    No State makes a great bumper sticker slogan, dream, song, poem, book and movie idea. A cohesive community/society – not so much.

  193. NonEntity Says:

    Juan keeps asking what “that evidence” would look like. It would look like evidence that proves the claim being made. Perhaps if you can’t figure out what such evidence would look like it’s because you can’t even imagine anything which WOULD make your case. If I were to be asked for evidence against someone who I claim harmed me, all of have to do is provided evidence of the harm and who caused the harm. To find evidence against an innocent, peaceable person you’d have to either lie or… lie. Maybe that’s why you can’t figure out what such evidence would look like.

    If “all men are created equal” then what kind of evidence would you use to show that some men are superior to others and can effectively own those others?

  194. juan galt Says:

    “It would look like evidence that proves the claim being made.” Not a description, don’t know what you mean. But, it seems the claim is “Evidence must be produced to prove your laws apply to me.” OK, what form does that demanded evidence take? Can you show it to me? Can I touch it? Can I hold and show it to you when I find out what it is?

    You’ve demanded to be shown the evidence so you must believe it is something that can be shown. I may have it back at the office, but if you can’t describe it – how will I recognize it?

    What is this evidence that would satisfy your request?

  195. Ronnie Says:

    Why then, did it not thrive and grow into the dominant way of “organizing” society?

    ICBM: conquest. Violent conquest. You even agreed on the show today this was the reason it did not thrive and grow.

    Please, honestly re-evaluate your position. “Might makes right” and “I don’t care if it’s right or wrong”

  196. NonEntity Says:

    If there is no evidence then it cannot be described. Why is this so hard for you. Can you describe a puzmufinckle?

  197. NonEntity Says:

    Juan, If there is no evidence then it cannot be described. Why is this so hard for you. Can you describe a puzmufinckle?

  198. juan galt Says:

    NonE – I assume you mean there is no evidence that will satisfy you.

    Now I am approaching this from a Court setting, because that’s where Marc’s question of “jurisdiction” arises in a lot of his videos. I’ve heard judges provide their evidence of “jurisdiction” too many times to count. Marc doesn’t accept their evidence, but never says what form the evidence he is demanding should be. However, once the judge has offered his evidence, Marc has to do more than just deny to accept the evidence. Court procedure and rules require that it is Marc’s responsibility to then refute the judges evidence – NOT with philosophical musing and questions – but with evidence.

    In one video, Marc made it clear to a judge he was interviewing that he was coming at the judge with questions based on the political philosophy of Lysander Spooner. Well, like I’ve said before – philosophical musings are not applicable to deciding a legal argument in Court, That’s why judges get frustrated at people who follow Marc’s tactics – they refuse to follow proper decorum and procedures and that’s a slap in the face to the rest of us. That’s why Robbie’s jury found him guilty – the average reasonable person doesn’t accept Marc’s premise. That’s why Marc’s approach in Court, which goes back to the 1980’s, has superior Court rulings basically calling it nonsense.

  199. juan galt Says:

    NonE – PS: I got a puzmufinckle for Xmas. It looks like a Xmas present that someone wanted to give to someone needing one.

  200. NonEntity Says:

    Wow! Cool Xmas present. 🙂 Please describe it for those of us who have never had the benefit of such a magnificent gift.

  201. juan galt Says:

    NonE – You described it perfectly – magnificent.

  202. Jacob C. Witmer Says:

    This government kills many of us, maybe even you(mostly by the FDA delaying life-extending treatments that might otherwise reach the market, get refined and cost-reduced through competition, and then keep you alive).

    A completely totalitarian government would definitely kill us all, because it seeks out and destroys critics and opposition of any kind, pre-emptively. A theoretical minarchist government wouldn’t kill any of us. A theoretical “anarchy” (absence of government) might kill any number of people, depending on how many emboldened sociopaths were present and well-armed. If singularity-level technology is developed by sociopaths, we may all be their eternal slaves, with a government or otherwise.

    It seems to me that people have a hard time realizing several basic facts of reality that are necessary to recognize BEFORE deciding what term is best-used to describe a voluntary society:

    1) Governments evolved from a condition of tribalism, which itself evolved from, presumably primate-level tribes.

    2) As governments evolved(first in primitive animistic form, and later to the dominant monotheisms and moral parables we see today), sociopaths(who co-evolved with empaths, and were evolutionarily-favored) realized that empaths carried with them emotions that could be manipulated. This led to the frequent social dominance of the most authoritarian sociopaths. (A counter-force to these sociopaths was an empathic person who, nonetheless can detect an extreme threat to others, and is willing to kill a malevolent sociopath. This recognition gave us the term “tyrant” and the condition “tyranny.”)

    3) The sociopaths realized that empath emotions were not present in themselves, and that the religious explanations that were used to train children need not be observed in order to SURVIVE. (There was no god to punish them, as stated. This knowledge can be obtained in 5 minutes by accepting the burden of proof, and violating some religious tenet, while you wait to get struck down by a lightening bolt. That lightening bolt never comes.)

    4) As governments progressed in time, they began with Historical baggage of “seeming truths”(often untrue, and scientifically non-rigorous assumptions) and religion, which was often a mixture of (a)irrational (b)rational but uninformed and (c)unscientific. (For example, although Aristotle was rational, he was uninformed, and his theories about many things were laughable by today’s standards.)

    5) Any program can be “loaded” into the mind of a human being, even idiotic and non-functional ones. This fact of cybernetics (different from evolution, but also a sub-domain of information science) means that people will believe all kinds of random, insane bullshit. The only seeming antidote for the population of bad ideas in society is “an easily-communicated” AND “demonstrably superior” idea or program. (Meme “warfare” or “survival fitness of information/idea replicators.”

    6)”Cybernetics”(“the science of control and communication in the animal ad the machine” AKA “the study of optimal governance”) and “government” both come from the same Greek root word for “steersmanship.”This term recognized that the feedback from rudder to captain’s wheel interfaced with the far more complex human brain, and that the brain formed a complex FEEDBACK AND CONTROL relationship with the ship, the storm, the sea, and the goal (even a far-away destination) of the captain.

    7) Anarchists are stuck on the term “anarchy” for several reasons, but primarily, I suspect, it’s because there is no feature of modern “government-as-it-exists” that is worth retaining its failed, corrupted, evil, negative features. Every single anarchist wants to insist that the term “government” be defined as “rulers,” but that etymology is only one definition, and it best-defines modern, corrupted nation states. This causes them to reject, prior to investigation, even the most rational discussion about incrementally using the corrupted features of nation states to force a reduction in state power.

    8) I have never encountered an anarchist who made a legitimate attempt at reducing state power, via elections(many have made illegitimate, half-assed attempts, often getting involved with the Libertarian Party in a weak and stupid manner, such that they cannot even discover that the LP is externally-controlled by its enemies), jury rights activism, pamphleteering, organization, etc.

    9) The Libertarian Party is “controlled opposition,” but it didn’t start out that way, much like the cybernetic system of a rat can be destroyed by toxoplasmosis(parasitism that cause it to not be afraid of cats, and to then be eaten by a cat, serving the life-cycle of the parasitic Toxoplasma gondii amoeba) even if it isn’t born with a Toxoplasma infection. The same is true of all the best parasites in nature.

    10) “Anarchists” don’t want to admit that there is any legitimacy to EXISTING top-down laws that result in benevolent emergence, even the laws that arrest and isolate serial murderers from society (and suppress many of the rest of them). They refer to an unrecognized utopia that will result in replicating these operations, while relieving us all of the torment of the other 99.99% of government operations. The problem: this argument is incredibly ineffective from a political standpoint; it excludes those who see themselves as having benefited from the arrest of specific local strong-arm sociopaths. Abused women see the benefit, when an abusive ex is arrested. In fact, the benefit of state action is commonplace, and is used as highly-effective PR. If you state that you are an anarchist, you place yourself outside of the argument that most statists are open to: the argument over the percentage of the state and specific functions that are illegitimate. (After all, if it’s a binary choice, then the argument need not happen, because the statist INHERENTLY, STRONGLY, and EMOTIONALLY disagrees with the destination.)

    11) “Anarchy” is utopian, but so is “singularity.” This criticism of “anarchy” leaves out the LIKELY possibility that a utopian condition will be made possible by the anarchic nature of first-movers in the “leading force technology” domains of “strong, Drexlerian nanotechnology” AND/OR “strong AGI -Artificial General Intelligence.” However, if this is the case, FORCE will be used to eliminate our governmental parasites, and we need not do anything other than engage in the relevant STEM work. …Most people aren’t well-educated enough to assist in this work. Also: Even if they were so well-educated, un-modified humans would likely still exist, and would still be communicating with one another. Ideally, they would then be open, after object demonstrations of superior force, to accepting “a government” that punished serial murderers(or prevented their capacity for harm) and others guilty of assault, robbery, and abuse, while leaving the rest of us free to live voluntarily, in peace.

    12) Ultimately, whether self-governent is responsible for “selective feedback and correction” or an external incentive is responsible for “selective feedback and correction,” there is no escaping the fact that governance of any useful kind is comprised of BOTH.

    13) A functional “DRO”(anarchist “Dispute Resolution Organization”) mechanism is actually less-likely than ONCE-EXISTING democratic operations that are capable of performing THE SAME, IDENTICAL, LEGITIMATE FUNCTIONS. Would those functions be performed optimally? No, not before a tech singularity(utopia). But they can yield a near-utopia, because compared to Soviet Russia and China in the 1950s, the USA was a comparative utopia. Why? Because the USA retained some small ability to refer to the corpus at that time, in court cases. The prior sentence is the most important sentence in what I just wrote, and minarchist legal minds like Harvey Silverglate, Lysander Spooner, Clay Conrad, and Stanley Milgram have fleshed out this theory to the maximum.

    14) Like it or not, Milgram’s “power vacuum” is both real, and intuitively understood by far more people(many of them biologists, cyberneticists, computer scientists, etc.) than understand basic common law requirement for a valid corpus. This accounts for Pinker’s slow progression away from tribalism, and its accompanying destructiveness.

    It was Marc Stevens who first alerted me to the term “corpus delicti,” and proved to me that the existing legal system was invalid. I already knew the term “habeas corpus” and already knew about jury trials, and then read Conrad’s explanation of how the jury is tasked with finding a valid corpus. (I already knew “mala prohibita” and recognized it as illegitimate, and as the Jury’s function to defeat this, having read Vin Suprynowicz’s books, and already considered myself a libertarian. At the time I was helping to put the Alabama Libertarian Party on the ballot in 2008.)

    An entire society can, in fact, be taught the prior information, and those who understand this information the best will act as lawyers. (As Lysander Spooner, Charles Allen, Abraham Lincoln, etc. did, all without being licensed.)

    Another way of structuring such legal information strips it of its power and utility, resulting in the bland, decaying tyranny we have today. This way of structuring the dissemination of information treats it as specialized career information (subjecting it to licensing), not a “universal, basic Civics education” for whom all “citizens” are responsible and accountable in preserving. This is the essence of “benevolent emergence” and a government that shrinks and shrinks to a benevolent minimum, instead of grows and grows toward a malevolent maximum(and then collapses, possibly beginning a new cycle which can be improved and “more legitimate” or worsened, and “less legitimate”).

    In the USA, malevolent government has won out. This malevolent theft-based government has defaulted to cybernetic pressures caused by the 2% of society that are uncaring, malevolent sociopaths seeking out power positions in society. They now dominate us. Only the superficial appearance of legitimate law and government remains, while the actual remaining procedures are purely malevolent and domineering.

    Historically, when this condition has resulted, the only solution is to kill all the sociopaths and begin anew, attempting to restore “that which previously worked the best.” (One cannot reason with a force that believes itself to be superior, and intends to kill you. This was the condition of the Founding Fathers, responding to the tyrant, King George 3.)

    The Founding Fathers did not have modern computers other than human brains. So they formed control networks with those brains, perfecting the law, and perfecting politics. Those of the same mental caliber today are all working in technology, but they didn’t close the door behind them, they didn’t destroy all of politics. This now leaves that domain open to tyrants, who will gladly kill every human on the planet, if it affords them 20 years of luxury in the process.

    Those extending lifespan may be “anarchists,” but unless they delegate some of their efforts to politics, they will likely find themselves dead from the same policeman’s bullet that kills everyone else.

    The term “anarchy” is mostly useless, and turns out to be shorthand for “radical voluntaryist,” if examined closely. As a political label, it simply reduces the effectiveness of those who are working to reduce the power and destructiveness of government in the cybernetic domain.

    “Anarchists” claim that taxation cannot be voluntary, but to minarchists, it can (and should be) voluntary, AS IT DISHONESTLY CURRENTLY CLAIMS TO BE. This is where anarchists contradict themselves, because if taxation can’t be voluntary, why try to convince people it currently isn’t? Why not focus on showing the involuntary nature of taxation, and claim the result of anarchy? Why would anyone ever argue for an unpopular label, when simply showing true facts would produce the outcome of that label? Why label it anarchy at all, since most people don’t want the result of “zero government functions”?

    …Because those functions, like the choice to not steal from someone, are SELECTIVELY CHOSEN. Government is a selection process, controlled by “EMERGENT” “FEEDBACK AND CORRECTION.”

    A legitimate minarchy would punish a serial murderer, via a jury finding that that murderer’s actions did, in fact, have a valid, 2-part “corpus delicti.” Civics classes can teach this to every single person in society, and can also teach them that their function, as jurors is to NULLIFY every law whose enforcement lacks such a corpus.

    Civics classes could teach this, that is, if the classes weren’t government-controlled.

    So, government control of education can result in a society too uneducated to understand and implement minarchism.

    But if a society is too uneducated to understand and implement this form of minarchism(which once existed in partial form, in the USA!), it’s DEFINITELY too uneducated to understand and implement ANARCHISM. (Unless there’s a singularity, in which case anarchism will imposed on stupid empaths who were previously bent to the will of totalitarian sociopaths.)

    It may be that an anarchic rebellion is necessary. It may be that the current government needs to be completely destroyed. It may be that such a destruction needs to happen prior to a Singularity, in order to allow a benevolent singularity, due to (now speculative) superintelligence’s tendency to evolve out of EXISTING human goals.

    But this doesn’t mean that such a total destruction of government would be proceeding toward “anarchy.” It’s just as likely that the result would be a legitimate minarchy, since legitimate minarchy is partially tested, but anarchy is entirely untested or has failed those tests.

    When Ted Bundy destroyed several young women, he did so in the absence of government. As John Douglas says: None of these serial murderers commits their murderers in the presence of uniformed police officers. In fact, police and FBI agents regularly apprehend serial killers according to a known procedure, even when those murderers are more intelligent than the FBI agents themselves(as in the case of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski).

    When Ted Bundy destroyed several young women, he also did so in the absence of legitimate minarchy. The two Teds above accomplished their destruction under a degraded minarchy that was really busy punishing innocent people while it was searching for them. The existing state was selective in who it punished, but it wasn’t selective enough to be very efficient or benevolent. In fact, if setting the two Teds totally free was the price to pay for abolishing the DEA, ONDCP, ATF, IRS, FDA, EPA, NEA, DOEn, DOEd, local police, and prosecutors, ..I’d be in favor of doing so, and taking my chances.

    However, that’s not an option.

    All governance, including that experienced in a legitimate anarchy, is based on FEEDBACK AND CONTROL.

    Anarchists never discuss feedback and control, nor how it can be used to reduce government power toward minarchy.

    They want an “all or nothing” binary, total elimination of government.

    This causes them to ignore viable political (and anarchic) pathways to their alleged goal of voluntaryism.

    The means of restoring limitations on government are known to me. They take a book to describe, and this is already way too long. Because such limitations exist within the existing government, they should be defined as “minarchist,” because they do not result in an immediate anarchy, and likely never do. Such means may also be anarchist, since they aim to reduce government power, and the end-state is not known. However, because anarchy is less popular among the American people as they now stand, it makes no sense to define these means as “anarchist” …since the means themselves are dependent on “number of active supporters.”

    When anarchists try to convince people that anarchy is legitimate, they’re trying to “recruit network nodes” and “increase the number of active supporters.” Why? The number of people in the USA who will support anarchy is very small. Why try to expand that number, if one’s end-goal is obviously impossible?

    The only answer is a delusional one: Anarchists believe that if they can get a small number of technologists to pursue anarchy, they will be able to destroy the government and society created by the far larger number of minarchists, and totalitarians(maxarchists). …But this is only possible with leading force technology or violent disincentivization, the latter of which is more likely to lead to an acceptable minarchy, and the former of which requires no buy-in from the mostly-STEM-illiterate masses. (And if a STEM genius pursuing leading force tech is so smart, he’s already likely either a narrowly-focused “mainstream” totalitarian-by-default specialist, or an already-benevolent minarchist.)

    I don’t care what we call a condition where people are no longer punished for victimless non-crimes (and by implication, where we have no federal reserve, and no sustained/sustainable foreign aggressions). It’s both a minarchy and an anarchy, depending on which flawed definition you use for both of those.

    Both of the prior are 100% voluntary in their hierarchical structure, and neither depends on coercive taxation.

    If people currently argue that taxation is currently voluntary, they would likely voluntarily pay taxes in the future, and would likely fail to prevent a minarchy before failing to prevent an anarchy. Why add an extra argumentational burden to getting them to favor voluntary taxation? Why claim that there will be zero government, if everyone is purely voluntarily paying their taxes? Why not claim that “only the illegitimate functions of government” wouldn’t be financed by voluntary taxation?

    …Because this gores the “sacred ox” of anarchy. It makes the identity of “anarchist” less absolutist and less “cool.”

    Sadly, it also delays the arrival of individual freedom. I’m convinced of this by the difficulty with which ~30% of people can be persuaded to support anarchy, and the same ease with which the same ~30% can be persuaded to passively support minarchy.

    The existing democratic institutions only require
    1) A determined minority who is skilled in their use
    and
    2) Passive support from a large number of network nodes
    in order to effect change.

