Categorized | NSP Radio Archive, Video

NSP – Nov 30, 2013 – [LRN.fm Broadcast Version]

Posted on November 30th, 2013 by Calvin

This is the LRN.fm broadcast version of the No STATE Project radio show for November 30, 2013, check back later for the full podcast with most the off-air commentary and all the other great meta-content.

UPDATE: It is going to take more time than unsual to get this one posted considering the numerous technical issues we were having during the LIVE broadcast. With some luck, I will have it posted before this weeks airing of Survivor. ;)

YouTube Preview Image

 

              

204 Comments For This Post

  1. eye2i Says:

    [side-track] * in case anyone else is getting it: per the forum/board 01-12-2013 * [quote] MyBB has experienced an internal SQL error and cannot continue.

    SQL Error:
    1194 – Table ‘mybb_sessions’ is marked as crashed and should be repaired
    Query:
    DELETE FROM mybb_sessions WHERE ip=’98.66.169.152′
    [/quote][/size-track]

  2. NonE Says:

    eye2i Sed:
    [side-track] * in case anyone else is getting it: ——-

    AH! A respite from the religious bickering. How delightful! ;)

    – NonE

  3. Malinson Says:

    You’re not blaming me are you?

  4. NonE Says:

    Malinson Sed:
    You’re not blaming me are you? ——- Who are you addressing? If me, nope, I’m not. – NonE

  5. Malinson Says:

    Marc, Where’s my evidence that the avocation of violence or compulary services are wrong? If I am to answer your legal question as to the rightfulness of that gun barrel, shouldn’t I have evidence behind that answer or is a simple opinion is all you’re interested in?

  6. NonE Says:

    Avocation of violence? Is that like, being a hit man? No. That would be a vocation… hmmm avocation of violence… that must be like being a psychopath who loves pulling the wings off of flies or torturing kittens. have I got it right? – NonE

  7. eye2i Says:

    Wouldn’t “avocation” be like “anarchy” and “atheist”? Thus avocation is the opposition to or counter of vocation? ~~NonHobbiEhorse (it’s aka a hobby –get it? your hobby, NonE, is rodeoing typos…and having “psychopath” on a brain loop, oh my!?)

  8. eye2i Says:

    @NonE: “religious bickering”?? –factually, what’s the difference between “religious bickering” and “governmeous bickering”? ;-/
    –NonGodStampEr (strike the root!)

  9. Malinson Says:

    I know, I know, I mispelled the damm word…

  10. Malinson Says:

    If involuntary services are truly wrong then I want the fact that it is and not just an opinion.

  11. bill Says:

    seems like i came in in the middle of a thread. where is the beginning

  12. Malinson Says:

    I am talking about the hypocrisy. Voluntaries can’t seem to take a factual stance behind their own ethics whilst at the same time ridiculing their adversaries for having naught but opinions for theirs.

  13. NonE Says:

    Malinson Sed:
    If involuntary services are truly wrong then I want the fact that it is and not just an opinion. — Mally, may I call you Mally? Marc says, and so do I, that there are no “rights.” I would extrapolate from that (for Marc, and state outright for myself) that that means you don’t have a right not to be offended, abused, tortured, killed, raped, loved, whateverd. Therefore evidence to the contrary is impossible to provide. I’m not done yet. So that would be the “factual” part, the part which you seem to be wanting to make a big issue of. But if we are to be logically consistent then that also implies that the “violator” also has no rights to anything, like for instance your using over the top defense and breaking his arm if you “dis” him. From this it can follow (I was going to say, “it follows,” but not necessarily) that if one wants to be treated with respect and fairness then one must treat others in such manner. You can treat others with respect and that STILL doesn’t give you a right to be treated with respect in return, but it increases your odds. Conversely, if you treat others with contempt, initiate violence against them and such, you should probably expect to be treated poorly yourself. So the evidence you ask for is not “factual,” but rather logical. If you expect to be treated well you are not going to get your expectations met to frequently if you are an aggressive violent asshole. If, on the other hand, you treat others with respect and fairness, you give others less of a reason to “go off” on you. They may, of course, just because they don’t like your skin color or the smell of your shampoo, or because their fathers beat them unmercifully for no reason whatsoever when they were small, and you are smaller than they, so they just figure it’s payback time and you happen to be in the way.

    Back to your evidence, simple fairness would indicate that one does not deserve to be treated badly if one has not started the thing in the first place. I think that might fairly be considered what some might call one’s “right to be left alone.”

    I’m sure Eye2 will jump in here and tell me I’m full of shit and have no facts or evidence and am an idiot and all, but he just likes to be a prick.

    Does any of this answer your question, or do YOU just like to be a prick because your dad treated you like shit when you were young and you figure the world deserves it ten fold in return?

    Oh yeah… damn is spelled damn, not damm. ;)

    – NonE

  14. Malinson Says:

    It is an intellectual fallacy to conclude the non-existence of something simply because no observable evidence rests before you. Since your awareness is clearly limited by sight and understanding I will grant you the rational of not believing, but unless you know all things I don’t observe this rational of declaring it a fact.

