Categorized | NSP Radio Archive

NSP – Feb 11, 2017 – Critic Actually Calls In

Posted on February 12th, 2017 by Calvin

Show Notes:

  • Reviewing the topic of jurisdiction, and how & why it doesn’t apply.
  • Lump-classifying their constitutions, laws, bylaws, statutes, rules, codes, ordinances, ect.: it’s all public relations.
  • Distinguishing between authority figures by way of evidence and proofs (academic authorities) and others by violence and logical fallacies (bureaucratic authorities).
  • The ground rules for all welcome dissent on the No STATE Project broadcast: no verbal profanities, no insults in response to a question.
  • Which of Marc’s position(s) can ICBMCatcher validly criticize as BS: 1) there is no evidence to prove the laws apply, (and, conversely; there are ways to prove that rules do apply in the form of contracts) 2) Marc is a word-mincer (okay, maybe on a few exceptional cases), 3) Marc can never concede a fraction-of-a-point on any position, (Marc was set straight by Eyal about being inconsistent as an anarchist by not living vegan), 4) there is a lack of evidence to establish “states” and “citizens, 5) Marc is not helping people and ripping people off, 6) Marc is operating on a false premise, 7) they base their jurisdiction on your physical location, 8) lack of a documented record to support a 70%+ success-rate in traffic court, 9) your work is never going to amount to anything, and 10) what you say is purely theoretical.
  • How can you call someone a “scammer” and “snake-oil salesman” without the inference of dishonesty?
  • It sounds like a complement, but really it’s an insult.”
  • ICBMCatcher repeatedly engages in reification when trying to prove the laws do apply, then projects his logical fallacies back towards Marc accusing him of making arguments out of theoreticals.
  • People appear for court because they are compelled to, not because they are following-up on a voluntary invitation.
  • How can you have reciprocal obligations of allegiance and protection when everyone is forced to pay?
  • Even though you may successfully execute effective damage-control, that is not a win because you have irrecoverably lost your time and money at the very least.
  • There is no evidence to prove the constitution applies to anybody.
  • People who force people to pay them involuntarily are textbook crooks and criminals.
  • Like veganism; the No STATE Project audience and anarchy media are steadily growing.
  • People are detoured from achieving personal autonomy because of social conditioning and fear.
  • Parents are stewards of the offspring they brought into this world until they are able to support themselves.

Caller’s Topics:

  • Dorthy from AZ: update on her courtroom fraud case <> requested a new trial on the basis of the prosecuting attorney’s malicious prosecution <> she was denied access to notification deadline entries <> filing complaints detailing the prosecutor’s and judge’s many counts of misconduct <> and is it a violation of due-process for a judge to make a ruling on a motion without having a trial?
  • ICBMCatcher from YouTube: “the laws are an idea, how can you prove an idea?” <> “there is no evidence that any law applies to anyone ever because the law is noting but a concept” <> argumentum ad baculum, straw-man, argumentum ad populum, oh my! <> calling someone a “snake-oil salesman” is not derogatory <> “you are acknowledging their jurisdiction just by walking through those doors” <> the law applies because you “avail yourself to the benefits of the constitution” <> “the law doesn’t apply to you, the law will be applied to you” <> “you agree to the constitution because you stay here and don’t leave” <> “I’m only forced if I don’t refuse” (watch your drinks ladies) <> “the fact that the cops show up is evidence that the laws apply” <> why don’t you post a win-to-loss record? <> “[Marc] has achieved ‘some level‘ of effectiveness” <> and <shocker>believes there should be a [violent] ruling class</shocker>.
  • John from CA: thanks for the inspirational, enduring work <> no one is willing to fight against the government for the shear force and resources they’re up against <> roadside adventures of traveling without permission and documentation <> initially arrested for kidnapping, charges later amended <> tortured and beaten before pretrial and bonding-out <> what motions should I file and how should I proceed at this point? <> setting a preliminary hearing to determine probable cause <> the public defender kept asserting herself as counsel when the defendant was trying to act pro-se <> do they have personal jurisdiction over me because I signed for my bail? <> avoiding further victimization <> and congratulations on the fruits of your labor.
  • The Infamous Witt from AZ: is offended that Marc wrongfully classifies him as a critic, then affirms some of the unsupported conclusions and criticisms of ICBMCatcher <> bored and offended by ICBMCatcher‘s heavy use of logical fallacies and too many poorly argued points <> can one be an anarchist and simultaneously accept “render unto Ceaser“? <> does not believe that anarchism comports with Christianity <> fed-up with “Free Talk Lies” <> claims the STATE existed before we were born <> when did you stop becoming your parent’s biological prisoner? <> most people accept varying forms of esoteric operating assumptions <> and the myriad of problems with Darryl Perry and his less-than-honorable associates.