    In Colorado, people are no longer imprisoned for marijuana. That’s a huge improvement over a state which once ruined lives for marijuana possession. It’s a step in the right direction, even if you don’t personally use marijuana, and it can be categorized as “minarchist” or “anarchist” with equal legitimacy.

    However, categorizing it as an anarchist measure was a tool of the establishment. Why? Why would the establishment do such a thing? A: Because the prospect of an anarchist future is frightening to the vast majority of people, who perhaps incorrectly define it. Additionally, they can imagine a host of negative consequences to “anarchy” which they do not imagine to be associated with “the Free Country America’s Founding Fathers intended to create.”

    The number of people willing to pursue the latter is vastly larger than the number willing to pursue “anarchy.”

    And, in this game, numbers matter. The side with the greater numbers, wins.

    This is true both inside and outside the force continuum, because democratic processes estimate the force continuum, avoiding force itself.

    I highly recommend reading up on emergence and emergence within cybernetic domains, especially. http://kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php and James Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds” is a good place to start.

    I admit that I have some sympathy for the “Singularity pathway to anarchy” crowd, but this doesn’t delude me into thinking it’s wise to pursue that pathway to the exclusion of more likely avenues. Also, the outcome will be the same if we pursue those more likely avenues, and are wrong, so we lose nothing by pursuing a minarchy, and potentially make a fatal error in pursuing anarchy, by failing to win the minarchy we could have won.

  203. Jacob C. Witmer Says:

    A “state of nature”(“might makes right”, survival of the fittest)+”cybernetics”(human+level thought and planning, written word, evolution of ideas passed from generation to generation, natural human sex differences and motivations, specific sociopaths advancing cybernetics and using it to conquer empaths informationally, etc.) is far more than “might makes right” in the animal kingdom, but cybernetic entities are often best-analogized to the animal kingdom, because their ebb and flow as populations mirrors animal success, and the evolved tactics of parasites.

    Whether an idea “wins” or “loses” (is implemented on a society-wide scale) often has little to do with how good an idea it is.

    The higher-hierarchical level an idea is (the more philosophical it is, the more general and long-term the goal structures it pursues are), the more the prior is true.

    Everyone can see the benefit of driving on air tires, even though water-filled tires do a better job of distributing shock. Water pumps are too messy and difficult to work with, and air-flats are correctable. The utility of the idea at that low-hierarchical-level makes it more survival-fit than its nearest competition.

    But when the results of an idea are not immediately obvious and testable, humans fail to be able to analyze it, or “judge it on its own merits.”

    If they weren’t, we’d still have:
    1) Randomly-selected jury trials with no “voir dire”
    2) No government control of education (A huge opportunity for physically teaching private “Civics Classes”+”Evolutionary History of Common Law.” Some such lessons are on YouTube, and have already created brighter kids than normal.)
    3) Robust gun ownership and carry in all areas of the USA.
    4) Proper jury instruction (The old jury instruction read: “You, the citizens of the state of ___, have a right to vote your conscience, even if your conscience be in direct disagreement with the law.” The new jury instruction is a selector for servility and Milgram-discovered obedience, and reads, “Can you, the jurors of the state of ___, agree to apply the law as I (the judge) give it to you?” –If “yes” they’re seated. If “no,” they’re filtered out of the jury, thus making the jury non-random.
    5) No bar-licensing, and thus, no ability of the judge to threaten defense attorneys who urged the jury to exercise their full power, and nullify the law, as currently happens.

    All of the prior can exist in a minarchy. All of the prior can be reinstated tomorrow, if people use intelligent strategy. If that were to happen, the result would be “minarchy,” not “anarchy” (although anarchy would continually expand under such a minarchy, because criminality would steadily shrink, due to the resources of the state being properly allocated to arresting people like Ted Bundy and Ted Kaczynski).

    The moral of the prior post is: don’t fight over “anarchy” v “minarchy” –implement voluntaryism.

    Or, if you’re stupid, the moral is “Don’t name your kid Ted.”

    Networks exhibit emergent behavior on the highest level any individual node can comprehend and pass onward. Right now, in the USA, that’s “minarchist libertarianism, or classical liberalism.” Even very stupid people I’ve talked with can see the benefit of reinstating proper jury trials. The benefit is rather obvious, when fully explained.

    But even geniuses I’ve spoken with (and read) fail to agree that anarchy is likely to be functional or able to persist. Moreover, if an anarchy did persist, continual attempts to reinstate a totalitarian state would need to be repelled whenever an exploitable tragedy occurred. There’s some evidence that minarchies can be designed well-enough to function well enough to repel such attempts, given private education and inoculation against socialism.

  204. Andy Says:

    Evidence? Prove there are citizens and states.

    citizen: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)

    state: a political body consisting of citizens who have pledged their allegiance to a state in return for a duty of protection by the state.

    Every so-called Supreme Court has ruled that “government” has no duty to protect.

    No duty to protect means “government” has no reciprocal obligation, thus, there’s no reciprocal duty of allegiance on the part of an individual. Thus, there are no citizens. Absent citizens, there’s no body politic. Thus, there’s no state.

    Absent states and government, they’re men and women forcing people to pay them.

    A contract could be evidence. There’s four elements to a contract. Second of importance to there being agreement is a meeting of the minds. I have no recollection of ever having a meeting of the minds with anyone in “government”. Much less a meeting of the minds wherein they told me that they (“government” employees) can kill me if I violate any of their codes or rules. It’s the comply-or-die use of force continue. Everyday men and women who call themselves government kill with impunity.

    If there had been a meeting of the minds, I would have never agreed to enter into contract with people who call themselves “government”.

    Of course, there’s the fact that taxes are compulsory, not voluntary. Pay or go to jail refutes the notion that individuals consented to be governed.

  205. Jacob C. Witmer Says:

    I’ve settled on the term “totalitarian” as the optimal pejorative to describe those usually labeled “statist” by anarchists.

    The benefits of this term are great:
    1) America has successfully battled and discredited totalitarians on a grand scale, and there are numerous examples of such systems and their similarities and differences to the current degraded US system.
    2) Virtually everyone agrees that both “totalitarians” and “totalitarian systems of law” are illegitimate.
    3) From the average member of the Libertarian Party(Gary Johnson supporters), to Ron Paul supporters who are currently in the Republican Party, to stupid supporters of mainstream politicians like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Al Franken, totalitarianism is considered illegitimate, as are “totalitarian systems of law.” Moreover, rational anarchists also consider totalitarianism to be worse than any other system, by some degree (which allows for a useful discussion of scalar values and a discussion of viability of outreach techniques, rather than binary “all or nothing” morality).
    4) Totalitarian states have differed from one another in their implementation, but not as much in their sociopathic, theft-based goal structures. In fact, the average IRS agent obviously intends to steal everything his victim has, even if it kills him or ruins his life, with no caring as to the negativity of the outcome, much the way Stalin’s soldiers stole everything the Ukrainians had, resulting in their starvation and the ruin of their lives.
    5) Many people(especially immigrants who fled totalitarian regimes) love the current USA society+government, because it is drastically less totalitarian than the governments they escaped or informed themselves about. Describing the variable as scalar totalitarian allows people to discuss what they like and dislike about the US government, comparing its features to other governments that EVERYONE ADMITS were worthy of destruction.
    6) When discussing totalitarian measures, many such measures currently exist in the USA, right now. The US prison system is an immense gulag, scarcely better than the Russian gulag, and populated by people who were just as innocent. Sure, it might not be as bad, but it’s still UNACCEPTABLE to decent people. Also, as fans of Marc know, the system of law here has been mostly destroyed, as it was in the Weimar Republic’s descent into Nazism. Books like “The Ominous Parallels” discuss this descent, comparing it to the USA’s own decline in concrete ways.

    If you want voluntaryism, you need to get away from binary descriptors, except when choosing enemies worth destroying.

    There can be no DEA or FDA in any free country. They need to be disbanded. Also, they should be disbanded before the mail service or local garbage service, because they do nothing constructive and actively murder and imprison millions of innocents, and cause thousands more innocents to be murdered by the incentives they create. Should they be disbanded before the local police or state troopers? Maybe not: the local police(in their current illegitimate form as highway robbers) directly attack and rob more people than the FDA and DEA do, and the FDA and DEA rely on those police to enforce their edicts (which they all gladly do, in direct violation of their oaths to the constitution, or are fired, as Justin Hanners and Bradley Jardis were fired).

    In any case, you won’t find too many Americans who argue in defense of totalitarianism. In fact, if you can show them how the current system behaves in totalitarian manner, in concrete ways, they will often join you.

    Contrast that with arguments against “statism”…such arguments strike most people as a wrong-headed nonsequitur. …And they’re not even familiar with the term. …And when you define the term, they disagree with your definition.

    Agreeing on definitions prior to debate is absolutely essential to honest debate. Even if one is convinced of a new definition in the course of a debate, their pride will often cause them to reject that definition, and to attack the alien “nerdiness” or “cultishness” of a person who uses non-standard language and provides rare, little-used definitions.

    Worse still: Many people use a definition of statist that essentially means totalitarian, and is compatible with the existence of a state. (Ie: John Ross describing big-government Democrats as “statist” in relation to small-government Democrats.

    Worse still, using “statist” to describe radical anti-government libertarians like myself amounts to casting out the majority of people necessary to effect change of any kind.

    Worse still: anarchism has a history of failing in the USA, when minarchism succeeded. Minarchism made the Fugitive Slave Law unenforceable in the Northern States, prior to the Civil War. Combined with the civil disobedience of the underground railroad, this powerful lesson from history is something that nearly 100% of civilians can understand and refer to, within their own minds. They can reason about it. The few who are aware of Garrisonians’ anarchist demand for “No Union with Slave Holders” are often aware that Spooner’s winning argument was “Slavery is Unconstitutional.” (Though they often credit this argument to Frederick Douglass, or nobody at all.)

    …After all, they loved the Constitution, and would passively support the rights of escaped slaves, if AND ONLY IF allowed to retain their identity as “patriotic constitutionalists.” If this position wasn’t “allowed,” as it was not, by the Garrisonians, support for abolition was divided, and thousands perished or were returned to slavery and death.

    If voluntaryism means anything, it means not allowing the modern equivalent of “thousands perished or were returned to slavery and death.”

    We need to normalize for benevolent outcomes, not cherished labels.

  206. spooky2th Says:

    juan typed, “I love seeing people, like spooky2th, exercising their freedom of expression of their opinions which of course requires no proof or evidence”

    Your own typed words are the “facts” that back up my simple observation:
    juan & john, both just spew complete nonsensical, illogical and irrational BS.

    All one has to do is read some of your drivel above to see the evidence!

    And judges & prosecutors never offer any real evidence of jurisdiction when jurisdiction is challenged. The best they can do is offer more argument, claims or assertions. Which an objection and a question of proof of that new argument or claim which makes them dig their own hole deeper. It always boils down to someone said so for them. Honest judges will dismiss for lack of evidence.

    Didn’t the judge in the Bundy case recently tell the Feds to prove jurisdiction, instead of assuming it???

  207. juan galt Says:

    “Didn’t the judge in the Bundy case recently tell the Feds to prove jurisdiction, instead of assuming it???”

    I would love to see proof of that. Obviously, they must have proven jurisdiction because the trial is continuing.

  208. NonEntity Says:

    “Obviously, they must have proven jurisdiction because…” Paulie.

  209. NonEntity Says:

    Andy sed, “Everyday men and women who call themselves government kill with impunity” But but but, Andy! Barry Sotoro wrote down on a piece of paper that he had a right to kill anyone anywhere for no more reason than that he thought it was a good idea (or maybe not even that). What more evidence could you possibly need? You’ve obviously been drinking Marc’s Kool-Aide.

  210. ICBMCatcher Says:

    <<<>>> another instance of interpreting a ruling one way vs another. More anarchy BS.

    See public duty doctrine.

    a doctrine in tort law: a government entity (as a state or municipality) cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a public officer’s or employee’s breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole as distinguished from a duty owed to the particular individual called also public duty rule see also special duty doctrine.

    Seems to me this ruling came about so individuals could not sue the police every time a crime was committed, charging that since the crime was committed against them and the police didn’t stop it they were libel. Police have a duty to protect the public at large.

  211. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Habby – Maybe I’m missing something. Describe to me what this evidence you keep requesting looks like? Can I see it? Can I hold it in my hand? Maybe I’ve misplaced it. If I only knew what I was looking for.”

    Well then…

    Let me present some evidence of what evidence is.

    “Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.”
    And I’ll give you an example of another thing: Citation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

    Replying to NonE, you stated: “You’ve demanded to be shown the evidence so you must believe it is something that can be shown. I may have it back at the office, but if you can’t describe it – how will I recognize it?”

    I will simply note that you are implying you can’t recognize something that proves your own position, belief, claim, assertion, or implied assertion.

    Of course, if nothing exists that you can use to prove your own position, belief, claim, assertion, or implied assertion, then obviously you won’t be able to recognize it.

    Now returning to our own dialog and items therein…

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “The source of the belief is irrelevant to me.”

    Let me check that statement for validity.

    A man is demanding you do something. He believes he has authority over you. You are stating the source of his belief is irrelevant to you? Are you going to do what he demands, or are you going to ignore him? Or more to the point, are you going to claim that it doesn’t matter if the source of his belief of authority over you is a delusion or a bona fide delegation of legitimate authority?

    Replacing context: I wrote:
    I’ve yet to see verifiable proof of god’s existence… So I don’t believe in god. Without evidence of god, god’s alleged laws are just the scribbles of some long dead writer. To the question of the legitimacy of men and women calling themselves government based on the alleged laws of god, is a “government” based upon a delusion.

    Then Mr. Galt wrote:
    ““…is a “government” based upon a delusion.” Your opinion you can not prove.”

    Agreed, because absence of proof is not proof of absence. However, what I can do is put the data up for examination of probability. I submit Russell’s teapot.

    It is up to those who believe a government is based upon the alleged laws of god, to provide proof of god’s existence. Believing god exists without proof is what I call a delusion. Basing a government on that delusion is also what I call a delusion.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    Locke used the word Nature instead of God in my opinion.”

    Locke used the word ‘god’ 58 times, ‘nature’ 206 times.
    He used the phrase ‘law of god’ 5 times, of which 2 of those 5 times the phrase was ‘law of God and nature’.
    He used the term ‘law of nature’ 51 times and ‘natural law’ 1 time.

    I submit that Locke knew the difference and did in fact differentiate such in his writing. I will also point out that at that time the church was a de facto co-governing body and with the evil of the crusades as history, my opinion is that Locke may have kept his writing circumspect. Being labeled a heretic is bad for one’s breathing.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “The Bible teaches not to kill, injure(or otherwise harm) or steal. Its motto could be “Do no harm.””

    So does natural law. And so does anyone who has decided that if I don’t want to be (mis)treated in a certain way, I shouldn’t treat anybody else that way.
    I deny that the bible is the word of god. So again, Russell’s teapot.

    Mr. Galt asked:
    “Why is evidence of God needed to answer those questions?”

    Because without that evidence, men and women calling themselves government based on god is based on something unproven, and thus a delusion.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Funny you should ask. I have been in that scenario, way back when I was an associate of Irwin Schiff. Didn’t scare or bother me – I knew he wouldn’t pull the trigger. You – not so much.”

    You are clairvoyant? You could read the agent’s mind?

    I asked:
    What evidence can you provide to prove any cop has legitimate authority when he pulls anyone over for speeding?

    Mr. Galt replied:
    “Still waiting for you to tell what that evidence you want looks like.”

    Rephrasing:
    What can you show me to prove any cop has legitimate authority?

    If you can’t show me anything to prove any cop has legitimate authority, then the obvious conclusion is that the cop doesn’t have legitimate authority.

  212. NonEntity Says:

    Since reason is ineffective you figure massive quantities of text will do the trick Habby?

  213. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I don’t want to be accused of ignoring his red herrings, er… His points, NonE.

  214. juan galt Says:

    Habby -“Evidence, broadly construed, is ANYTHING presented in support of an assertion.” (emphasis added) Using your provided definition and Court procedure and rules, the production of legal authority (case law, statute) would be sufficient as evidence. Once that evidence is produced, it is then the responsibility of the other party to refute that evidence with his evidence – not just disagreeing on philosophical grounds.

    “Let me check that statement for validity.” If I finds something irrelevant to me, that is my opinion and it is valid to me – your interpretations and beliefs notwithstanding. Everyone is entitled to hold opinions without submitting to others opinion of the validity of that opinion.

    “Locke used the word Nature instead of God in my opinion.” Your opinion differs.

    “I deny that the bible is the word of god. So again, Russell’s teapot”. So again, your opinion or belief. You’re entitled to both.

    “Why is evidence of God needed to answer those questions?” Because… Not necessary to answer the questions.

    “You are clairvoyant? You could read the agent’s mind?” At times, yes.

    “Still waiting for you to tell what that evidence you want looks like.” Still waiting. If you can’t describe it, how do you know it hasn’t been produced? Just because YOU won’t accept one form of evidence doesn’t make that evidence any less applicable and acceptable as evidence in Court. Since the cops authority is based in law it requires a legal conclusion NOT a philosophical one.

    Looking at legal issues through philosophical lens will not win a legal argument and your questions are considered, in the legal profession and in Court, part of the merits of your legal argument. What you and Marc call questions are called arguments when you enter the Courtroom.

    I told you I am not a philosophical debater. I don’t adhere to the rules, fallacies or methods used in academic/philosophical debates. I use the rules and methods for legal arguments – which are a completely different species for reaching a conclusion and winning a legal argument. I use legal reasoning methods not logical reasoning methods. Obviously you are having problems grasping the difference – perhaps you never will.

    It’s clear Marc and his follwers are die-hard believers in the political philosophical musings of people like Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard. Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, Walter Block, et al. I have no problems with that, in fact I was a member of the Mises Institute for 20 years as I adhere to the Austrian School of Economics. I am, though, more of a pragmatist than an idealist. At this point in human development and interaction, I just don’t fully accept the propositions of those philosophers mentioned above. I don’t think it could work with 300 million people – at least not at this time – although I do believe the size and scope of our present govt could reasonably be reduced by 95%. However, I’m acutely aware of the unfortunate nature of man and his “inherent” frailties.