    You just believe no rights exist….just as others believe they do…

  15. NonE Says:

    Mally, I have to add a small addendum(b). You say that ” Voluntaries can’t seem to take a factual stance behind their own ethics…” As I’ve pointed out elsewhere repeatedly, morality is a choice. It’s a one way street. You can choose to be a moral person, you can’t choose to be unmoral as “unmoral” is simply the state of nature in which morality has not been philosophically created and then chosen as a modus operandi by a participant. So if I’m a person who believes that the concept of morality is a good idea, and I choose to behave in a moral fashion in my life, then all of the others who have not so chosen are kind of like the old concept of “outlaw,” they are deserving of no consideration whatsoever, they are the dirt beneath your feet, that has dog shit ground into it. If one chooses not to act in a moral fashion, then that person has no “rights,” and therefore has no ground on which to complain about ANYTHING that another might do to him. He has, by his actions and positions, shown that the world that he lives in is one in which morality does not exist and therefore anything that anyone might do to him is just as good, just as valid a choice of action, as anything else.

    So if you want to live in that world, cool, go for it. You will have no more consideration from me than the dog shit I walk in, and you have no grounds on which to make a complaint.

    – NonPeroPoop

  16. NonE Says:

    Mally, You are right, I can’t prove “rights” don’t exist. I simply ask that if you believe they do, or they don’t, if you make that claim, then it is up to you to provide evidence, just as you have come here demanding. I am saying that there is no evidence that rights exist. – NonDoggieDoo

  17. NonE Says:

    Mally, I just realized that this discussion is much like the ideas we are discussing. I’m attempting, as have others, I think, to have a productive conversation, while it appears that you are just having fun putting turds in the punch bowl. So if you care to have the conversation continue, you will have to be an honorable participant and deal respectfully with others, otherwise you’re just proving yourself to be a troll and while Eye2 will write you long dissertations it is unlikely you will get any more satisfaction from anyone else.

    – NonPokeFunAtEyeTooForBeingJustLikeHim:)

  18. Malinson Says:

    It is your opinion that morality is a choice because you believe it to be a fantasy of mind and that makes you dangerous in the eyes of those who believe in objective morality. You don’t believe in the existence of human rights and that makes you a threat to those who swore to protect them.

    How do expect yourself to be respected by the majority of people if you don’t believe in the existence of evil? How can you be a symbol of moral truth if your opinion on the matter is tantamount to fantasy?

  19. NonE Says:

    Mally, Mathematics is also a (apparently in your view of reality) fantasy of mind. Cool. Go with that if you wish. Please show me evidence that morality is a fact of nature if you want to argue with my position.

    I don’t disagree that there are dangerous people out there who are a threat to any thoughtful person with an open mind, and perhaps you are one of those people. That doesn’t change my ability to reason.

    – NonE

  20. NonE Says:

    CALVIN!!! Hurry up with the podcast, this show is running off the rails! – NonPeroPoop

  21. Malinson Says:

    Voluntarism is going to remain stagnant unless its followers unhinge various entrenched beliefs and be at least open to the possibilities.

  22. NonE Says:

    Mally, your last post is totally Dvoid of any coherent data or reasoning. Like a good politician it sounds profound and is completely meaningless.

    I’m outta here. Y’all have fun jackin’ off and stuff.

    – NonPeroPiss2

  23. Incubus Says:

    So you start things off with berating Malinson for an unimportant spelling error, completely avoiding his question. Then you answer his question of evidence with your opinion. You allude to those who bring attention to your lack of evidence as being a prick, including Malinson for merely asking questions, followed by another spelling correction, holding in contempt those who do not share and act by your idea of mortality, and then proclaim his post to be incoherent and therefore not worth your time. Very classy.

    Amazingly, you have the audacity to accuse Malinson of being disrespectful when he has been anything but. He has raised a valid issue, and by challenging your worldview that makes him a troll who likes putting turds in a punch bowl?

    Oh, by the way, it’s spelled devoid, not dvoid. But I’m sure you knew that and you were just being cute, right?

  24. NonE Says:

    Incubus, if you think I was berating Mally for his spelling you really need to chill out a bit and develop a better sense of humor. As for the rest of your comments I can only say that Malinson has been pushing this same line for a long time here on the forum, and was banned for his obnoxious behavior in the past, so it is not like my response is just to the specific words posted just in this thread. We’ve gone around about this before. I expressed my thinking, and I asked him for evidence of his position. I really don’t see that I’ve been an ass here, but I’ll take it under advisement. Thanks for the pointer. (and that is NOT sarcasm, it is sincere.) – NonE

  25. NonE Says:

    And I spelled it Dvoid, not dvoid! ;) – NonE

  26. Malinson Says:

    After three bannings, locked threads and deleted posts you get used to their tantrums.

  27. Malinson Says:

    BTW, if you think psychopathic behavior is wrong then why don’t you give me evidence that it is rather than feed me your lengthy opinions on how society should best behave?