              

33 Comments For This Post

  1. Andy Says:

    Why do governments (facilitated by corporate MSM/entertainment) rely so heavily on divide and conquer tactics?

    Ans: controlled opposition, diversion. Governments point their finger at everyone but themselves as criminals. They’re projecting onto innocent people that which they themselves are–criminals. Otherwise individuals would naturally divide the populace by exposing who is a voluntaryist and who is a criminal.

    Even criminals, including criminals who call themselves government, acknowledge that being a voluntaryist is human nature. For every individual knows when he and she doesn’t want to interact with another individual or group of individuals. I chose not to interact with people who want to rob me.

    All animals have a fight-or-flight response to perceived threats and attacks. If an individual physically fights government he/she will lose. If he/she flees government, government will hunt him/her down. What government will not do is engage in honest discussion or debate as a third, and most beneficial means of interacting with others.

    Cooperation is a hallmark of social animals, which humans are. To initiate force/violence, threat of force/violence and fraud is to enslave an individual. Enslavement is not cooperation.

    An individual victim experiencing initiatory force/violence is not experiencing peace and freedom. Rather, he/she experiences the annihilation of their peace and freedom. With government, an individual can’t flee (chose flight rather than fight) to regain his/her peace and freedom because government will hunt him/her down to ensure he/she doesn’t experience peace and freedom, to instead, remain enslaved.

    Government is chaos. To achieve order out of chaos drive a wedge/divide between voluntaryists and criminals. As social animals we can cast out criminals — outcasts of society.

    There’s much more I could write so I’ll just say, government is the impossibility of reason.

  2. Andy Says:

    The last 30 seconds of ICBMCatcher’s call is gold.

  3. NonEntity Says:

    Regarding Andy’s first comment,”there is no we.” I suggest that discussing what governments do or do not do will always come to failure as the only possible interaction one can have is with the individuals who claim to be government representatives. It is the actions of individuals that are the only place where the rubber actually meets the road. Speaking of government actions is akin to discussing unicorn herds.

  4. NonEntity Says:

    I think it speaks highly of Marc that Witt holds him in respect.

  5. Ed Says:

    Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Anarchy-Freedom-Future-Freedomain-ebook/dp/B004Z7ZT0A/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=freedradio-20

  6. Andy Says:

    Regarding NonEntity’s comment: “”there is no we”” is what he wrote. I didn’t write there is no we.

    Andy wrote: “criminals who call themselves government”

    Government is men and women who call themselves government and force individuals to pay them. I have stated similar to that several dozen times on the forum and on the website articles. Does NonEntity, the most prolific poster/troll on the forum, not already know that?

    When I write ‘government’, it’s shorthand for “men and women who call themselves government”.

    Andy wrote: “Governments point their finger at everyone but themselves as criminals.”

    Humans have fingers.

  7. Eyal Lior Says:

    Word mincing — calling kidnapping “an arrest”, calling a concentration camp “a correctional facility”.