    May we agree to disagree like intelligent civilized humans?

  215. NonEntity Says:

    Juan sed, ” I use legal reasoning methods not logical reasoning methods.”
    I.e. guns.
    Juan sed, “May we agree to disagree like intelligent civilized humans?”
    “FUCK YOU, PAY ME,” is not civilized disagreement.

  216. NonEntity Says:

    Juan sed, “At this point in human development and interaction, I just don’t fully accept the propositions of those philosophers mentioned above.”
    In other words, since human beings have a tendency towards violence and scumbuggery, we should empower those least likely to reign in these tendencies with the legal authority to reign terror on the other, more civilized, of the population. (Is it clear now why this person is not desirous of using logic in this discussion?)

  217. juan galt Says:

    NonE – “In other words,” Geez, you “academics” want to use other words, context and concepts to challenge another’s opinion. It’s MY opinion and you have no claim to it. You may disagree, but that’s the extent of your influence on someone else’s opinion. It is of no consequence if you think my opinion is based on a logical fallacy or appears invalid to you. Your opinion has no authority over mine. I have not threatened you with violence (a gun) if you disagree.

    I and many others have a different philosophy than Spooner of how we choose to live and how we view the role of govt. Do people want smaller govt than we have now? I think the election of Trump may give insight into the answer. We see value where he and Rothbard, et al. don’t. That’s reality not navel gazing. We don’t fear your boogeymen.

    What are you people to do with all these people with different political philosophies you consider “corrupt” (and that includes about half the population) – they won’t magically disappear in a no state? No need to answer.

    Even though you state your postions with religious zeal, I leave you with –
    Imagine there’s no countries
    It isn’t hard to do
    Nothing to kill or die for
    And no religion too
    Imagine all the people living life in peace

    You, you may say
    I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
    I hope some day you’ll join us
    And the world will be as one

    Sounds like a sermon about Heaven to me. Why? Who cares? Keep on a hopin’, wishin’ and imaginin’. Pax vobiscum.

  218. NonEntity Says:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ycbgHM1mI0k

  219. juan galt Says:

    NonE – didn’t work for Dusty either.

  220. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Rephrasing:
    What can you show me to prove any cop has legitimate authority?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Habby -“Evidence, broadly construed, is ANYTHING presented in support of an assertion.” (emphasis added) Using your provided definition and Court procedure and rules, the production of legal authority (case law, statute) would be sufficient as evidence.”

    Okay. What can you show me to prove court procedure, court rules, case law, or statute applies to me?

  221. juan galt Says:

    Habby – The fact that you are in Court – STOP the kneejerk and just read. lol

    Remember in Court, court rules and procedures apply- period. Your “question” is considered, in Court, a legal argument which requires the rules governing the reaching of a legal conclusion. To reach this conclusion of law the rules say the conclusion must be supported by legal authority IE: case law, statute. You may disagree with the rules but that is of no effect in Court. Your disagreement would have to be on legal grounds not philosophical grounds. Actually I know of no legal grounds for rules suspension.

    Your “question” is seen as a part of your defense to the claim and as such is considered by the Court as part of the merits of your case which you will “argue” at trial. When there is an “overlapping” of “questions” (issues, arguments, merits), the Court uses an extremely low standard of proof (evidence) to initially answer your “application question” (argument) in order to proceed to trial where the standards of proof are much higher and the merits of both parties’ arguments are fully presented. This standard of proof is so low that a statute, summons, complaint, etc. is sufficient evidence to proceed. You may register an objection – which will be overruled and the case should continue to trial on the merits. You may register objections and grounds for them throughout the trial. If you lose and you think the judge screwed up regarding your objections – you can appeal. Now IF you are in Court that’s the way the rules, procedures, case law and statutes would apply to you or anyone who is a party to a lawsuit being heard in a Court.

    I didn’t make the rules. I’m not saying they are philosophically legitimate, moral or valid. I’m just giving a straight answer from an evil corrupt Constitutional attorney who spent his career kicking the govt’s ass in Court for overreach and violations of unalienable rights and making people whole who had been harmed.

  222. NonEntity Says:

    Izznt it interesting how da gubmint can and regularly does say that there is no jurisdiction to hear this that or the other, but here in make-fun-of-Marc-Stevens-land the idea that jurisdiction might not apply is derided as absolute idiocy. Hmm. Odd, no?

  223. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Can you answer some question I have about “rules no rulers”?

    My questions are – “Who makes the rules in the first place? How do you prove the rules apply to anyone? How is consent to abide by the rules established? What if an offender (or anyone) doesn’t agree to the rules? Who has the power (jurisdiction) to enforce the rules and compliance to remedies for harm done? Where did they get the power? What if I don’t consent to their power of authority? Is it like the Wild West before there were States where the “code of the West” ruled? Where in recent human history has this imagined world existed on planet Earth? Where is proof your imagined world does exist and is successful? Are just concluding your imagined world would work?

  224. Boxer Says:

    @juan

    “I didn’t make the rules. I’m not saying they are philosophically legitimate, moral or valid. I’m just giving a straight answer from an evil corrupt Constitutional attorney who spent his career kicking the govt’s ass in Court for overreach and violations of unalienable rights and making people whole who had been harmed.”

    Are you the attorney you are referencing in your statement?

  225. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – Yes.

  226. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I asked:
    Okay. What can you show me to prove court procedure, court rules, case law, or statute applies to me?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “The fact that you are in Court.”

    Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence and assumes my ass is in the court room.

    If I refuse to submit to the court’s alleged authority, will men with guns be sent to haul my ass into the courtroom?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Remember in Court, court rules and procedures apply- period.”

    That is your opinion.

    Where does court get its alleged authority over me?

    What can you show me to prove that court has any alleged authority over me?

    What can you show me to prove that such alleged authority is legitimate?

    And repeating the question you ignored:
    What can you show me to prove any cop has legitimate authority?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “You may disagree with the rules but that is of no effect in Court.”

    Whether I agree or disagree with the rules is irrelevant.
    What can you show me that proves the court has legitimate authority over me?

    Mr. Galt asked:
    “Habby – Can you answer some question I have about “rules no rulers”?”

    I don’t wish to at this time. And I listened to ICBMCatcher committing his Argument from incredulity fallacy with Mr. Stevens on the issue of how will anarchy work.

    “Argument from incredulity (appeal to common sense) – “I cannot imagine how this could be true; therefore, it must be false.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies

    The issue of rules, no rulers, does not make the alleged authority of men and woman calling themselves government into legitimate authority.

    I do have answers and opinions for that question. I just don’t find this the time to discuss that particular topic. I view that as a “but who will build the roads” argument. One used by statists to argue for keeping the men and women who call themselves government in place.

  227. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I didn’t expect you to answer MY questions. I’ve asked about 10 “rules no rulers” advocates with the same result. They’re good with imaginary issues – straight answers, not so much. I’ve come to believe this philosophy gives them an escape from and a way to deal with reality. Like Christians longing for the afterlife.

    Well, I’ll leave you to get all snuggley and comfy relaxing to “Imagine” continuously.

  228. Boxer Says:

    @juan

    One thing I’ve never understood from lawyers is which lawyer I am supposed to believe. In other words, which lawyers’ opinion matters most?

    If it’s just your opinion vs Lysander Spooner, why should I believe anything you say/write (especially since you benefit from such fictions)?

  229. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let the record show that Mr. Galt has refused to answer these questions.

    Where does court get its alleged authority over me?

    What can you show me to prove that court has any alleged authority over me?

    What can you show me to prove that such alleged authority is legitimate?

    What can you show me to prove any cop has legitimate authority?

    What can you show me that proves the court has legitimate authority over me?

    Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    Who had the authority to entitle a portion of the population to have authority over other portions of the population?

    Mr. Galt, do you have any evidence that those who believed in majority rules had any authority over me to delegate to those who call themselves government?

    What evidence do you have to show that any of those who “believe” [in majority rule] have any authority to make me obey THEIR political philosophy [belief]?

    Do you have any evidence to counter my claim that it was governance, ruling, and control by do what we say or we will kill you?
    Can you prove it wasn’t comply or die, just like it is now?

    What makes alleged government authority legitimate?

    If you believe that the alleged authority of the present government is legitimate, then please answer the question, What makes the alleged authority of the present government legitimate?

    How does that alleged authority give the court the legitimacy to send men with guns to drag me into the court if I choose to ignore the court’s commands?

    What is the evidence that a particular law applies to me?

    What is the evidence that a particular legislator has authority over me so that I am required to obey his scribbles on a piece of paper?

    Mr. Galt, Is the present government legitimate or not? Yes or No.

    Evidence for god please?

    Chain of command is a chain of authority. What evidence can you provide to prove any cop has legitimate authority when he pulls anyone over for speeding?

    What can you show me to prove any cop has legitimate authority?

    What can you show me to prove court procedure, court rules, case law, or statute applies to me?

    If I refuse to submit to the court’s alleged authority, will men with guns be sent to haul my ass into the courtroom?

    Where does court get its alleged authority over me?

    What can you show me to prove that court has any alleged authority over me?

    What can you show me to prove that such alleged authority is legitimate?

  230. NonEntity Says:

    Habby Est Walloftextus sed, “Let the record show…”
    Wait. My record player doesn’t show pictures, it just plays music (well, and some pops and scratches). You got some kind of fancy new record player there? Does it use a lantern or what? I’m curious.

  231. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – “If it’s just your opinion vs Lysander Spooner, why should I believe anything you say/write (especially since you benefit from such fictions)?”

    The only thing I’m asking you to believe is that the Court procedures I’ve laid out are are pretty much how things work in a Court hearing/trial. Secondly, I have never heard or seen a philosophical ideal or question applicable to winning a legal argument or a case in my 35+ years of experience. Except maybe the recent ruling on Trump’s “travel ban”.

    Spooner would ask “What is Law?’ – a philosophical question. I would ask “What law would rule in this situation?” A legal question. Spooner would be concerned about the validity, legitimacy or morality of there even being laws. I would be concerned with what are the statutes and case law that cover the situation I was dealing with. Spooner doesn’t believe the Constitution should apply without consent if at all. I believe that the Constitution was sheer genius but has been grossly perverted in its intent and scope. I believe the idea was to have independent states or “laboratories of social and economic experiments” – all trying something different. People could then vote with their feet and move to whichever state (or “no state”) fit their desires and needs.

    To me Life is about consuming as much as possible the data that peaks your interest. Both sides of any issue. Then and only do I form my beliefs. Of course, Life experiences also figure in. As I’ve said I am a pragmatist, probably because of my Life experiences. In my 20’s I was idealistic as they come. I believed in Spooner’s philosophy and was even involve in the Tax Protester movement in the 1970’s as well as the Posse Comitatus. Realities of Life changed my prospective as I grew older.

    The thing was I couldn’t answer with any certainty the questions I asked Habby and there were about 30 more on a list I made. My belief system works for me and I wouldn’t be so egotistical to think you should adopt mine just because it’s mine. I’m almost 70, my Life is on the downside but I’m totally pleased with how I turned out. I live in my own 800 acre “no state” where I am “King”.

  232. desertspeaks Says:

    juan galt.. fraud/shill for the machine!

  233. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt,
    There is a man that lives a mile away from me.
    He currently makes his living by working in the private sector.
    You have admitted that this man does not have authority over me because you have admitted that nobody is born with authority over anybody else.

    When this man starts his new job as a police officer, will he have authority over me? In other words, if this man is wearing his nice blue costume and shiny tin star, when he gives me a (lawful) command, does he have authority over me?

    If yes, how did he get this alleged authority over me?

  234. juan galt Says:

    Habby – You should have added – “to my satisfation” to make it a valid and legitimate statement. You, however, have NO answers of any kind to my questions.

    1)Where in recent human history, has your imagined world existed on planet Earth? (2)Where is PROOF that your imagined world does exist and is successful? (3)Are you just concluding your imagined world would work?

    Then there’s justice. It’s a theory that’s open to interpretation. It can mean different things to different people. (4)In a No State scenario, how and whose interpretation of justice is adopted? (5)Who sets standards of conduct? (6)Who defines fairness? (7)Due process? (8)Equality? No Staters like Marc Stevens claim they want “rules, no rulers”. (9)Who makes the rules in the first place? (10)How is consent to abide by the rules established and proven? (11)What if an accused doesn’t agree to the rules? (12)Who has the power (jurisdiction) to enforce the rules? (13)Where did they get the power? (14)What if I don’t consent to their power? (15)How is the desire and motivation for personal gain curbed? (16)How is the exercise of one right which unnecessarily infringes on or endangers another person’s right, resolved when no discernible injury has yet occurred? Like the intentional infliction of emotional distress, mental anguish, stalking or pain and suffering. These victims suffer no visible harm or injury – but nonetheless suffer a loss of well-being. (17) And what about toxic emissions produced by someone without immediate injury to another, but a slow long standing exposure not evident for years? How is that handled? (18)How does a No State settle disputes? What if an offender declares; “You have no authority to judge me. Show me proof I’ve consented to your authority. I’m not bound by your laws.” (19)How is the offender held responsible? (20)How is the injured party made whole? (21)How does a No State enforce anything?

    (22)Is it like the Wild West? Before there were states in the Wild West, there was no “laws of the State” to address torts (civil wrongs) – no written instructions of how to resolve the issues. People chose independently how to enforce the “code of the West”. We adults prefer the way we settle disputes now – civilly and without violence.

    Then there’s the jury. (23)Is there such things as juries, trials and judges? (24)How do you guarantee impartiality? (25)How do you impanel a jury or referee of disputes, if no one wants to be bothered and cannot be required or forced to serve? You might end up with “professional” jurors that always volunteer but get paid “under the table” for favor. (26)In a No State could someone be convicted of murder with only circumstantial evidence – no body, no witnesses? What if the murderer flees hundreds or thousands of miles away. (27)How are they brought to justice? I won’t even go into the problems concerning commercial disputes that could arise.

    If you can logically and rationally answer the above questions about the No State dream – you just might have a new convert.

  235. NonEntity Says:

    Habby! A new project! (Just when you were mourning the loss of geartwit, or whoever it was. See, there IS a god. 🙂

  236. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I see a lot of criticism of the present system, but no info on how a no state would actually work for the better. To achieve the dream wouldn’t you want to “spread the word” about the positive things about your dream? I’ve listened to hours of Marc and have yet to here him espouse how his project would work. I mean communism works – in theory.

    Would there need to be a meeting of the minds of some kind for a no state to be implemented? Would 100% have to agree for it to work? If some didn’t want a no state, how are their desires realized? Wouldn’t 100% of the people HAVE to practice NAP and voluntarism for it to work? The closest experiment I know of such a system was in New Harmony, Indiana around 1825 – it failed for other reasons. If past anarchist-type societies were conquered by violence, how is that flaw addressed? If a drunk driver kills your family and flees, but has nothing that could positively identify his vehicle – how is he found?

  237. ICBMCatcher Says:

    When one asks stevens and his buddies what society looks like when anarchy finally wins the day, they fall flat on their faces … crickets … for a few seconds while they try to formulate an answer that makes sense … then they can’t … more crickets … then it’s right back to the same old schtick. What evidence do you have …

    This is kryptonite to the entire anarchy fallacy … hammer this point and we can hammer them right back into the mist of obscurity where they belong.

    What does civilization look like when anarchy takes over? Please explain in detail.

    What if other nations choose to stay with their current system, retain their current military? Will the U.S. drastically scale down it’s armed forces? If so, what does our place in the world look like then? Will we have to give back our superpower decoder ring?

    If our military is to remain as is, how will it be funded? What if not enough people “volunteer” to pay taxes? How exactly do we fund a multi-billion dollar defense budget?

    What do we do when we need a new aircraft carrier … pass a hat?

    When the enslaved sheeple finally see the light and make the move to a “voluntary society” how will that all work? Taxes will apparently be “voluntary” so what happens with those who don’t “volunteer” to pay their fair share? Do they have a right to expect the same public services? Can their kids go to public schools? Can they use the roads?

    Maybe we can have a $5 a gallon tax on gasoline? Maybe that would work?

    When one of the “volunteers” has need for police services is it COD? Does a cop look to see if a call for help is coming from a “taxpayer” or a “volunteer” before responding? If it’s a volunteer do they respond? Will a volunteer need a valid credit card to pay for police responding to a call?

    What about a currency … what will that be like?

    Please mr stevens … tell us how wonderful life will be when we all finally realize states and citizens are just fictions.

    ICBMCatcher beaming a signal of reality into the fantasy land of anarchy. Come towards the light boys … take my hand!

  238. Andy Says:

    juan galt said: “I see a lot of criticism of the present system, but no info on how a no state would actually work for the better.”

    The present system is organized crime and you are seeing how a no state works actually works. How would eliminating the largest source of initiatory violence, threat of violence and fraud work for the better?

  239. juan galt Says:

    ICBM – You would think Marc would thank us for giving him and his drones the opportunity to address some of the questions the average Joe would have about their project. It’s a chance for them to think outside their echo chamber.

  240. ICBMCatcher Says:

    I was thinking the same thing.

    Not sure if you heard my 2+ hour conversation with stevens aired this past Saturday. This is twice I have been “on” for his entire Sat. broadcast. Something is afoot.

    He stuck to his same schtick for most of the call, but the deafening silence I heard when I asked him what society would look like when the anarchists win, was a clear indicator of a struck nerve. Matter of fact he “wrote down” the question, went back to his usual act and didn’t come back to it until I pressed the issue at least two more times. Then, when he tried to answer, it was 15 – 20 sec. of a half-assed attempt at a reply, then back to the same old act.

    I sensed the life draining out of his soul in that moment. We found the chink in his armor … reality.

    stevens’ run is over.