    The laws exist, they are written opinions–here I don’t agree. The original pieces of paper can be destroyed, yet the laws will continue to “exist” in the conceptual manner — they are concrete (not abstract) concepts. Marriage is an idea, but you can certainly prove if someone is married. There first has to be a definition of marriage, and then facts to prove someone’s married. Crime doesn’t exist materially, but it’s a concrete concept and it can be proven that a crime was committed. So if someone claims the Laws apply to me, that someone has to have a VALID definition for law (first impossibility) and then facts that prove it applies to me. Nobody can do this because if the definition includes “agreement” than there are no facts to show I agreed, and if the definition doesn’t include agreement, then it’s always meets the definition of “crime”, and therefore it’s illogical to say a crime applies to the victim, the victim has a moral duty to obey the criminal. Also, if someone wants to argue that it’s not “moral duty” but rather “legal duty” that would be circular.

    Whenever someone says “the laws applies to you”, it is the same thing as saying “they are married”. It doesn’t matter that “marriage” is just a concept and doesn’t exist empirically–saying “the law applies” is a *truth statement*, and thus, needs to be verifiable by more than subjective opinion, meaning, through facts and/or logic. If ICBMCatcher wants to say it’s not a matter of facts, then ok, then it must be proven by logic–otherwise it’s not a truth-statement, and the person making this statement is a liar.

    Regarding the win/lose ratio–I’d say it’s a problem to report such a ratio, as not all who use the Marcratic method are equally skilled in calling the judge’s BS and knowing how to get him to contradict himself or ensure the non-discretionary error is clear on the record for appeal. If we want to measure the value of the method and not the average skill of the people utilizing it, we have to take into account only those people who have been successful in the past and went to trial several times–and report their combined success/failure ratio. I.e., I lost a few times, and it’s not because a problem with the method but only me not being quick-witted enough to call the scammer in black robe on his BS. This is why I go again and again and I improve in the Marcratic method, and it gets harder and harder for those criminals to make it look good. There’s also a huge difference between the levels of dishonesty of bureaucrats from one place to the other–where I live (Israel) judges don’t even try to make it look good, they know the local culture has lowered expectations already and need not engage in an honest discussion–we have no Jury system and people really believe judges are like gods, people here believe that there are no rules protecting the process. Due process is meaningless here. Thankfully, it’s not the same everywhere else.

    ICBMCatcher admits judges ignore and laugh where an honest discussion is required by due process–if that’s the case, why blame Marc’s method? It’s like blaming Atheism and the Scientific method saying it’s useless because some arrogant priests won’t be honest for a moment. Judges can only ignore and laugh at us because not enough people challenge their assertions. If more people did, judges would pay a high personal price for acting so dishonorably and proffessionally.

  8. NonEntity Says:

    Good points Eyal.
    Responding to Andy, the words we use shape our thought processes, that’s why I pointed out that I thought your choice of words was less than optional.
    And giving this further thought it occurs to me that each of the “wins” we hear about or read about involve one person making the decision to stop the attack. Marc focuses on dealing with individual people, which very well may be responsible for the high success rate of the Marcratic method versus those who attack “the system.”
    Just some thoughts to ponder.

  9. NonEntity Says:

    optimal, not optional

  10. GEORGE TRIBLE Says:

    Need a caller like that at least once per show. It helps us all learn how to deal with the folks we encounter daily in our lives and try to open their eyes. Marc is very patient, to patient sometime but sets a great example of not becoming loud or angry which usually results in the other person instantly shutting down and going into the defensive mode. Those calls are a lot like role playing and prepping for the judge and persecutor…Love the old standard as it comes to the Jurisdiction claim when in court, “you showed up so therefore we have jurisdiction”..(facepalm).

  11. Eyal Lior Says:

    The infamous “It never worked” argument — on it’s own, not an argument. Flight to the moon didn’t work, until it did. Telephone, electricity, automobiles didn’t work, until they did. So, what is required for Anarchy to work? For one, it requires Anarchists; people who ideologically believe in letting the market take care of foreign and internal security, helping the poor etc etc. This is something that the government works indefinitely to prevent through brainwashing kids to believe that “if Anarchy = we all be dead” (I have actual proof they do that in grade school).