  241. desertspeaks Says:

    address what juan? you’ve offered nothing but your opinions, nothing tangible, factual and most certainly nothing that qualifies as personal firsthand irrefutable evidence that proves any of it applies to anyone WITHOUT POINTING A GUN AT THEIR HEADS!

  242. NonEntity Says:

    No one cares about the future of the human species! If men weren’t allowed to rape women, HOW WOULD CHILDREN BE BORN??? Huh? Answer me that will ya? WHO WILL BUILD THE CHILDREN?

  243. Andy Says:

    NonE, Nice one. IMO, most statist won’t ‘get it’. Critics and regulars to this website will ‘get it’. Other people, not so much.

  244. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    My apologies Mr. Galt.

    Quid pro quo.

    Since you have done me the disrespect of not answering my questions, I’m returning the favor by only skimming your two posts instead of actually reading them.

    In my skim of your post I see a bunch of “who will build the roads” type of questions. Or as NonE asks, WHO WILL BUILD THE CHILDREN?

    You asking how anarchy / voluntarism will work is seen for the attempt to change the subject that it is.

    So I again must press you for the specifics of the present system.

    Second inquiry:

    There is a man that lives a mile away from me.
    He currently makes his living by working in the private sector.
    You have admitted that this man does not have authority over me because you have admitted that nobody is born with authority over anybody else.

    When this man starts his new job as a police officer, will he have authority over me? In other words, if this man is wearing his nice blue costume and shiny tin star, when he gives me a (lawful) command, does he have authority over me?

    If yes, how did he get this alleged authority over me?

  245. juan galt Says:

    ICBM – No, I have not heard that interview – I don’t know where to listen.

  246. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “how did he get this alleged authority over me?”

    Asked and answered. You just don’t accept my answers, but they still exist. However, MY questions remain unanswered. I would think you would jump at the chance to describe your Utopia. These are simply questions any average Joe would ask about your philosophical ideas and ideal. Who will build the roads has not be asked – stop deflecting. Here’s more –

    How would commercial disputes be settled? Any standardized instructions or procedures? How would one company in one no state seek remedy from another company in another no state area hundreds or thousands of miles away? How would polluters be handled? Would there be any commonly held property like parks, forests or natural wonders like the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone? How would the switch from all the present govt functions and properties be handled?

  247. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Asked and answered. You just don’t accept my answers, but they still exist.”

    Mr. Galt, may I suggest you go to your post wherein you claim you answered my question, Right Click the date/time link, Click Copy Link Location (or its equivilent in your browser) and then just paste that in your next reply.

    And here’s that question you claim you already answered:

    There is a man that lives a mile away from me.
    He currently makes his living by working in the private sector.
    You have admitted that this man does not have authority over me because you have admitted that nobody is born with authority over anybody else.

    When this man starts his new job as a police officer, will he have authority over me? In other words, if this man is wearing his nice blue costume and shiny tin star, when he gives me a (lawful) command, does he have authority over me?

    If yes, how did he get this alleged authority over me?

    I won’t call that a third inquiry because you claim you have provided an answer.

    I refuse to answer you WHO WILL BUILD THE CHILDREN questions because they have absolutely no bearing on the alleged authority of the present system. I refuse to let you change the subject.

  248. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “because you have admitted that nobody is born with authority over anybody else.”

    I also admitted that there are places on Earth where people are born with authority over others – N Korea, Saudi Arabia. I also admitted, and you agreed, that authority over others can be obtained. I will assume the later in the case of your neighbor. Something or someone somewhere somehow gave him the authority. That answers your question – ” how did he get this alleged authority over me?”

    What you want me to do is address the legitimacy of how that authority was obtained. And that my friend is a philosophical question propounded by Lysander Spooner et al.

  249. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I asked:
    When this man starts his new job as a police officer, will he have authority over me? In other words, if this man is wearing his nice blue costume and shiny tin star, when he gives me a (lawful) command, does he have authority over me?

    If yes, how did he get this alleged authority over me?

    Mr. Galt graciously answered:
    “Something or someone somewhere somehow gave him the authority.”

    Who or what is that someone or something that gave him the authority?

  250. juan galt Says:

    Habby -“Who or what is that someone or something that gave him the authority?”

    Having problems with short-term memory? Asked and answered. This is a philosophical [political] question and I gave a philosophical answer – those who believed in and adopted the concept the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society where you are presently living.

  251. Andy Says:

    John Cokos Says:
    February 12th, 2017 at 10:44 am

    John, why did you make your first post about Marc and ICBMCatcher’s discussion to this article-page where the discussion is not available to listen to or download rather than the article-page where people can listen to the discussion and download the discussion?

  252. juan galt Says:

    Habbt – I’ve read in these comments that a no state free market could supply all the functions of our present govt on a voluntary basis. Cool, I could possibly get behind that. Does that include some kind of “peace keepers” paid to investigate offenses and apprehend the perp? Or is that responsibility of the victim? If there are “peace keepers” where to they get their authority to perform their function?

    I guess any questions “ole average Joe” has about your no state will be met with your pat response – That’s a “Who will build the roads?” (or the new “Who will build the children?”) question and I refuse to answer.

  253. Andy Says:

    Critics Rejoice! I’ve uploaded both discussions that Marc and ICBMCatcher had. I’ve joined the two into one video. Plus, there’s simple easy instruction with examples of how to link to any specific time in the discussion.

    Here’s a link to the forum page: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854.html

  254. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Making sure the context stays with the topic discussion…

    I asked:
    When this man starts his new job as a police officer, will he have authority over me? In other words, if this man is wearing his nice blue costume and shiny tin star, when he gives me a (lawful) command, does he have authority over me?

    If yes, how did he get this alleged authority over me?

    Mr. Galt graciously answered:
    “Something or someone somewhere somehow gave him the authority.”

    Who or what is that someone or something that gave him the authority?

    Mr. Galt non-responsively replied:
    “those who believed in and adopted the concept the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society where you are presently living.”

    Mr. Galt, that does NOT explain how the guy allegedly received command authority over me. Please responsively answer the question:

    Second inquiry:
    Who or what is that someone or something that gave [the new cop command] authority [over me]?

    In other words, in detail and with specificity, please explain how my equal became my master.

  255. John Cokos Says:

    No particular reason. It’s the same reason a fly vomits on the surface where it lands. It was there. If anyone is interested in the video with the discussion, they will find it.The journey is half the enlightenment…

  256. Andy Says:

    The discussion with Marc and ICBMCatcher can be viewed/listened to here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854.html

  257. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “explain how the guy allegedly received command authority over me.”

    How would I know? It’s your hypothetical. I will assume because I have no direct personal knowledge, that those who believed in and adopted the concept of the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society where you are presently living gave it to him. Where they got their authority, I don’t know – no personal direct knowledge. I can only guess the same place that Spooner and Rothbard got their political philosophy – navel gazing. One philosophy, however, the one you live under (assuming you live under Majoritarianism), was actually put into practice.

    That’s my answer. You are free to disagree. But forget about restatements and pie.

    BTW I would be willing to bet that at some point the “Spooners” (look I coined a new term, cool) would be faced with the problems of those who did not agree to their philosophy as it would take 100% of the people to agree to NAP and voluntarism for survival. How would such a conflict be settled?

  258. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “In other words, in detail and with specificity, please explain how my equal became my master.”

    I have no desire or interest to engage in philosophical debates. I don’t care how he or anybody gets their authority over other people. As long as I don’t experience negative effects from their authority – it doesn’t exist as far as I’m concerned. I’m too old to engage in activities that I derive no pleasure from. I have not spent my life navel gazing about the origins, legitimacy, morality, validity or ethical aspects of authority and have no interest in starting.

    I thought we may have reached a point to where you could give me a pitch on “Spoonerville” (look, I did it again). That is the ONLY thing I am interested in discussing. Facts of how things would work – not obscure theories or philosophical drivel.

  259. Andy Says:

    Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

    It’s an excellent read/listen: http://marcstevens.net/interviews/notreason.html

  260. NickOZ Says:

    If any of these so called critics want evidence of true “no rules” societies there is so called Australia , Original people have 500,000 yrs plus of living here with NO RULERS , yes there were rules – strict ones and 50, 000 tribes , all had tribal LORE and worked things out without what we call KARMA even murder as an example , under the communally agreed guidance of the tribes Loved Wise ELDERS the family of the murdered would be able to throw spears at the perpetrator , he may die or live but it was dealt with NOW not in future lifetimes ,An enlightened way of life , It seems that some only read whats in the prison library ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  261. Boxer Says:

    @juan

    What is your definition of philosophy?

  262. juan galt Says:

    Boxer –
    a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought; the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group.

  263. Boxer Says:

    @Juan

    And your definition of theory please?

  264. juan galt Says:

    Boxer –
    an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

  265. desertspeaks Says:

    juan galt the shill is still at it, still regurgitating his propaganda, indoctrination and opinion..

  266. juan galt Says:

    desertspeaks – “still regurgitating his propaganda, indoctrination and opinion..” LMFAO And you no staters aren’t?

  267. ICBMCatcher Says:

    You guys are grabbing at straws now. Your tired old “show me the evidence” line is getting weaker by the post.

    The flawed premise of your warped thinking has surfaced, we have exposed it and put a spotlight on it.

    Your nonsense is crumbling away just like every anarchistic society has.

    Grab on to the lifeline of reality before it’s to late!

    Ever your tough-love friend

    ICBMCatcher

  268. Boxer Says:

    @ICBM

    Your disdain for evidence is quite amusing. Here, take a look at statism:

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/02/21/01/3D77A03C00000578-4242150-image-m-68_1487639773775.jpg

    Good times!

  269. ICBMCatcher Says:

    What are you talking about? A lady gets mixed up in an unruly crowd of out-of-control anarchists, hurts herself somehow, and two nice policemen help her to safety … what’s your point?

  270. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I asked:
    Who or what is that someone or something that gave [the new cop command] authority [over me]?
    In other words, […] please explain how my equal became my master.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “How would I know? It’s your hypothetical. I will assume because I have no direct personal knowledge, that those who believed in and adopted the concept of the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society where you are presently living gave it to him.”

    Hostile or Adverse Witness: A party’s witness who demonstrates such adversity to answering questions that the trial judge allows leading questions to be put to that witness.

    You will assume Majority Rules?

    Then is it true that you assume the majority has legitimate authority over you?

    Then is it true that you will always obey the majority’s rules?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “I have no desire or interest to engage in philosophical debates.”

    Is this why you are so intensely defending the alleged authority of the system you live in?

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    ” One philosophy, however, the one you live under (assuming you live under Majoritarianism), was actually put into practice.”

    Addressing the readers and lurkers:
    He has no desire or interest in engaging in philosophical debates, yet here he is defending the status quo of a philosophy…

  271. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    You know who else shared you disdain for “navel gazers”?
    The Khmer rouge.

  272. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    ICBMCatcher wrote:
    “A lady gets mixed up in an unruly crowd of out-of-control anarchists, hurts herself somehow, and two nice policemen help her to safety”

    http://synapticsparks.info/government/Police.html#noduty

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgixrRZ-Avg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2LDw5l_yMI

  273. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I love it when layman think they are lawyers – a witness is NOT hostile if they have no personal first-hand knowledge. You’re showing legal ignorance. I’ve stayed away from philosophy – you should stay away from law. You will never hear in Court – “Objection your Honor! Logical fallacy! Faulty Logical Reasoning!” If that ever happened the judge and opposing counsel would crack up laughing, maybe not out loud – wait, yes out loud! Logical reasoning rules and methods do not apply in Court when arguing the merits of a case. The rules and methods of Legal reasoning apply. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

    I have made no comments intensely defending anything but MY opinions – that being I don’t feel the need to justify opinions to anyone. I’ve said I don’t fully agree with Spooner, et al. and that the original intent and genius of our govt has been perverted.

    Here’s what I find interesting and strange. I gave examples of “survey” questions such as –
    “Is there a God?” Your answer would be NOT in my opinion. Done. Asked and answered. and
    “Is it legitimate to believe in God?” Your answer would be NOT in my opinion. Done. Asked and answered.

    However, instead of answers to simple “survey” questions, you would ask the surveyor to prove the existence of God. The questions did not claim God exists. The questions elicit simple yes or no answers NOT a debate or dissertation. Do you view every question a challenge or invitation to a debate? Do you think you are always going to have to justify your answers? Do you possess uncontrollable urges to challenge everyone’s opinions? Do you think my questions of “Spoonerville” are a prelude to a debate? They’re not! Sometimes curiosity and questions just seek information – not a philosophical “battle” of ideals.

    “You know who else shared you disdain for “navel gazers”?
    The Khmer rouge.” Which logical fallacies apply to that argument/statement?

  274. NonEntity Says:

    Juan del LegalLand sed, “…that the original intent and genius of our govt has been perverted.”

    Well, err… no, it’s actually performing exactly as intended.

  275. juan galt Says:

    NonE –
    The intent of the Constitution was as close to “rules no rulers” ever attempted on a massive scale. The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal govt to control individuals – hell, it didn’t even have the power to exact taxes from the individual. The only authority the Constitution gave to the federal govt. was to “rule” (run) the operation of the federal govt under very specific and limited power.

    The states were to be independent “laboratories” of social and economic experiments. People could then vote with their feet and live in a state or no state that fit their needs and desires. That’s NOT the way it is performing today.

  276. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal govt to control individuals – hell, it didn’t even have the power to exact taxes from the individual.”

    Which to my eye seems like he contradicted this:
    “I was not and am not implying anything as it relates to whether the alleged authority of present government is “legitimate”. I have no opinion on that and many other things in Life.”

    By the way Mr. Galt,

    Why are you here? What do you wish to accomplish?

  277. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Geez, there you go again.

    “The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal govt to control individuals – hell, it didn’t even have the power to exact taxes from the individual.”
    What in that factual statement makes any claim of legitimacy? There’s not even an implication.

    “Why are you here? What do you wish to accomplish?”

    For atonement – I was a charlatan like Marc in the 1970’s. He has just repackaged the BS we sold back then. I got out because I was ashamed that I was misleading people and complicating their lives for gain. I just wanted to set the record straight on legal reasoning vs logical reasoning in a reaching a legal conclusion and which one is used in Court. Also, that the rules and methods for making a philosophical argument are completely different from the rules and methods for making a legal argument. Plus, Marc did not seem to know the different standards of proof required to establish jurisdiction for a Court to hear a case. And his “teaching” on the subject was incorrect. I’ve never impugned his motives – his “legal” interpretations, yes.

    The no state project interested me because I hadn’t thought about Spooner in over 40 years. Although I was a member of the Mises Institute for decades, I was mostly interested in Austrian economics. I had been lucky enough to have been taught an economics course by Milton Friedman. Having practiced Constitutional law my focus was always on that document. Many people I respect are Spooners, Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Stefan Molyneux, so the no state project raised my curiosity. Although I’m not a total believer, I always explore differing opinions. Hell, maybe some new ideas had come along in the last 40 years, I thought. So, thinking that turnabout was fair play, I grabbed the chance at asking some questions that had come to mind. I was hoping to accomplish gaining knowledge from others.

    BTW as far as “Who will build the roads?”, I’ve always believed that if the railroads could be built by private enterprise – so could roads. Toll roads? EZ – PZ. I grew up in a city where you couldn’t leave on a good road without paying a toll – they could’ve been privatized.

  278. Boxer Says:

    ===============

    “For atonement – I was a charlatan like Marc in the 1970’s.”

    ===============

    Out of curiosity, were you an attorney in the 1970’s when you proclaim to have been a charlatan?

  279. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – Nope. I became an attorney about 7 years later.

  280. Boxer Says:

    @juan

    Perhaps what really happened is that you were never a charlatan, rather, you only began calling yourself that as soon as you became a benefactor of the very criminal organization you committed yourself to. Sort of an “Omertà” if you will. And now you are unable to differentiate between reality and fiction because your entire livelihood depends on those fictions.

  281. juan galt Says:

    Boxer – A charlatan is “a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.”

    That fits Marc. His “special” knowledge comes from Spooner. His “legal” skills are in no way special – they barely exist.

    He misquotes one of his main cases regarding “citizenship” Luria v US. He makes a big deal over one sentence of dicta from that case NOT the holding. A common “internet lawyer” mistake.

    He misinterprets Rule 602 another one of his biggies.
    Rule 602: Need for Personal Knowledge
    “A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the WITNESS’S OWN TESTIMONY. This rule does not apply to a witness’s expert testimony under Rule 703”.

    Marc focuses on the first sentence and totally ignores the second. The second sentence means that a cop can testify about his personal knowledge of where you physically were or what he personally saw at the time of the allegation. And this personal knowledge is sufficient to prove personal knowledge required by Rule 602. Therefore, the cop can testify that he believed that the laws governing the allegation applied. But to then asked the cop to make a legal conclusion by asking if he had any evidence the law applies simply because you’re in a particular geographic location – he can’t make that legal conclusion. He cannot answer a question of law, he can only testify to what he personally observed, heard, said and did.

    Marc is NOT living by “do no harm” in my opinion. His “legal” interpretations, procedures and theories cause people to believe in something invalid and spent time, money and stress unnecessarily. There are more productive ways to exercise and promote a political philosophy. For Marc, they might just not pay.

    Oh, I can differentiate all right and my work product has proven that. You have no idea how many people I got out of jail, made whole after being harmed, protected their unalienable rights – many times pro bono. My livelihood does not depend on “those” fictions. Marc’s however, depends on people believing his fictions. I live a no state life-style. You people should have what I have. I live in a 800 acre no state and have absolutely no contact with authority – except a cousin who is sheriff and comes to hunt and have dinner. And the Constitution, as originally written, was a “rules no rulers” type document. Learn what you don’t know – that’s what I did. It may open your eyes, if you can see past your narrative

  282. Andy Says:

    Heck, if a prosecutor doesn’t need evidence to support his claim or argument of territorial jurisdiction – that the laws apply to an individual because he is in the state of Utah — then it makes sense that a prosecutor and arresting officer doesn’t need evidence of a valid cause of action. Or, is it only when Marc challenges a prosecutor to show evidence of territorial jurisdiction and Marc cross examines a cop asking for evidence of a valid cause of action that their rules don’t apply?

    Doublethink wanting to have it both ways with a dash of doublespeak to obfuscate.

  283. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt complained:
    “Habby – Geez, there you go again.”

    You did write:
    “The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal govt to control individuals…”

    You wrote:
    “What in that factual statement makes any claim of legitimacy?”

    I’m more interested in your implying that there was no authority and thus no legitimacy.

    Do the men and women who call themselves the federal government control individuals? Did the federal government control Irwin Schiff Et.Al.?

    You did write:
    “hell, it didn’t even have the power to exact taxes from the individual.”

    Are you going to tell me that the IRS agent pointing a gun at you when you were a confederate of Irwin Schiff was a legitimate action under legitimate authority, or are you going to admit it was not a legitimate action and there was no authority?

  284. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    His “legal” interpretations, procedures and theories cause people to believe in something invalid and spent time, money and stress unnecessarily.

    http://marcstevens.net/successes

  285. juan galt Says:

    Andy – There’s nothing like a die-hard believer and his faith in his prophet..

    It is a very old rule of the common law that requires every offense tried in the common law Courts, to be inquired of in the county where the act took place. This is called jurisdiction – which survives today. Administrative Courts, like “traffic” courts derive their jurisdiction from this old rule, although this jurisdiction is now established by statute. This includes both in personam and subject-matter jurisdiction. TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION, Courts look to the statutes first and then Court decisions (stare decisis) regarding the statutes, if there be any.

    Jurisdiction (noun) – the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

    “There are several ways in which a state can acquire personal jurisdiction over a party so that its courts will be able to determine that party’s rights and responsibilities. Consent, service of process while in the jurisdiction, and sufficient contact with the state are examples of such ways to satisfy the need for fairness in an assertion of jurisdiction”. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877).

    That a Court has jurisdiction to hear cases is a Fact evidenced by statute or case law. And in US Law this is a fact of legal reality. That the Constitution set up a “rules no rulers” type of govt is a Fact evidenced by the text of the original document. Rational discourse requires respect for reality and facts. Call it argumentum ad factum. Attempting to ‘prove’ established facts to someone who stubbornly denies them is irrational and futile. Conspiracy theories, by their nature, cannot be refuted or proved. If massive conspiracies are believed to determine the content of textbooks, law, court procedure, etc and professional opinion, no proposition may be asserted or accepted with confidence.

    Marc’s theory was tried back in the 1980’s (I guess that’s where he got it) and lost every time. See: State v Skurdal, 730 P.2d 371, 481 U.S. 1020 cert denied (1986); Wisden v City of Salina, Utah, 696 P.2d 1205 (1985); Kaltenbach v Breaux, 690 F.Supp. 1551 (1988); State v Pelletier, 587 A.2d 1100 (Me. 1991); State v Booher, 978 S.W.2d 953 (1997); U.S. v Singleton, WL 1102322 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2004); U.S. v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp.2d 602 (D. Md. 2005); Taylor-Bey, 53 N.E.3d at 1231 (2006).

    These are just a few of the cases, using Marc’s theories of jurisdiction, that have lost at the State and Federal level. Now, Marc MAY have wins – I haven’t seen solid evidence yet – but hell, a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

  286. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Define legitimate.

  287. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I’ll make it easy for you. Here are the top definitions for “legitimate” copied and pasted from about a dozen dictionaries.

    Legitimate: le·git·i·mate adjective – ləˈjidəmət/
    conforming to the law or to rules; according to law; lawful; in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards; accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements ; conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards; allowed according to law, or reasonable and acceptable; conforming to the law or to rules; sanctioned by law or custom; lawful; conforming to or in accordance with established rules, standards, principles; acceptable or allowed by law; being in compliance with the law; being in accordance with established or accepted rules and standards; lawfully correct, legal; allowed by the law by the law, or correct according to law.

  288. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Take your time digesting all those definitions of “legitimate”.
    Since you are so fond of restatements, simply restate your post and just substitute one of the definitions of “legitimate” everywhere you used the word and I actually believe you can answer your own “legitimate” questions.

  289. spooky2th Says:

    Habbe, No matter what stupidity that spews from the psychopath’s mouths, Marc’s success stories section, just keeps on growing.

    It burns up the psychopaths too. By their logic, any other band of thieves & liars can claim they are a govt and all their crimes would be legal.

  290. NickAussie Says:

    Man JUan you remind me of the lawyer character in the simpsons , a classic scene where someone says “Imagine a world without Lawyers” and a serene scene of bliss pops up of children laughing holding hands rainbows in the sky etc , and the lawyers reaction is to go uggghhh get the deathly shivers and carry on with his delusions

  291. ICBMCatcher Says:

    stevens simply doesn’t understand the law in it’s entirety … he may know tiny parts, but the law is a broad, complex body of often interrelated elements. That’s why people go to law school. Imaging a law school where they just taught “challenging jurisdiction”

    I can nail two pieces of wood together a well as anyone on earth, but that doesn’t make me a carpenter.

    ICBMCatcher

  292. NickAussie Says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas

  293. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher spews legal logic that contradicts his commonsense logic. And he doesn’t even notice that he relies on external authorities to do his thinking for him.

    Commonsense logic. Every individual has it. I know best what will and will not harm me. Thus when I tell a person to leave me alone they leave me alone.

    Private sector criminals have commonsense logic wherein they don’t rely on external authorities to do there thinking for them — and they know they don’t have the ethical/moral high ground. Government criminals will not tolerate any individual declining to interact with them.

    Individuals have had their commonsense logic so removed from the “equations” that they don’t recognize their most base survival instinct has been severely compromised. If an individual tries to fight a government attacker he/she will lose going up against the world’s largest governing mafia. Fleeing from the attacker will not work for the individual either, because the governing mafia will hunt him/her down and kill them. It’s the comply-or-die use of force continuum.

    The audacity of those wielding comply-or-die initiatory violence and threat of violence mentality relying on external authorities to do their thinking for them claim… they have the audacity to claim they have the moral/ethical high ground.

    For you, an individual, do not supplant your commonsense logic with the governing mafia’s comply-or-die legal logic.

  294. spooky2th Says:

    ICBM,
    Your beliefs do not establish facts or truths. Which was so evident in your talks with Marc.

    Laws, codes and etc are “opinions” backed up by thugs with guns. Obey or else! Pay up or else!

  295. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    To those reading this selection of comments, it should be quite evident that my intent is to have Mr. Galt admit to certain specific points of logic. Points of logic that Mr. Galt steadfastly refuses to admit.

    I asked:
    Then how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    Mr. Galt CLAIMED:
    “Ah, a philosophical political question. Human history has shown us it’s a result of the philosophy of Majoritarianism.”

    “majoritarianism: the philosophy or practice according to which decisions of an organized group should be made by a numerical majority of its members.”

    Otherwise known as Majority Rules.

    Since Mr. Galt has been so adverse to admitting the obvious, I’m going to number my points so that flaws in my train of logic, if any, can be identified by the number.

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.
    2. You don’t have authority over me,
    3. because you don’t own me.
    4. Neither does anybody else.
    5. Since you don’t own me or have authority over me, you can NOT delegate this imagined authority over me to any body else.
    6. Neither can anybody else.
    7. A majority is the numerically superior subdivision of a collective of people.
    8. Thus the minority is the numerically inferior subdivision of that collective.
    9. If there are only three of us in this collective, and neither you or the third person own me or have authority over me, then ownership or authority over me can not be delegated or given to the collective en mass.
    10. It does not matter how many people are in the collective, If nobody in the collective owns me or has authority over me, then ownership or authority over me can NOT be delegated or given to the collective en mass.
    11. Thus neither the collective in 9, nor the collective in 10 have any authority over me.
    12. Since this collective does not have any authority over me, then this collective does not own or have authority over any person not yet born.
    13. What is true for this present collect also applies to any collective that existed in the past.

  296. NonEntity Says:

    Failure of logic in point 0.03a: if one beats up on another long enough you can get them to agree to anything. Better known as the Guantanamo Effect. Actually, you two should be taking notes on each other’s methodologies.

  297. NonEntity Says:

    There’s also that quote about a man not believing one thing when his income requires him to believe something else. (A really bad paraphrase.)

  298. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Abandoned the “legitimate” discussion, did you?

    Points 1- 13 flawed as to reality. Reality does not match the philosophy on which the points are made – “Spoonerisms”. Reality is based on the philosophy of Majoritarianism. To determine if Majoritarianism is legitimate refer to the definitions of “legitimate” provided above in my previous post.

    You use the fallacy of “argumentum ad refusem to acceptum reality”. LOL

  299. NonEntity Says:

    I knew you could get them to see the light, Habby. Congratulations, well done!!! 🙂

  300. NonEntity Says:

    Mite makes rite. Morum est betterum. Democracy is god. Gang rape is way cool fun.

  301. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt, I numbered the points specifically for you to detail the flaws you allege.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Points 1- 13 flawed…”

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    You are opining without proof.

    I see no details, only your assertion: “Points 1- 13 flawed…”

    Quod non apparet, non est.
    What does not appear, is not.

  302. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher said to Marc: “You’re vandalizing the legal system.”

    The system was vandalized from the inside by criminals/fraudsters, trial lawyers, judges and prosecutors. But I triple repeat myself.

    Full explanation here on the forum: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65674.html#pid65674 (Also has a link to the time in the video where ICBMCatcher said Marc was vandalizing the legal system. Listen to it and read the discussion thereafter.

  303. juan galt Says:

    Habby – You disappoint me. You are resorting to using incomplete quotes to make a point. Isn’t that some kind of fallacy? Have you reached your “Peter Principle”? “…flawed as to reality. Reality does not match …. “Spoonerisms””. “Spoonerisms” being your points – reality being my evidence. Now you may deny reality exists……

    I notice you didn’t even address the realities to which I referred in my post.

  304. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Otherwise known as Majority Rules.

    Since Mr. Galt has been so adverse to admitting the obvious, I’m going to number my points so that flaws in my train of logic, if any, can be identified by the number.

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.
    2. You don’t have authority over me,
    3. because you don’t own me.
    4. Neither does anybody else.
    5. Since you don’t own me or have authority over me, you can NOT delegate this imagined authority over me to any body else.
    6. Neither can anybody else.
    7. A majority is the numerically superior subdivision of a collective of people.
    8. Thus the minority is the numerically inferior subdivision of that collective.
    9. If there are only three of us in this collective, and neither you or the third person own me or have authority over me, then ownership or authority over me can not be delegated or given to the collective en mass.
    10. It does not matter how many people are in the collective, If nobody in the collective owns me or has authority over me, then ownership or authority over me can NOT be delegated or given to the collective en mass.
    11. Thus neither the collective in 9, nor the collective in 10 have any authority over me.
    12. Since this collective does not have any authority over me, then this collective does not own or have authority over any person not yet born.
    13. What is true for this present collect also applies to any collective that existed in the past.

    Mr. Galt, I numbered the points specifically for you to detail the flaws you allege.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Points 1- 13 flawed…”

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    You are opining without proof.

    I see no details, only your assertion: “Points 1- 13 flawed…”

    Quod non apparet, non est.
    What does not appear, is not.

    Please back up your claims, all 13 of them.

  305. juan galt Says:

    Habby – It is illogical to ignore reality.

    Ayn Rand — ‘We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality’.

  306. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    True or false? If false elaborate on how it’s false.

  307. ICBMCatcher Says:

    In his flawed but carefully organized list, Andy ignores reality as supporters of anarchy must if they are to maintain their position, and refuse to admit they are full of #$%^&

    You are subject to the authority present in the jurisdiction you find yourself, and you only have 4 choices

    1. overcome that authority with superior force – then maintain control indefinitly
    2. comply
    3. leave that jurisdiction
    4. convince those who wield the authority to see it your way and not force you to comply

  308. spooky2th Says:

    Habe,
    It’s no use asking questions to a dishonest lawyer. They are totally inhuman and animalistic. Their actions and words prove it! Psychopaths are sick minded to say the least!

  309. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Deja vu. If authority means power and not a pie – asked and answered 2/16/2017 @ 10pm.

  310. spooky2th Says:

    You forgot choice number 5.

    5. Ignore icbm’s stupidity.

  311. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Second request for Mr. Galt to back his claims.

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    True or false? If false elaborate on how it’s false.

  312. juan galt Says:

    Second response to Habby – asked and answered on 2/16/2017 @ 10pm as evidence above.

  313. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Clarification of my previous post.

    Second request for Mr. Galt to back his claims.

    Mr. Galt wrote:
    “Points 1- 13 flawed…”

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    True or false? If false elaborate on how it’s flawed.

  314. juan galt Says:

    Habenae Est Dominatus Says:
    February 16th, 2017 at 10:10 pm
    Mr. Galt, My apology, I just noticed I misspelled your moniker.

    Mr. Galt, Thank you. We agree that no one can delegate an authority they don’t have.

  315. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt, did you write:
    “Points 1- 13 flawed…”

    Is the point number 1, written below, a point that you have stated is flawed?

    Because the record shows you did in fact make the claim that points 1- 13 are flawed, this is now the Third request for you to back your claim.

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    Please articulate the flaw you claim is in point number 1 or admit that you just lied plus admit that point 1 is true.

    I’ll give you the out that you mis-typed what you meant to say.

  316. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Thank you, Mr. Galt for your admission that point 1 is true.

    2. You don’t have authority over me,

    Please articulate the flaw or admit point 2 is true.

  317. juan galt Says:

    Habby – No, we are not going to re-litigate. These points are basically restatements. That’s why I just skimmed them. I’m a 6’5″ 265# solid badass. There is a high probability I could exercise power (authority) over you.

    You want to prove your “Spoonerisms” are valid. They will NEVER be valid in my opinion. My opinions, on this subject, CANNOT be changed anymore than yours. You see the World through a lens of philosophical musings. I see the World through the lens of reality and written law. We will NEVER have a meeting of the minds. In other words there will be no winner or loser – like in Court. Victory will only exist in our minds. See, I think I’ve already “owned” you.

  318. Andy Says:

    Humor/laugh break: https://youtu.be/tc9qZDJialI?t=4899

    “Once you get into the realm of practical you have to have proof[evidence]. That’s the difference between theoretical and practical.”

  319. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt posted a might makes right claim when he wrote:
    “I’m a 6’5″ 265# solid badass. There is a high probability I could exercise power (authority) over you.”

    If my interpretation of what you wrote is correct, You are claiming that because you are willing to violently attack me, that is your proof that you have authority over me.

    Your willingness to use force against me is not evidence of authority…

    So, Correction, you could attempt to exercise power over me without bona fide authority to do so, But be forewarned, It is perfectly reasonable for me to end your violent action against me in any way I see fit to that task.

    Have you got anything else to submit that you think proves the flaw in point 2?

    2. You don’t have authority over me,

    3. because you don’t own me.

    Please articulate the flaw in statement 3 or admit that it is true.

  320. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “You are claiming that because you are willing to violently attack me,” You are becoming a drama-queen.

    I said I could possibly exercise authority over you, NOT that I was willing to violently attack you. Quit restating my points to suit your narrative. I could obtain the authority otherwise (deja vu) as well. That would be evidence that I could have authority over you per question #2. I would not have to own you (#3) to exercise power over you. I did NOT say that the exercise of my “might” (authority) would be “right” – whatever that is. I claimed no justification of an action, only a possibility that it could exist in reality.

    I’m only responding because it’s snowing outside.

  321. Andy Says:

    I’m only making commenting because I’m thinking rationally and form logically content principles. it’s not snowing outside where I am. I have no doubt it’s snowing outside somewhere. It’s raining somewhere outside too. The wind is blowing outside somewhere.

  322. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    You made a might makes right statement. It doesn’t. You can deny that fact all you want, it’s in the record for all to read.

    You stated you “could” exercise (gain) authority over me by attacking me. That means you are stating that you “would” exercise (gain) authority over me by attacking me. Your weaseling on the word “could” is notwithstanding.

    You claim you “could” obtain authority otherwise. Please elaborate, with specificity, how YOU would obtain authority over ME.

    So far you have presented that you could attack me and that shows a flaw in point 2. You have also implicated some “other” way you could obtain authority over me. You need to do better if you are going to prove you actually, right now, have authority over me.

    2. You have no authority over me. Still waiting for you to prove YOU have authority over ME.

    You asserted, without proof:
    “I would not have to own you (#3) to exercise power over you.”

    Still waiting for you to prove YOU have authority over ME.

    So unless you are going to start providing proof of your claims…

    Moving on.

    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.
    2. You don’t have authority over me,
    3. because you don’t own me.
    4. Neither does anybody else.

    Until you show that you do have authority over me, and you show that it is bona fide, authentic authority over me, then what applies to you applies to everybody else.

    Please articulate the flaw you claim is in point 4 or admit the logic is sound.

  323. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Andy Says:
    February 22nd, 2017 at 2:23 pm

    I’m only making commenting because I’m thinking rationally and form logically content principles.

    …. No, no you’re not … Andy. What you’re doing is spouting the same type of nonsensical rhetoric stevens does, then calling it logic. Then, you give us an example of nonsense just to make sure you provide evidence your nonsense is in fact, nonsense. Point taken.

    Thank you for our lesson in how to clearly provide evidence of nonsense.

    Ever grateful – ICBMCatcher

  324. juan galt Says:

    Habby – “Still waiting for you to prove YOU have authority over ME. Until you show that you do have authority over me”,

    Keep waiting for proof of claims I never made – good luck with that. Changing a “could” from “would” to fit your narrative is invalid.

  325. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I mean changing a “could” to “would”.