    But let’s say that I get five thousand people to join me and work together to start a voluntary society, as a test, to prove it’s possible, and we buy a land in the middle of nowhere, where there are no roads, water or electricity, and we just ask the “Government” “please, just let us try it out. Please don’t send men with guns to destroy our homes, take our money and throw us in cages”–what do you think? Think the “Government” will allow this peaceful tryout? Of course not, and for one reason: The “Government” can’t afford this test to show success.

    So yes, the “It never worked” argument applied to Anarchy, even in these days, is just as fallacious as it is to attribute it to Science up until the ages of Enlightenment & Renaissance, when the Church and the State prevented the development of science.

  12. Mark Says:

    This critic is sooo tunnel visioned. He sees only what he wants to see. Eveything coming out of his pie hole is just noise. . .

  13. staljans Says:

    ICBM sounds just like another STATIST fool, stuck in his own delusions.

    “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

    ― Søren Kierkegaard

  14. Kenny G Says:

    **************************************************
    How can ICBMcatcher say there is no way to prove a reciprocal obligation (RC)? There are ways to show RC, as follows:

    A. Military members sign a contract in consortium with a recruiter after holding a meeting of the minds to work out the member’s contract!

    B. Persons accepting “Political” office swear an oath to abide by said laws in return .
    However, what holds a citizen susceptible to any law, or required to abide any rule? NONE

  15. Kenny G Says:

    Loosely quoting ICBMcatcher, “If there is substance to Marc’s methods (challenging the system) it would be sweeping the “country”!”

    He should realize that:

    A. Many persons within various entities have trashed the meaning of Anarchy; rendering it taboo (the terms brainwashed and conditioned come to mind)! Marc’s popularity is limited by fear and misunderstandings.

    B. Intimidation, threats of force, and an unknown learning curve are additional reasons (in my opinion) which reduce conceived popularity of Marc’s methods.

    C. It seems obvious that large media entities are controlled by gov’t, thereby limiting availability of those media avenues… so “Shocking the Conscience” of people, as with Marc’s methods, is yet another reason limiting popularity (regardless of the overwhelming truth of Marc’s reasoning).

  16. SantaClause Says:

    Always more entertaining when critics call in, although one doesn’t get the impression ICBMCatcher is all that clear on his position, or why he believe Marc is wrong.

    Ideally I think it’s better to stick to his main point; that evidence the doctrine (US Constitution etc) actually applies to Marc, or a defendant. ICBMCatcher often used the word “applies” to mean that somebody could be punished for breaching a rule contained within the doctrine, so this meaning would need to be addressed too.

  17. Mike C Says:

    Marc has stated that there are successes and failures. The failures are attributed to the skill of the person using it and the honesty and or open mindedness of the judge presiding over the case in my opinion.

  18. dan Says:

    Marc, you word mincer YOU! LOL

  19. Boxer Says:

    @Marc

    Can I swear on here? I know this is supposed to be “family-friendly” but holy fuck.

    When ICBM said “What I am saying is I am only forced if I refuse” you should have just dropped the mic and said “I’m out”.

    That is absolute gold. You can’t make that shit up!

  20. Boxer Says:

    @SantaClause

    “Always more entertaining when critics call in, although one doesn’t get the impression ICBMCatcher is all that clear on his position, or why he believe Marc is wrong.”

    This is what kicking and screaming looks like for statists who find themselves in a double bind. Their mind is imploding. The world around them is becoming colorful. It’s like they took the metaphorical red pill. This is proof that their beliefs are a religion that they can’t let go of. I’ve been there. I thought Marc was a POS and had to be the most ridiculous human being on earth. Oh, wait, he just killed 12+ years of indoctrination with one question.

    BOOM!

  21. Kenny G Says:

    Admissible, factual E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shouldn’t be misconstrued for below:
    Opinion
    Hearsay
    Legal Citation (also opinion)
    Belief
    Precedence
    Nor Appeals (i.e., Consequences, History, Popularity, etc.)

    Evidence must include tangible items which can be inspected (such as a legal, binding contract).

    ? What makes someone like ICBMcatcher oblivious to the rules of the tyrannical courts he claims to support ?