  326. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Just for you –

    4. No personal knowledge.
    5. Me? personally?
    6. No personal knowledge
    7. That’s what I was taught in govt schools as a concept. I have no material evidence to prove it’s true.
    8. See # 7
    9. No personal knowledge. You have evidence this is true? Produce it.
    10. The answer turns on the word IF
    11. The answer turns on the word IF in # 10. No personal knowledge.
    12. See answer to # 10 & 11
    13. No personal knowledge

    I finished playing. We’ve been so far down the rabbit hole, I don’t even remember WHY we are having this discussion. I’ve gotten back to the edge, but I ain’t goin’ back down with ya’.

    VENI VIDI VICI

  327. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    juan galt Says:
    February 22nd, 2017 at 9:40 am

    Points 1- 13 flawed as to reality.
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    1. Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.
    is flawed as to reality.

    I challenged you to present the flaw. You admitted that 1 is true.
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    2. You don’t have authority over me,
    Is flawed as to reality.

    In order to show an alleged flaw in 2, You presented a might makes right scenario. You stated you “could” exercise (gain) authority over me by attacking me, To Wit: “I’m a 6’5″ 265# solid badass. There is a high probability I could exercise power (authority) over you.” So because you “could” attack me, you claim 2 is flawed as to reality. Your error regarding the use of power as being authority notwithstanding, you presented a scenario wherein you “could” attack me. Such an attack is only the application of force (power) and it does NOT prove you have authentic authority over me.

    You also claimed you “could” obtain authority over me by some ethereal “other” method. You failed to provide the details of this “other” method that YOU “could” use to obtain authority over ME. This assertion that some other method is available does not prove a flaw as to reality of point 2.
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    2. You don’t have authority over me, 3. because you don’t own me.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming you do own me?

    Absent owning me as a vector for you to gain authority over me, all you have provided as a vector is your belief that you “could” gain authority over me by attacking me, and/or that phantom method you claim exists.
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    4. Neither does anybody else.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming that even though my relationship to anybody else is the same as my relationship to you is, the same logic doesn’t apply?

    Your relationship to me does not provide you with authority over me and this is the same for everybody else who has the same relationship with me as you do.
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    5. Since you don’t own me or have authority over me, you can NOT delegate this imagined authority over me to any body else.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is the flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming that you can delegate an authority to somebody else that is only something you imagine you have?
    Are you claiming that you do own me?
    Are you claiming that you do have authority over me?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    6. Neither can anybody else.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming other people can delegate authority that only exists in their imagination?
    Are you claiming other people can delegate authority that they don’t have?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    7. A majority is the numerically superior subdivision of a collective of people.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming a majority is not a numerically superior subdivision of a collective of people?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    8. Thus the minority is the numerically inferior subdivision of that collective.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming that the minority is not a numerically inferior subdivision of that collective?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    9. If there are only three of us in this collective, and neither you or the third person own me or have authority over me, then ownership or authority over me can not be delegated or given to the collective en mass.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming you and/ or the other person can delegate authority you don’t have to the collective?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    10. It does not matter how many people are in the collective, If nobody in the collective owns me or has authority over me, then ownership or authority over me can NOT be delegated or given to the collective en mass.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming individuals in the collective can delegate authority they don’t have to the collective?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    11. Thus neither the collective in 9, nor the collective in 10 have any authority over me.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming that even though nobody in either collective has authority over me, that collective still has authority over me even though nobody had authority over me do delegate to the collective?
    Are you claiming the collective gets authority by magic?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    12. Since this collective does not have any authority over me, then this collective does not own or have authority over any person not yet born.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming that even though a collective does not have authority over the living, it has authority over those not yet born.
    Are you claiming the collective gets authority over the unborn by magic?
    ——————-
    So, according to you,
    13. What is true for this present collect[tive] also applies to any collective that existed in the past.
    Is flawed as to reality.

    What exactly is this flaw you allege?
    Are you claiming different logic applies to past collectives that does not apply to present collectives?
    Are you claiming that magic existed to give past collectives authority over the unborn?
    ——————————————————-

    4. No personal knowledge.

    Refusal to address the logical point to avoid admitting the criminals that call themselves government do not have real, authentic, authority is noted.

    5. Me? personally?

    Yes. You. Personally. Can you delegate imagined authority you don’t actually have to anybody else?

    6. No personal knowledge

    Refusal to address the logical point is noted.
    Claim of the inability to figure out that others who have no authority can not delegate such imagined authority.

    7. That’s what I was taught in govt schools as a concept. I have no material evidence to prove it’s true.

    You have no material evidence to prove that a majority is the numerically superior subdivision of a collective of people.

    8. See # 7

    You have no material evidence to prove that a minority is the numerically inferior subdivision of a collective of people.

    9. No personal knowledge. You have evidence this is true? Produce it.

    Do you have evidence that it is not true? Produce it.
    Do you have evidence that it is flawed as to reality as you claimed? Produce it.

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/noauthority.png

    10. The answer turns on the word IF

    Your refusal to address the point is noted.

    11. The answer turns on the word IF in # 10. No personal knowledge.

    Your refusal to address the point is noted.

    12. See answer to # 10 & 11

    Your refusal to address the point is noted.

    13. No personal knowledge

    Your refusal to address the point is noted.
    ——————————————————-

    “VENI VIDI VICI”

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

  328. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher makes a fool of himself. Doesn’t even know the difference between theoretical and practical. Hear him for yourself: https://youtu.be/tc9qZDJialI?t=4899

  329. Andy Says:

    Habby, juan uses *flaw” as a talking point. Merit has nothing to do with it. Trolls have no use for it.

  330. juan galt Says:

    Habby –

    You started very civilly and then turned into something like an ex-wife demanding something to which she wasn’t entitled. You asked questions which I answered based on my opinions. You not only refused to accept my answers (and later reality), you challenged me to prove my opinions were “true” or “legitimate”. I made it clear my opinions were mine and did not need to be justified. Then you asked more questions, demanding yes or no answers and then made a list of 13 “points”. You instructed my to answer true or false, and support my answer if false. Does that sound “normal” to you? It doesn’t to me. At first I thought you were being humorous or sarcastic.

    Then you became weird in trying to push your narrative. When my answer didn’t fit your narrative, you would change a word, context, use incomplete quotes and misinterpret what I wrote by restating it. Now because you didn’t like my answers to your 13 “points” You started very civilly and then turned into something like an ex-wife demanding something to which she wasn’t entitled. You asked questions which I answered based on my opinions. You not only refused to accept my answers (and later reality), you challenged me to prove my opinions were “true” or “legitimate”. I made it clear my opinions were mine and did not need to be justified. Then you asked more questions, demanding yes or no answers and then made a list of 13 “points”. You instructed my to answer true or false, and support my answer if false. Does that sound “normal” to you? It doesn’t to me. At first I thought you were being humorous or sarcastic.

    Then you became weird in trying to push your narrative. When my answer didn’t fit your narrative, you would change a word, context, use incomplete quotes and misinterpret what I wrote by restating it. Lacking a sense of humor, you missed the sarcasm of my reality flaw. Now because you didn’t like my answers to your 13 “points”, you’re interpreting them as refusals furthering your narrative. You have failed to grasp the reality of the fact that I’m not interested in your narrative and philosophical reasons for refusing to accept my answers. I’ve never experienced demands for answers with such “thick-hardheadedness” and emotions as you and Marc – “let me finish, let me finish, objection, logical fallacy, faulty logical reasoning” – Stevens display when discussing certain topics.

    Are you sure you haven’t accepted “Spoonerisms” as a religion? Your refusal to answer my questions about “Spoonerville” indicates your answers could not stand up to scrutiny. You have failed to grasp the reality of the fact that I’m not interested in your philosophical reasons for refusing to accept my answers. I’ve never experienced demands for answers with such hostile undertones and emotions as you and Marc “let me finish, let me finish, objection, logical fallacy, faulty logical reasoning” Stevens display while discussing certain topics.

    Are you sure you haven’t accepted “Spoonerisms” as a religion? Your refusal to answer my questions about “Spoonerville” indicates your answers could not stand up to scrutiny.

  331. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    But somehow, by magic, men and women calling themselves “government” get authority they were not born with.

    Bottom line Mr. Galt,
    You believe in magic.

  332. NonEntity Says:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mDYNuD4CwlI

  333. Andy Says:

    There’s 12 court rulings posted above at, February 15th, 2017 at 8:10 am, that say jurisdiction must be proven. That pretty much explains why ICBMCatcher is the only one saying there can’t be evidence proving jurisdiction, which he has said several times.

    And explains why no one who has called in to the No State Project live broadcast has ever mentioned a judge or prosecutor said there can’t be evidence.

    ICBMCather says there can’t be evidence with such conviction that it’s true, you can hear it in his voice. He’s damn certain there can’t be evidence. Apparently juan galt believes ICBMCatcher is right/correct.

    Don’t take my word for it, listen to ICBMCatcher say it with such certainty in his voice/demeanor, for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJialI&feature=youtu.be&t=4899

    Apparently juan galt believes ICBMCatcher is right/correct.

  334. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/noauthority.png

  335. juan galt Says:

    Habby – What you call magic, the rest of us call reality.

    Just apply REALITY to your points and philosophy to test to see if your points are valid and true when tested against reality.

    “Your” Philosophy of Spoonerisns – Govt has no authority over anyone. Its laws don’t apply without evidence and there’s no evidence.

    Reality – You violate a govt law and govt will exercise authority over you.

    It’s very easy to test the validity of your philosophy against reality. Need suggestions? Your motto should not be “do no harm” – it should be “WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ REALITY.”

  336. NonEntity Says:

    There’re

  337. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Reality – Law is a politician’s opinion.

  338. juan galt Says:

    When word don’t fit Habby’s narrative and philosophy – he does what politicians do – HE CHANGES THE MEANING! And that’s logical and valid?

    Reality –
    1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
    2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.

    VENI VIDI VICI

  339. Andy Says:

    There’s 12 court rulings posted above at, February 15th, 2017 at 8:10 am, that say jurisdiction must be proven. That pretty much explains why ICBMCatcher is the only one saying there can’t be evidence proving jurisdiction, which he has said several times.

    And explains why no one who has called in to the No State Project live broadcast has ever mentioned a judge or prosecutor said there can’t be evidence.

    ICBMCather says there can’t be evidence with such conviction that it’s true, you can hear it in his voice. He’s damn certain there can’t be evidence.

    Don’t take my word for it, listen to ICBMCatcher say it with such certainty in his voice/demeanor, for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc9qZDJialI&feature=youtu.be&t=4899

    Apparently juan galt believes ICBMCatcher is right/correct.

  340. Andy Says:

    My diagnosis is that ICMBCatcher is delusional. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the conversation and decide for yourself: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854-post-65660.html#pid65660

  341. NonEntity Says:

    This thread is now officially closed.

  342. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Reality –
    1. Mr. Galt confuses power (the application of force) with authority (the right to use that force).
    2. Mr. Galt has failed to prove any person has authentic authority over me.
    3. Nobody can delegate an authority they don’t have.
    4. Absent somebody with authentic authority over me, there is nobody to delegate authentic authority over me to those who call themselves government.

  343. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    5. Do what we tell you to do or we’ll fucking hurt you is not authentic authority.

  344. ICBMCatcher Says:

    If I am delusional with regard to this matter … hundreds of millions of others are as well, billions if we go worldwide, TRILLIONS if we go back through history.

    The anarchy crowd has, and always will be a tiny, insignificant, fringe element of crack-pots pretending to live in a weird fantasy land. They know anarchy will never be anything.

    But let’s be clear. They know their ideas are nonsense, just like the rest of us do. They keep up their facade of righteousness simply for the attention it brings them. Maybe they think it makes them appear smart. I don’t want to think they actually believe this anarchy malarky.

    Then someone finds irrefutable evidence they are absolutely full of hot air like this;

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    and their silly world falls apart again. This BS has been around for decades, it always fades away. People forget about it for awhile … the volume on it comes back up for a bit, people remember why they rejected it the last time, and it fades aways again. That is why this nonsense never gains any traction.

    The above link crushes stevens and exposes his BS. Guarantee this will be posted every place stevens speaks, until he makes the move to a contingency only fee schedule.

    stevens is DONE

    ICBMCatcher

  345. ICBMCatcher Says:

    If we were in combat now and stevens was the enemy I would drop an ACE of Spades on his lifeless chest right now … “death card … let’s charlie know who did this”

    Notice the deafening silence as he doesn’t even try to respond. Why don’t you loyal stevens minions let yer buddy know his goose is cooked. Just go away quietly stevens it can all be over.

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    stevens is finished …

    ICBMCatcher

  346. Andy Says:

    ICBMCatcher said: “If I am delusional with regard to this matter … hundreds of millions of others are as well, billions if we go worldwide”

    You’re definitely delusional. You think billions of people would read the twelve court rulings posted above and those billions of people would conclude there can’t be evidence. You’re delusional.

  347. ICBMCatcher Says:

    My only regret with all this, is that I am probably bringing publicity to this charlatan he would never have otherwise enjoyed. Well … guess you can’t have everything.

    This is an email just sent to stevens directly, with the subject line;

    Give up now … it’s only going to get worse

    http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    Your nonsense will be well known to everyone within the reach of my email, shortly.

    Go to a contingency only fee schedule and I’ll back off. What you’re doing is legal … apparently, but sophistry nonetheless. Even a snake oil salesman has a right to pedal his potions.

    I knew you were full of @#$% when I first heard your foolishness, but with no legal background, I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Now, with a little help from someone who is a lawyer and used to do the same thing you’re doing now. I got your number.

    I’m only asking you to do what’s right. If you want to charge people for this BS fine, but you only collect when you do what you say you can.

    ICBMCatcher

  348. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Andy,
    http://synapticsparks.info/images/TheStatismIsStrongInThisOne.jpg

  349. ICBMCatcher Says:

    When I launched my onslaught on stevens foolishness with my — BS ALERT —

    He said “A very aggressive YouTuber, ICBMCatcher, seems to be on a mission to put me out of business” Very aggressive ?

    You have no idea.

    ICBMCatcher

  350. juan galt Says:

    Habby has a new word. He dumped “legitimate” for “authentic”.
    I use the definition of “power” for authority. Habby uses “right” – but will not define “right”. In Habby’s world only HIS interpretations and definitions matter. The rest of us – we don’t care about Habby’s world of “Spoonerville”.

  351. Ronnie Says:

    ICBM, what good is an attack on Marc, if you don’t actually disprove what he is saying with your own experience, logic, and evidence?

  352. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Ahhh I get it.

    Now, flailing away in damage control, one of stevens buddies tries to narrow exposing stevens BS for what it is, to only one’s “own experiences” with the snake oil salesman.

    I would never let marc stevens speak for me. I think we all know how that usually turns out. Don’t we?

    If only stevens would post a verifiable win/loss record, he could shut me right up. Right?

    Can’t get away from this: http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/marc-stevens

    Relentlessly, ICBMCatcher

  353. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Andy Says:
    February 23rd, 2017 at 9:03 am
    ICBMCatcher said: “If I am delusional with regard to this matter … hundreds of millions of others are as well, billions if we go worldwide”

    You’re definitely delusional. You think billions of people would read the twelve court rulings posted above and those billions of people would conclude there can’t be evidence. You’re delusional.

    No … Andy, I think that BILLIONS of people do not think laws don’t apply to them, believe they are citizens, that countries do exist, and that stevens is full of $%#@

    Apparently, you believe the tiny, fringe element of crack-pots are correct, and the millions and gazillions of people that think otherwise, are wrong. Really?

    Just look at how many people agree with you and your buddy, and how many agree with me. Matter of fact, I just got a gazillion emails saying “we believe you, Andy is wrong” I would forward it, but my server won’t allow me to send more than 100 emails at time. Sorry.

    Inundated with emails from people that believe me and not you, your pal, ICBMCatcher

  354. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    1. Mr. Galt confuses power (the application of force) with authority (the right to use that force).
    2. Mr. Galt has failed to prove any person has authentic authority over me.
    3. Nobody can delegate an authority they don’t have.
    4. Absent somebody with authentic authority over me, there is nobody to delegate authentic authority over me to those who call themselves government.
    5. Do what we tell you to do or we’ll fucking hurt you is not authentic authority.

    I dumped the word legitimate because you were doing what attorneys do. You were equivocating. You were attempting to jam up the topic by pushing definitions that ignored the intent of the use of the word legitimate.

    Synonyms for legitimate:
    appropriate, authentic, bona fide, correct, fair, justifiable, logical, proper, reasonable, rightful, warranted.

    Everybody (except, apparently, Mr. Galt) knows that when the schoolyard bully demands somebody’s milk money, that such a demand is without authority… Dare I say without legitimate authority.

    Regardless of whether the playground lawyer asserts the bully got his authority by the PHILOSOPHY of the majority rules or not, this alleged authority is not;
    appropriate;
    authentic;
    bona fide;
    correct;
    fair;
    justifiable;
    logical;
    proper;
    reasonable;
    rightful;
    warranted
    or legitimate.

    The record shows that Mr. Galt has still not presented verifiable evidence that anybody in the collective has authority over me that they could delegate to the collective or those men and women who call themselves government.

  355. juan galt Says:

    Habby – Let Habby’s record show that he has refused to answer my questions about Spoonerville. Also let his record show this definition of “authority” –

    au·thor·i·ty – əˈTHôrədē/ (noun)
    1. the POWER or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience
    2. a person OR organization having POWER or control in a particular, typically political or administrative, sphere. (emphasis added)

    My verifiable evidence of authority over Habby is REALITY!! He pays tribute to this authority every time he buys something, yet he denies it exists. And that’s logical and rational thought processes?

    Reality –
    1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as OPPOSED TO AN IDEALISTIC OR NOTIONAL IDEA OF THEM.
    2. the state or quality of having EXISTENCE or substance. (emphasis added for Habby’s sake)

    Attempting to ‘prove’ established facts and reality to someone who stubbornly denies them is irrational and futile. Conspiracy theories, by their nature, cannot be refuted or proved. If massive conspiracies are believed to determine the content of textbooks, law, court procedure, etc and professional opinion, no proposition may be asserted or accepted with confidence.

    Habby is a reality denier!! I only deny thatnhis imaginary Spoonerville exists.