  22. Andy Says:

    Boxer said: “When ICBM said “What I am saying is I am only forced if I refuse” you should have just dropped the mic and said “I’m out”.”

    It’s the comply-or-die, use of force continuum. Refuse and you lose… maybe even lose your life for non compliance to their rules/code; that they have no evidence proving their victims must abide by said rules/code in the first place.

    Conversely, everyone knows the “leave me alone” rule, and that to violate it may result in the violator being harmed or even killed for violating another individual. It’s called self-defense.

    It’s not might makes right. Rather, it’s survival of the fittest. The fittest is he who is logically consistent. Eg, simply put, threaten my life and you may lose yours. Do you have any evidence proving I’m obligated to abide by your rules/code and constitution?

    After having removed the rose-colored glasses the individual sees clearly that his “resisting arrest” is an act of self-defense against a person who won’t leave him alone and the person he’s defending against in no way has the moral or ethical high ground.

  23. ICBMCatcher Says:

    Greetings everyone !

    ICBMCatcher here. Seems a few people disagree with me in this forum … go figure! Since marc disabled comments on the video of our discussion (class move stevens) only the few people that actually support this nonsense will ever see my comments. If I were him, and came up against someone like me, I suppose I would do the same thing.

    Interesting to note how he declares “ICBMCatcher discredits himself” in the vid title line, after the conversation, when I can’t respond. Reminds me of the kid on my block back in the day, that would talk all kinds of @#$% when his mom was standing right there, but was quiet as a mouse when it was just him and me.

    Did anyone notice how stevens controlled the conversation with his trusty mute button? How about how he re-framed what I said after I said it without giving me a chance to respond? All common tactics. But I was surprised he pulled that amateur stuff. Did not expect that from him. Guess he was feeling the pressure.

    How do we think stevens would make out if it was just him and I … in open debate … no mute button, no interrupting each other, no opportunity for either of us to channel the conversation to their advantage ? I think they call it an “oxford style debate” Wonder how that would be?

    Well folks, I’ll sign off for now, reminding you all that anarchy looks good on paper but will never be anything more than a novelty … an offshoot of conspiracy theorists and sovereigns everywhere.

    Good evening everyone.

    ICBMCatcher

  24. Ronnie Says:

    Try this when dealing with the theoretical and practical issue

    What would you say if I told you, you are in violation of Coca Cola policy because you don’t have their uniform on?
    (Hopefully they don’t actually work there)

    I don’t think your pay me or I will beat the hell out of you analogy catches much traction with the statist.

  25. eye2i Says:

    i find it interesting, via a bit of dot connecting, circa it coming up with NonE and &e’s touching (again) upon “there is no ‘We'” \ “there is no ‘State'”, and Ronnie’s bringing in the term “uniform” –something believers in “Government \ The State” heavily do (re-lie upon).

    From “the military” (red lines) to “the police” (blue lines) to “the judiciary” (black(hole) lines).

    uni+form; uni = One (“the unit”; uno) = “We” (“Us”) form (formulation = formation).? See one, see “One”! What a signal, aye?!

    [and to really give the dots connection… UniversiState (see also, university): “community of masters”; “body of persons constituting a uni-versus (We -VS- you)” http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=university%5D

  26. Eyal Lior Says:

    >”How do we think stevens would make out if it was just him and I … in open debate … no mute button, no interrupting each other,”
    (ICBMCatcher)

    Marc always says he’s open to go on any other live show for a debate, so just find a show that can have you both and invite him.