  356. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Power is the application of force.
    Authority is the right to apply that force.
    Force can be applied without right.
    Force applied without right does not create authority.

    Mr. Galt has failed to provide verifiable evidence that those who call themselves government have a right or authority to apply force against me.

    Because Mr. Galt has failed to provide verifiable evidence of any person having the right or authority to apply force against me.

    Mr. Galt has failed to provide proof of who delegated such right or authority to apply force against me to those men and women who call themselves government.

    Mr. Galt is still spouting majority rules and might makes right.

    Mr. Galt has failed to provide verifiable evidence of anyone long dead having any authority or right to make me abide by their “majority rules” rules.

  357. juan galt Says:

    My verifiable evidence of authority over Habby is REALITY!! He pays tribute to this authority every time he buys something, yet he denies it exists. And that’s logical and rational thought processes? Does Habby deny that he pays tribute to authority every time he buys something in a retail outlet or gas station? Hey, Habby look at your receipt next time – SURPRISE – sales tax! When Habby pays tribute, like a sales tax, he provides the verifiable proof he wants. Where Habby lives, unless it is in Spoonerville, majority rules. Only if Habby lives in Spoonerville is he NOT subject to the authority of Majoritarianism. Poor Habby. I know living in reality is difficult for you.

    Reality –
    1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as OPPOSED TO AN IDEALISTIC OR NOTIONAL IDEA OF THEM.
    2. the state or quality of having EXISTENCE or substance. (emphasis added for Habby’s sake)

    Attempting to ‘prove’ established facts and reality to someone who stubbornly denies them is irrational and futile. Conspiracy theories, by their nature, cannot be refuted or proved. If massive conspiracies are believed to determine the content of textbooks, law, court procedure, etc and professional opinion, no proposition may be asserted or accepted with confidence.

    Habby is a reality denier!! I only deny that his imaginary Spoonerville exists.

  358. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Reality- Nobody can delegate authority the don’t have.

  359. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Sometimes very simple questions can cause profound cognitive
    dissonance. Here is a series of very simple questions I like to
    pose to people at random, especially if I want to make their heads
    explode. (For the record, my head was long ago exploded by these
    simple concepts, so I’m not claiming superiority here.)

    1) Can you delegate to someone else a right which you don’t have?
    For example, if you don’t have the right to punch me in the nose
    (just for fun), can you GIVE the right to do so to someone else?

    The answer is self-evident: no, you can’t. If it’s bad for you to
    do it, you can’t make it good for someone else to do it, whether it
    be murder, assault, theft, vandalism, etc. If it’s immoral for YOU
    to do something, how could you possibly have the ability to make it
    moral for someone ELSE to do it?

    2) Can TWO people delegate a right that neither of them has? For
    example, if TWO of you want me to be punched in the nose (but
    neither of you has the right), can you GIVE a third person the
    right to punch me? What if 50 of you wanted it? How about a million
    people?

    Again, the answer is pretty obvious: no, the NUMBER of people who
    want to do something bad doesn’t make it into something good;
    numbers cannot create the moral RIGHT for someone to do something.
    And note, I’m talking about moral justification, not mere ability.
    Almost everyone is ABLE to punch me in the nose–especially if
    there are a million people who want my nose punched–but that’s not
    the same as having a moral RIGHT to do so. It doesn’t matter how
    big the group gets: if NO ONE in the group has a right to do “A,”
    then they can’t give that right to someone else.

    Up to this point, most people follow along without much protest.
    The answers seem patently obvious to almost everyone. However, if I
    add a third, equally simple question, it sends most people into a
    philosophical crisis:

    3) If people cannot delegate rights they don’t have, where did
    “government” get the right to do what it does?

    Sure, a few “laws” are just the exercising of rights we all have:
    the right to defend yourself (or others) against thieves,
    murderers, invaders, etc. We have the right of self-defense, so–if
    we feel so inclined–we can delegate that right to someone else.
    But consider how many so-called “laws” are things which you and I
    would never dream of doing on our own, because we know we don’t
    have the right.

    For example, do you personally have the right to demand money from
    your neighbor, just because you want it? Do you have the right to
    imprison him for smoking a leaf you don’t approve of? To take his
    money for driving his car without your permission? To tell him what
    he can eat, where he can live, who he can work for, who he can
    hire, who he can fire, how he can run his business, what he can
    sell? And do you have the right to put him in a cage if he chooses
    to disobey any arbitrary command you care to fling at him? If YOU
    don’t personally have the right to play intrusive control freak,
    how did those in “government” get the right to do it? Who gave it
    to them?

    At this point, many people jump to the popular excuse of necessity.
    “We NEED to have government doing those things, or there would be
    …. ANARCHY!” That’s nice, but it doesn’t answer the question: from
    whom did they get the right? Based on the self-evident answers to
    my first two questions, they didn’t get the right from YOU, or from
    any of your six billion neighbors (none of whom have the right
    themselves). So, where did it come from? A piece of parchment? A
    magical voting booth? If we mere mortals didn’t give them the right
    (and we didn’t), who or what DID?

    We talk about “representative” government. What does that mean? If
    someone really “represents” me, he may do only what I may do. For
    example, I could authorize my “representative” to do business for
    me. I could do it myself, but I allow him to do it instead. What I
    may NOT morally do, however, I cannot authorize him to do either.
    To be a “representative” just means acting on someone else’s
    behalf. If I have no right to do a particular thing, it should be
    painfully obvious that someone “representing” me doesn’t have that
    right either.

    So, upon whose behalf are the federal “representatives” acting? If
    YOU don’t personally have the right to “tax” me (and you don’t),
    neither does your “representative.” How, then, did we reach a point
    where almost everyone accepts as indisputable doctrine that our
    “representatives” have rights that WE DON’T? On its face the idea
    is absurd, and yet 99.9% of the country unquestioningly accepts it
    as a given.

    I’m going to stop there for now, because I have found, after doing
    this little mental exercise with dozens (if not hundreds) of
    people, that those few simple concepts are enough to stir up some
    serious turmoil in the minds of 99% of the people who consider
    them. Why? Because those few simple, obvious answers very plainly
    lead to a conclusion that scares the existential heck out of most
    people. It’s so scary, in fact, I won’t even say what that
    conclusion is … yet.

    Sincerely,

    Larken Rose

  360. juan galt Says:

    Reality – Habby has authority exercised over him almost daily. Especially when he pays sales and excise tax. SOMEBODY must have been delegated the authority to collect tribute from Habby BECAUSE he pays it. He obviously recognizes SOMEONE has authority over him. Who or how this authority was obtained and delegated is of no consequence, BECAUSE Habby recognizes reality and pays the tax. So does Mrs. Habby.

    Habby dreams of a place, somewhere over the rainbow, called Spoonerville. But when in the REAL world, Habby pays tribute to authority. Poor Habby.

  361. juan galt Says:

    Habby – I just read your recent post of your sermon @ 6:56pm – sounds familiar.

    Did you have John Lennon’s “Imagine” playing on your record while you wrote?

  362. NonEntity Says:

    Come on, Habby, beat him up some more, he obviously doesn’t get it yet. Maybe some water boarding will help! 🙂 Electrodes to the scrotum I’ve found quite effective as well. We have faith in you, keep it up, your bound to get there. Aren’t you?

  363. juan galt Says:

    Habby –

    Habby and Marc, if you were being honest you would have started by simply saying, “There’s no proof a no state would work, especially with over 300 million people in the US – I just believe it could. Or it is at least a better idea than what exists today.” I thought you would be anxious to answer questions about your Spoonerville.

    That people have chosen a Majoritarian govt is self-evident. Our Founders created the most laissez faire “no state” State since Humans left caves and tribes. But there has always been the balancing act of “good v evil” – whether it be a State or a human. Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” is a good example of what is of utmost importance to people in the “modern” era. What was meant to draw attention to the plight of workers became instead a basis for an outcry of the people for govt regulation for the health and safety of the people. Eventually, people demanded govt intervention in the operation of industry to protect workers. The image of “Robber Barons” and the evil greedy rich was used to propagandize the people. Similar to the way you and Marc demonize govt of any kind. People, being emotional and easy to manipulate, became convinced of the narrative that they were victims of laissez faire govt and a more active govt was the answer. And you think these “modern” humans are capable of a peaceful and prosperous no State?

    For most of the 19th century a large portion of the US was a “no state”. Obviously, it didn’t last. If you want the illusion of a no state (and that’s what it is an illusion) today, you have to do what I did – move to a place where the influence of a State is minimal – because, in reality, the State will never wither away. Unfortunately for them, No Staters will always be a minute minority of humans – usually comprised of well meaning people and others who would never follow any rules that restrict their impulses.

    Philosophers and other navel gazers will always espouse Utopian ideas that are impossible, or at least improbable, to achieve. Religions have also always done that – they just believe Utopia is in the afterlife. Sometimes I think the religious belief is the more logical one.

    People like you make accusations, call others names and promote the disrespect for the laws of We the People. You create havoc and contempt in the Courts of We the People, telling us OUR Constitution and laws don’t apply to you and you won’t obey.
    I’ll tell now, the American people are tired of – Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, illegal aliens, politicians, anti-Trump protesters and people like you who give the middle finger to OUR laws. Only people with criminal tendencies agree with you people’s bullshit. We are tired of being called corrupt, bullies, sheep, racists, xenophobes, etc. and having our kindness and patience taken for weakness. We have demanded law and order and that our govt put Americans and the American-way FIRST. To that end we elected Donald J. Trump as OUR President.
    It’s a new day for WE THE PEOPLE. Get on board or get ran over. We are through fucking around with you “people” and will show no mercy for your stupid BS. YOUR time is limited. We the People are not going to put up with your disrespect of OUR laws any-fucking-more!

  364. NickAussie Says:

    Me thinks someones got Stockholm syndrome,,,,,,,,,

  365. Andy Says:

    @Habenae, Thanks for the Larken Rose post. It’s good concise read.

  366. Andy Says:

    Nick, I don’t just think someone is a paid shill, I know someone is.

  367. Andy Says:

    Interesting that ICBMCatcher doesn’t direct people to either of the two conversations with Marc and tell them, don’t just believe me. Listen to our conversation and decide for yourself.

    Listen to the above podcast recording. Or, listen to the combined two conversations in one YouTube video. The embedded video can be watched/listened to here: http://marcstevens.net/board/thread-8854.html

    Also, there’s some interesting conversation on that forum thread.

  368. Andy Says:

    Correction, the above article podcast is not Marc and ICBMCatcher’s conversation.

  369. NonEntity Says:

    note: the above post conveys no useable information. Also note that vanilla ice cream is not frozen hamburger patties.

  370. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Let me see if I can accurately and succinctly articulate what Mr. Galt and I are verbally skirmishing over.

    I don’t accept (believe) that command authority comes into existence by magic. By command authority, I mean the (alleged) right to command, control, and order another about as if one owns the other.

    I asked Mr. Galt, how did authority nobody had get delegated to those who call themselves government?

    Mr. Galt answered: “Human history has shown us {it’s} a result of the philosophy of Majoritarianism.”

    By replacing the thing being referred to in place of its referent, Mr. Galt’s slight of hand (word) is illuminated: “Human history has shown us [delegation of authority nobody has] is a result of the philosophy of Majoritarianism.”

    Mr. Galt agreed that his position is: the alleged authority of those called government is/was delegated to them by the majority.

    In other words, Mr. Galt’s position is that, the authority the majority did NOT have, was delegated to those called government.

    The majority can NOT delegate what they do not have…

    The reality is that many, like Mr. Galt, believe their government school indoctrination that authority nobody has can be delegated to somebody else.

  371. Andy Says:

    Nice summation, Habenae. It’s popcorn time. 🙂

  372. juan galt Says:

    Habby, you finally grasped reality. We welcome all new comers into the light. You finally realized that the sales and excise tax you are paying is a reality of majority rule. So you are contributing to that philosophy you call “magic”. This “magic” must be working – you’re paying. And We the People thank you for your cooperation in and contribution to our feats of “magic”. Without people like you it might not be possible.

    “The majority can NOT delegate what they do not have…”. If you can prove the authority of the majority did not have, was delegated to those called government” is NOT in reality and practice true – I’d be interested in seeing that evidence. Of course, it would have to refute the evidence that you recognize, obey and contribute to said authority.

  373. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    You are saying people delegated authority they didn’t have.

    Maybe YOU should explain how this magic works.

  374. juan galt Says:

    Habby
    Well, like you I have not been privy to the magic secrets of “how”. However, you probably know as much as I do, because you are a participant. Why do you participate? Perhaps you are hypnotized or in some kind of trance every time you pay. You should be asking yourself “Why do I contribute?” – I think the answer may give you insight. What magic causes Habby to act? Maybe it’s contrails.

    Don’t you Spooners even know how to avoid sales and excise taxes? The majority of people in the 19th century didn’t pay them and no one paid an income tax – so why are you? Hell, I bet it has been over 6 months since I paid sales or excise tax and years since I paid income tax. Maybe I’m more of a Spooner than you. I guess I should name my 800 acres Spoonerville.

  375. Andy Says:

    I never in any way shape or forum agreed to pay the corporate taxes embedded in the products I buy. On average it’s 23%. That loaf of bread you pay two dollars for, despite not having sales tax, is about 46 cents tax. How much is the embedded tax on a pair of pants, a computer, a car, a house? Who knows how to build all those things to avoid the embedded tax?

  376. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    You are saying people delegated authority they didn’t have.

  377. juan galt Says:

    Looks like reality IS recognized by some Spooners like Andy. But the questions remain, how in the world did people survive without corporations, a computer, a car, a “store bought” house, pair of pants or bread without embedded tax? If you’re a Spooner, arrange your life accordingly, I have. Quit contributing to those who you call corrupt. Are you not furthering their cause by participating? Are you just all talk? Just a navel gazer, like Habby?

    Talk, talk, talk. Criticize, criticize, criticize. Complain, complain, complain. Action that makes a difference? Not so much.

  378. juan galt Says:

    Habby
    “You are saying people delegated authority they didn’t have.” There’s that keen grasp of the obvious. There’s the magic. I call it Majoritarianism magic.

  379. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    So where did this authority come from?

  380. juan galt Says:

    I call it Majoritarianism magic. And nobody really know where magic comes from – maybe the land of Honah Lee.

  381. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    So let me see if I understand this magic you believe in.

    If Andy, NonE, Eye2, Marc Stevens, you, and I are in a room together. How many of us must agree that we have authority over you so that when, with this authority, we order you to do something, it is a rightful order?

  382. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    BTW, I asked you where the AUTHORITY came from, not the magic.

  383. juan galt Says:

    “BTW, I asked you where the AUTHORITY came from, not the magic”.

    BTW, I said it came from what I call Majoritarianism magic and then I told you from where the magic may have come.

    Please define “rightful”.

  384. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    You are saying people delegated authority they didn’t have.
    You are saying the delegation of authority that people didn’t have was done with or by magic.

    And you have said I’m not in reality.

  385. juan galt Says:

    I think I told you a while back that I had no personal knowledge of the origins. morality or ethics of the delegation of authority and had no interest in wasting time on the subject. You persisted, so to humor you I gave you answer – Majoritarianism, practiced by those who believed in and adopted the concept the political philosophy of Majoritarianism as the foundation of their society. You brought up the word magic – not me. I pointed out that the society you live in is one founded on Majoritarianism. Again, you pressed for origins of authority and me growing weary, called it Majoritarianism magic.

    I know how you like hypothetical and imaginary situations, but let’s stay in the real world. Since I am not the entity that is collecting tribute from you, next time you are at the store buying something – ask your questions to the agent exercising said authority and collecting taxes from you. I’m under no obligations to explain the actions of others. OR play your “what if” games.

  386. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I can not give you the key to the neighbor’s car if I don’t have it.

    I can not give you permission to take the neighbors car if I do not have permission to give you permission to take the neighbor’s car.

    I can not give you authority over my neighbor if I don’t have authority over my neighbor to give to you.

    Nothing you can say will change this.

  387. juan galt Says:

    Well, time has come. The only reason I kept responding (besides the weather) is so that readers, outside of Marc’s echo-chamber, can see another point of view. The weather has cleared and I have things to do. Spoonerville’s critters need attention.

    I leave you with this song –

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54BCLYNkFKg

    Adieu comrade Habby.

  388. juan galt Says:

    PS: Your neighbor should sleep well at night.

  389. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Was it something I said?

    Something like:

    I can not give you authority over my neighbor if I don’t have authority over my neighbor to give to you.

    It does seem to conflict with Mr. Galt’s statement:

    “Human history has shown us [delegation of authority nobody has] is a result of the philosophy of Majoritarianism.”

  390. Marc Stevens Says:

    Yes, an echo chamber on a firm foundation of evidence and logic, not false claims of “philosophy” to cover up fallacious arguments. Echo chamber, where do these people come from?

  391. juan galt Says:

    Marc
    I just heard you on your newest YouTube “3 for 3” video. There you go again. Misinterpreting and misrepresenting my discussion of your philosophical “arguments”. My position is that when you state the the US Constitution and laws do not apply to you – that is straight out of Spooner and Rothbard philosophy. That is a philosophical proposition as discussed in “No Treason” and “Anatomy of the State”. When you ask if there is evidence they apply – that is a legal question – a question of law. To answer the question of law you asked, the Court or prosecuter look to legal authority – not Spooner’s books or philosophy. What is the legal authority you look to? The Rules of reaching a legal conclusions say statutes and case law. So when the statute conferring jurisdiction is read or printed in the complaint – evidence has been produced – by the Rules. I gave you a long explanation of the different standards of proof for jurisdiction according to the Rules – which you ignore. Just because YOU”RE not satisfied with the form of the evidence, doesn’t affect the Rules. You register your objection and appeal if you think you were wronged. I’ve seen Court papers and transcripts where that was done by your “clients”.