  27. Andy Says:

    Too easy…
    The recording of Marc and ICBMCatcher is on the forum so ICBMCatcher can go there and elaborate on his issues that Marc has crossed out above and continue the discussion there. If he succeeds to show up/debunk Marc he can direct/link people to read the forum discussion for themselves. Just as the recording is there now for anyone to listen to and judge for themselves. I wonder if ICBMCatcher is directing people to the discussion that’s posted on Marc’s YouTube channel. Apparently ICBMCatcher doesn’t think he debunked Marc. Thus, he can continue on to the forum and try again. 🙂

  28. Richard G. Souder Says:

    Marc I have run across this fascinating California Constitution amendment I felt you might be interested in if you don’t know about it yet. It is as follows; “Article 1, Section 32, is hereby added to the California Constitution to read: No legislative or judicial authority may be delegated; and no executive authority may be delegated to any person not accountable to the people of California under this Constitution and acts of the Legislature pursuant thereto; and no right, privilege, immunity, or service available to citizens of the United States and residents of California shall be denied or restricted by any agent or employee of the State of California or any political subdivision thereof contingent upon any act of an official or agent of another state, territory, or nation, or of the national government, including any form of identification or identifying numbers or other information or documentation. (a) If any person claiming legal authority for any act should fail, upon demand, to provide proof of such authority, before completing the act, such failure shall be conclusive that no such authority exists, or if it existed, that it has ceased to exist. (b) For any official act of a government agent, proof of authority must consist of an unbroken logical chain of authority leading back to the Constitution, including copies of statutes enacted. Legal codes and court opinions are not the law, but only evidence of the law. Official acts, including legislative acts, shall not be presumed to be constitutional or lawful but must be proven to be so. (c) Regulations issued by any department of the Executive Branch or independent agency shall apply only to agents of that department, and not to civilians or personnel of other departments. Only statutes or ordinances may be applied to civilians or personnel of other departments. (d) No authority is needed for a militia call-up other than awareness of a threat to public safety or the need to prepare for such. All references to the State Bar of California in this Constitution are repealed and shall be deleted. Is this saying what I think it is? RGS

  29. Andy Says:

    Richard, what do you think it is saying?

  30. NonEntity Says:

    —>>> WOW!!!!!! <<<—
    It means bureaucrats have no authority to do squat.
    But I must say part d) is somewhat frightening.

  31. NonEntity Says:

    And note that the potential for that bill being passed are somewhere between ICBM’s integrity and a garden slug’s poll-vaulting skills.

  32. kevin francis Says:

    In reference to the question about Jesus recognising a State, there are many inconsistencies in the bible even if we are to take them literally as historical accounts and not just stories in a book. The bible also says to not worship false idols or gods. I believe the State or government would constitute as a false idol.

    Jesus also threw out the Banksters from the Temple and whipped them. This is the only instance of Jesus being violent (that I know of) The bankaters were using the house of god for not only business, but for criminal activities. They were money changers and like the Central Banksters of today, they manipulated the money supply and exchanges as to steal wealth from the people. Just like the inflation tax does now. This coup then show or prove that Jesus was against the theft of people by those in authority or control of the money. And we all know the Banksters control the government.

    People still think that their income tax goes to paying for ‘muh roads’ and other services. In reality it just goes to paying off the interest only of money loaned to the government by the Federal Reserve which is a private bank.
    Do what Jesus would do (and did)…flog a bankster. 😉
    I would submit that Jesus was an Anarchist. He probably would have even asked for evidence of jurisdiction before his crucifixion, but he had to die for our sins apparently. I’m not sure really if that worked or not as the banksters still rule over us.

  33. 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

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events

Saturday, 4-7pm EST Oct 14 we're live from Living Tea Brewing Co in Oceanside, Calif 302 Wisconsin Ave join is for a blues jam after the show : Tune-in to the LIVE No STATE Project broadcast as we report on the weekly happenings in legal-land and current events. You may call-in to the show at (218) 632-9399 passcode is 2020#, or Skype-in, with your thoughts on tickets, tyrants, assessments, activism, anarchy, agorism, or, of course; any and all criticisms. If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then feel free to call-in to the LIVE show at (218) 632-9399, or you'll need to contact Marc on Skype by searching for username: frankrizzo3, and we can also add you to the NSP skype group chat where you can engage in some courtroom role-play exercises to refine your litigation skills and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up. Also, here is a comprehensive list of the many ways you can interact with the No STATE Project broadcast and community.

Wednesday, 6-7pm EST: Tune-in to the new No STATE Project midweek commercial-free video-stream now broadcast via youtube.com. 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