    I’ve got a couple of your Motions to Dismiss (sent off for another one today) and they have been summarily dismissed, in appeals Courts as frivolous and without merit. Upon reading them, I can see why. Poor Marc Edwards got sanctioned $6000 for using them. You call that no harm?

    In addition your claims of logical fallacy are misplaced in legal arguments. For instance in legal argument you can rely on “tradition” and “policy” and it not be considered an unsound argument or a fallacy. In addition to those 2 you can rely on “intent”, text” and “precedent” – none are fallacies AND NONE use logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. They use legal reasoning. No legal professional would ever claim an objection on the grounds of any “logical fallacy”, “circular logic”, “double standard” or “faulty logical reasoning”. That would crack up the Court.

    After all, you admitted in one of your videos that 70-75% of your “wins” were when the cop didn’t show up. Hell, that happens all the time whether your motions are filed are not. Nine appearances? Geez, who has that much time to burn? I could have paid off the fines with about 2 hours work. Of course, I wouldn’t have been in the predicament in the first place. My license and registration only cost $52 a year. Who doesn’t have that?

    Anyway, in the spirit of what’s correct legal procedure, I thought I would share a little truth and reality. No personal attacks intended.

    PS: I suggest practicing controlled breathing – you get so emotional. LOL I realize there’s passion involved – remember I did what you’re doing in the 1970’s.

  392. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    I can not give my neighbor authority over you if I do not have authority over you.

    I can not imbue four pieces of parchment with authority over you if I don’t have authority over you.

    I can not imbue four pieces of parchment with authority over your great grandchildren if I don’t have authority over them.

    A picture to help the logically challenged:
    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/noauthority.png

  393. NonEntity Says:

    What??? Habby! Where did you come up with this theory? Why have you been holding out on us all this time? Why haven’t you mentioned this before??? This is unconscionable! I’m very disappointed in you..very disappointed.

  394. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ juan, I addressed this issue at length https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVdM_Gk0rAA and won’t go over it here, there’s too much, try a thread on the forum.

    I didn’t harm Mark Edwards, the IRS and courts did and we’ve always been on good terms. Yes, he was sanctioned 6k, but since you know so much about his situation please tell me how much he’s had to pay. Also, the courts never addressed our issues on appeal, not one mention the IRS’s sole witness was declared incompetent, yet he was permitted to still testify. I was there in the court and watched it happen, the judge went berserk and screamed he was going to deport Mark, ignoring the fact he was born, raised and lived his whole life in Wyoming.

    Mark sent me a document from IRS agent Gary Murphy telling the dept not to take calls from me as there was 2 dozen calls on the website very embarrassing to the IRS.

  395. ICBMCatcher Says:

    No matter what sort of convoluted double-speak the anarchist/no-staters want to use, there is no question there has been a body of law in DAILY practice for over 200 years in the United States, who’s foundation is the U.S. constitution.

    That body of law was put in place after debate, argument, final agreement, and it applies to anyone on U.S. soil. The U.S. government did not seize power from the American people, it threw off British rule and put in place a government of the people. That’s a fact that can’t be explained away. Violate a law, get caught, stand trial, guilty, not guilty, dismissed. That’s the way it works … for now. Gain support for your ideas, gain some political power, maybe you can change things. Or not.

    One thing is certain, anarchy has been rejected by society since it first appeared. That’s why it never lasts, and does not exist in any strength, anywhere.

    These no-staters talk big when they are droning on about “what shouldn’t be” and what “doesn’t apply to them” … but ask them about the alternative. Ask them what it would be like in their “voluntary society” … ask them to explain how their ideas would work in practical application. They fall silent … then start bumbling around for for something clever to say. Get them off script and they crumble.

    ICBMCatcher, ready to start phase two. Stay tuned.

  396. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Anarchist / voluntarist:
    The nanny is a child molester and a pedophile, and I can prove it.

    Statist:
    If we eliminate the nanny who’s going to watch the children?

    What will life look like without nannies to watch the children?

    If not having a nanny is so good, why have we always had a nannies?

  397. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Habe

    You gotta read over what you typed … I’m sure there’s some way you can delate that … how embarrassing, dude … you gotta think before you hit “Submit Comment”

  398. NonEntity Says:

    Mmmm. Yummy yummy troll food. You’re a great cook, Habby.

  399. ICBMCatcher Says:

    It sure is a pleasure to watch an experienced legal professional expose stevens nonsense for what it is, right here in his own forum. I’ll bet that’s exactly what happens in court … 99% of the time.

    If stevens was a qualified lawyer, fighting his fight using sound legal arguments, that would be one thing, but that’s not what he does. He pawns himself off as a psudo-lawyer (just because he remembers to say “I’m not a a lawyer” every so often, doesn’t change the fact that he acts as one) and he does not much more than disrupt court proceedings. He’s a one trick pony that just asks the same question over and over, refusing to accept any answer. Typical “down-state” schtick (he’ll know what I mean by that) He’s very clear he has no respect for the court, the constitution, or the United States, yet he avails himself of the benefits of all three almost daily.

    So this is what’s going to happen … and let the record show I have given him fair warning in direct emails. I am going to do everything in my power (legally) to cause him to see the light and make a few adjustments in his lawyer act. If he wants to stop the coming onslaught all he has to do is;

    – post a verifiable win loss record on his web site
    – change his fee schedule to a “contingency only” model

    That’s all. Those are my only demands. Why would he be afraid to do either if his “methods” are 70% to 75% effective?

    And finally – I challenge stevens to an “oxford style” live debate in person. In front of a randomly selected audience, that will be asked to vote afterword.
    The question: does the U.S. Constitution (and the laws that spring from it) apply to all individuals on U.S. soil, yes or no?

    Stakes to be agreed upon later

    Turning up the heat – ICBMCatcher

  400. spooky2th Says:

    The chief justice of the Arizona Supreme court, couldn’t prove it either! He gave a fallacy as proof, Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force.) A fallacious answer! That’s like saying I am gonna beat the crud outta you if if you don’t do what I say or pay me. That’s not proof of anything except their criminality. Giving theoretical answers when asked for facts. They are lucky that most people are so dumbed down from the govt school system.

    Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.
    http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html

    fallacious:

    adjective
    1.
    containing a fallacy; logically unsound:
    fallacious arguments.
    2.
    deceptive; misleading:
    fallacious testimony.
    3.
    disappointing; delusive:
    a fallacious peace.

  401. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    A statist wrote:
    “The question: does the U.S. Constitution (and the laws that spring from it) apply to all individuals on U.S. soil, yes or no?”

    I can not give my neighbor authority over you if I do not have authority over you.

    I can not imbue four pieces of parchment with authority over you if I don’t have authority over you.

    I can not imbue four pieces of parchment with authority over your great grandchildren if I don’t have authority over them.

    Do you have evidence of anybody who lived 200 years ago that had authority over me that they could imbue four pieces of parchment with?

  402. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    NonEntity wrote:
    “Mmmm. Yummy yummy troll food. You’re a great cook, Habby.”

    Brought you to the table I see.

  403. juan galt Says:

    Argumentum ad Baculum – NOT APPLICABLE TO LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

    Legal arguments are not governed by the academic debate rules of “logical reasoning ie: logical fallacies”. PERIOD. Any reference to them in a legal argument would be ignored or laughed at.

  404. NonEntity Says:

    In other words, might makes right. You’ve said this again and again. It’s interesting that someone who loudly proclaims that he is a complete thug, pretending that thuggery is about justice. You’re too funny for words. A lying despicable hypocrite, feigning outrage when questioned on your deceit. But then watching you manipulate others into trying to deal with you rationally… you’re good. Either that or the others are really pathetically stupid and or naive (which may be a difference without a difference.)

  405. Boxer Says:

    @juan halt

    “Legal arguments are not governed by the academic debate rules of “logical reasoning ie: logical fallacies”. PERIOD. Any reference to them in a legal argument would be ignored or laughed at.”

    It appears that you’re admitting that anything related to “the law” is not subject to logic and reason. Iz dat rite?

  406. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Believe what we tell you to believe or we will fucking hurt you is not a legal argument.

    We are telling you we have authority over you.

    If you do not accept our claim, without any proof, that we have authority over you, we will fucking hurt you, is not a legal argument.

  407. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Boxer asked:
    “It appears that you’re admitting that anything related to “the law” is not subject to logic and reason. Iz dat rite?”

    So if a judge rules 2 + 2 = 7, when Mr. Galt deposits that $222,222.22 check into his account that has a balance of $5,222,222.22 is Mr. Galt going to show $5,777,777.77 in that account?

    Or is Mr. Galt opining that a judge only need to stamp his feet and yell BECAUSE I SAID SO, THAT’S WHY, when challenged to provide the logic behind his decision(s)?

    Just like Mr. Galt’s claim that people delegated authority that they did not have… Because he said so.

  408. juan galt Says:

    Drones are awake this morning and desperately trying to say their philosophy regarding govt is reality – not just their belief system. They provide no proof their philosophy (I call it Spoonerism) exists as evidenced by its successful practice anywhere on planet Earth. They ignore the fact that another philosophy exists and is practiced in reality. However, the US is evidence there are other philosophies that are, in fact, practiced in reality.

    I have yet to make a claim that the govt practice in the US is “right”. I simply point out the reality that govt in the US exists and its foundation is based on the philosophy of Majoritarianism. I have made no claims that govt authority was moral or ethical. I’ve simply said legal conclusions are based on different rules of how said conclusions are reached. And claims of “logical fallacy” in reaching a legal conclusion is an invalid claim and carries no legal weight in challenging a legal conclusion.

    Why is this so hard for Spooners to grasp? Are they misinformed? Brainwashed? Slow witted? Blinded by their belief in their narrative (Spoonerisms)? Don’t want to admit they have been fooled and have been wrong all these years? Won’t be able to sell motions and info?

    I make no judgments. I only claim that their positions are LEGALLY incorrect and have been found by “upper” Courts to be without legal merit and are frivolous. This is plenty of evidence that this is true – Spooners’ disagreement with this fact notwithstanding.

  409. NonEntity Says:

    Habby sed, “We are telling you we have authority over you.

    If you do not accept our claim, without any proof, that we have authority over you, we will fucking hurt you, is not a legal argument.”

    Of course it is, Habby! Law = Opinion + Gun

  410. Boxer Says:

    @juan galt

    “I only claim that their positions are LEGALLY incorrect and have been found by “upper” Courts to be without legal merit and are frivolous.”

    What does that mean, “legally correct”? Without logic and reason?

  411. Boxer Says:

    **CORRECTION**

    What does that mean, “LEGALLY”? Without logic and reason?

  412. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    Why is this so hard for Statists to grasp? Are they misinformed? Brainwashed? Slow witted? Blinded by their belief in their government indoctrination? Don’t want to admit they have been fooled and have been wrong all these years?

  413. ICBMCatcher Says:

    The reason there isn’t more opposition to this foolishness is because most people quickly recognize it as harmless BS, and pay it no mind. These guys are going nowhere with this hogwash. We know it … they know it.

    stevens is laughed out of court most of the time and so are those that use his “methods” Virtually any legal professional will say he hasn’t a leg to stand on legally.

    As for the few people that actually pretend to believe this malarky … all they hear is “I don’t have to pay taxes, register, my vehicle, carry insurance, and nobody can ever tell me what to do. So they buy into it, mostly just so they have an excuse to not pay for stuff, and act like they can do whatever they want. Ultimately, that’s what it boils down to … they just don’t want to pay for anything.

    Also … silly as it is, they think being anti-everything, “down with the man”, “fight the establishment” makes them sound hip … cool … alternative thinking. When they talk about their wacky views, it gets them some attention Hell, maybe some chicks dig it! Who knows?

    But be sure – they know they are full of @#%$ just like the rest of us do.

    Another dose of reality from ICBMCatcher

  414. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    “the philosophy of Majoritarianism”

    Is based upon ignoring the fact that Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

  415. juan galt Says:

    “LEGALLY ” – as defined by 6 dictionaries –

    1. in a way that conforms to or is permitted or required by the law.
    2. in terms of the law; from a legal viewpoint.
    3. deriving authority from or founded on law
    4. as stated by the law
    5. established or recognized by law
    6. not contrary to law.

    However, you can NOT disregard the context in which the word is used – “… their positions are LEGALLY incorrect and have been found by “upper” Courts to be without legal merit and are frivolous.” Therefore, their arguments are incorrect from a legal viewpoint, as stated by established or recognized law and are not founded on law but are contrary to law – according to Courts when Marc’s arguments, based on Spoonerisms, are used. Marc, himself, admits and has shown Court paperwork that the Courts deny his arguments saying they are without merit and are frivolous. Marc, of course, vehemently disagrees – but his disagreement is based on Spoonerisms and faulty legal reasoning.

  416. juan galt Says:

    Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have. Invalid as to reality. Test the statement with reality. Tell it to the authority when you are paying tribute to the non-existence authority. Why do you participate in something you say cannot exist?

  417. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Nobody can delegate authority they don’t have.

    Mr. Galt claims the statement is: “Invalid as to reality.”

    Thus Mr. Galt is claiming that people can delegate authority they don’t have.

    What if the actual reality is the logical truth; nobody can delegate authority they don’t have and everybody believes the erroneous logic, a.k.a. the lie Mr. Galt has opined is reality?

    In what way would such a reality look any different than the one Mr. Galt opines exists?

  418. juan galt Says:

    Here’s an analogy perhaps even a Spooner can comprehend, but I won’t hold my breath.

    The recent election. There are people claiming Trump’s election is invalid because he didn’t win the popular vote. To them it is illogical that Clinton isn’t president. The Rules that govern Presidential elections say that it is the electoral vote that determines the winner NOT the popular vote – regardless of those who claim such Rule is illogical.

    Marc thinks the Courts rulings against his motions are illogical because they didn’t accept his “propositions” based on Spoonerisms. The Rules that govern Court rulings do not recognize Spoonerisms as applying to the determination of the “winner” of a legal argument.

  419. juan galt Says:

    Habby supports my assertion by participating in my reality – he pays taxes to someone who he says has no authority to tax him.

    Habby, why do you participate in something that you say does not and cannot exist? Why do participate in my “myth”.

  420. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ juan, you really like being condescending to us. You’re comparing apples and oranges. My question of evidence is not a Spooner philosophy. I will address your other wall of text later. For now, basic logic follows the principle of non-contradiction. Give me a the basic principle of “legal” logic.

  421. Habenae Est Dominatus Says:

    Mr. Galt believes that the men and women calling themselves government have gained authority that nobody had to give to them in the first place.

    Mr. Galt ignores that either reality would look the same;
    1) where the alleged authority was authentic;
    2) where the alleged authority is NOT authentic but everybody believed it was.

    If number 2 is actually the case, then presenting unrefuted logic is going to be fatal to those beliefs.

    Mr. Galt has claimed his fancily named Majority Rules is how authority nobody has is alleged to be given to those men and women who call themselves government.

    I ask the readers to note that Mr. Galt has failed to articulate the mechanics of how authority nobody has can be given to anyone else by way of his majority rules claim.

    Majority rule itself contains the very same flaw. If nobody in the collective has authority over anybody else, then neither does the subgroup called the majority.

    According to Mr. Galt’s logic;
    If Andy, NonE, Eye2, and I are the majority, by our majority rule, we can delegate authority we don’t have to Larken Rose allowing and requiring him to tax lawyers who refuse to accept and admit logic and logical principles.

    A thousand words for the logically challenged:
    http://synapticsparks.info/images/linkable/noauthority.png

  422. juan galt Says:

    Marc
    Condescending? Maybe sarcastic, but I have not meant to hurt your feelings. After all, my legal knowledge and experience is superior in this case. However, I rarely, if ever, consider peoples feelings in a discussion. Do you need a hug?

    Legal reasoning (logic) differs in a number of ways from the sort of reasoning employed by individuals in their everyday lives or in an academic debate. It frequently uses arguments that said individuals do not employ, or that individuals employ in different ways. Precedent is a good example of this. In individual logical reasoning we do not normally regard the fact that we decided one way in the past as raising some presumption that we should decide the same way in the future. Tradition is another type that differs from logical reasoning. Legal reasoning, then, gives a weight to what has been decided in the past that is usually absent from logical reasoning.
    There are five types of legal arguments: Text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy and NONE of them use logical reasoning to reach a conclusion.. All legal reasoning follows one path. No legal argument can be accepted or rejected without all of the following pieces: Issue; Rule; Facts; Analysis and Conclusion.
    1) Issue – What specifically is being debated?
    2) Rule – What legal Rule governs this issue?
    The law is based on existing Rules. Even when a decision is based upon what is “fair” (which isn’t that often), it’s because there’s a Rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness. And, there are so many Rules that no one can know them all. So, an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which Rule is being relied upon.
    3) Facts – What are the facts relevant to this Rule?
    For the purpose of legal analysis, we look for “material” facts. These are the facts that fit the elements of the Rule.
    4) Analysis – Apply the Rule to the facts.
    At this stage, we see if our material facts fit the law.
    5) Conclusion – Having applied the Rule to the facts, what’s the outcome?
    When all “elements” of the Rule are met, it can be concluded that the Rule applies to our argument.

    Without a dissertation, there is a nutshell representation of what you refer to as “legal” logic of pursuing a legal argument or conclusion. As you can readily see, some of what is allowed in a legal argument would be considered by you as a logical fallacy. Reference to a statute, in a legal argument for example, is valid – not a circular argument or an argumentum ad baculum fallacy. Reference to how the majority of other Courts have ruled is not an argumentum ad populum. Reference to what has been traditionally held is not an argumentum ad antiquitatem. While arguing a case it is possible that an inept attorney may make arguments containing some logical fallacies, but they are not objected to on those grounds. Probative value, relevance, weight and other aspects of the Rules of evidence are as used as objections – not logical fallacies or claims of a double standard or unfairness.

    It troubles me that you sling ad homs at those who find your arguments without merit. Killers, thieves, criminals, liars – really? I’ve only killed in self-defense, never stolen, never committed a crime, but I have lied for personal reasons – as we all have.

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST: 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, 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 broadcast via Ustream.tv. 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