  28. Incubus Says:

    To start with, I was never not “chill”. I wasn’t aware pointing out your unnecessary antics meant my sense of humor needed developing. Interesting. I’ve never quite understood that position: if you don’t find me being rude funny, you need to get a “better” sense of humor!

    Anyways, what line has he been pushing? A line of questioning* (ain’t that the name of the game?)? Besides, the past is the past, and as of the present Malinson has been quite polite as far as I can tell. So why not focus on that? Shall we hold all your past transgressions against you for anything may have to say from here on out? Hardly seems fair.

  29. malinson Says:

    Not everyone rationalizes the same as foolish behavior can be highly speculative; so I ask it in this way: What evidence do you have that proves the behavior that YOU find to be irrational is wrong?

  30. malinson Says:

    I mean, if compulsory services are irrational behavior that is condoned by this site, then what evidence do you rely on that this behavior is morally wrong? You want me to embrace it as fact then where is my evidence??

  31. malinson Says:

    Or am I to just BELIEVE in it like some faith system? Heck; think I would be better off believing in human rights if that’s the case…

  32. Nomos Says:

    Contra negantem principia non est disputandum.
    You cannot discuss things with one that denies principles.

  33. NonE Says:

    Interestingly enough, Wendy McElroy’s post today contains this paragraph: This display is not “deceit” in the normal sense of the word. Murray Rothbard explained in Ethics of Liberty, “Lying to the State…becomes a fortiori morally legitimate. Just as no one is morally required to answer a robber truthfully when he asks if there are any valuables in one’s house, so no one can be morally required to answer truthfully similar questions asked by the State, e.g., when filling out income tax returns.” If you were a Jew in Nazi Germany, would honesty compel you to tell the Gestapo where your family was hiding? Lie in words or in deeds to whomever is using force against you; they have forfeited the moral ‘right’ to the truth. Beside which, no one has a right to demand information from you. ———-

    I focus specifically on the word “forfeited.” I think that is kinda the point I made above, which everyone seems to ignore my making.

    And… Unless I’m misunderstanding your post, thanks Nomos! :)

    – NonE

  34. eye2i Says:

    @Nomos: that was a point i sought to point out over in the forum, with BooMalison, noting that he was using english (a language, a principle?). It’s voluntary and he does it without a qualm, without questioning– why?

    That noted, i think he’s nudging around an essential questioning, thus a questioning relative to considering logical consistency none the less. Re-examining an evaluation process, by which values have been derived –which i value. [the rejection of the questioning thus far 'round here, being based in the same emotion that most Stateists/Governmentalists have with their resultant parallel rejection? i dunno, i'm just questioning2 (and i know the emotion all2well2]

    @aNonEnity (who ‘said’): “If you expect to be treated well you are not going to get your expectations met to frequently if you are an aggressive violent asshole.” –met to frequently?!? –eye2frequently2 (lmbo) [off too recharge the batteries in the ole irony meter now...muttering "we have seen the teacher and he is us!"]

  35. eye2i Says:

    Isn’t the relevant fact here, that pain is pain?
    And that as such, it’s ‘natural’ (a natural principle? a natural fact?) that humans avoid it –but not only avoid, but are repulsed by it –and thus especially, reject the initiation of what causes/caused it?
    And emphatically (nigh instinctual?) so, when it is (but) another human causing and willing to cause such –apart from a critically examined, logically deducted, evaluation (justification?)?
    [tho why facts "matter" even, as one's value, sort of circles "us" back? including, perhaps, asking if it 'matters' why the "law of the jungle" ("survival of the fittest") includes a food chain, with ability to think critically being amongst such "law"/fact?]

  36. NonE Says:

    I2, Sorry you hadda lose your butt on my account! ;) – NonE

  37. Malinson Says:

    Maybe we should redefine the word ‘psychopath’ to be anyone whom volunterrorists don’t agree with. I am noticing an increase in this mean spirited nature which is why I came back to this forum.

  38. NonE Says:

    Mally Sed: I am noticing an increase in this mean spirited nature which is why I came back to this forum. ——- If morality is without meaning, how can you expect me to have any idea what you mean by “mean?” ;) You and Eye2 should have fun arguing with each other when neither one of you will recognize the meaning of words. – NonEggNog

  39. Malinson Says:

    Well; if you want to act as if morality has no meaning then you truly are a hypocrite. I wasn’t the only who took notice of your foul tantromery last night.

  40. eye2i Says:

    @NonEggheadmm: “Eye2 should have fun arguing with each other when neither one of you will recognize the meaning of words.”
    –Ok, kindly direct me to where i’ve ever said, or even implied, any such thing? (suspect you will only come up with instances that you heard what you wanted to? my words meant what you wanted ‘em to2?)
    Words clearly have meaning(s), it’s simply that they can have more (often many more) than one. Rather, for me and my house, it’s show me the referent if you wanna claim a factual ‘mean’ing? Capeesh, House of Representatives (strawmen) vs house of brick? –NonStrawman2i (the artist famous for singing ♪”If iye only had a brain…”♬ while dancing professionally around his own ‘pole’, under the stage name NonEmpirical2eyes)

  41. malinson Says:

    I can’t prove a right exists but I could be wrong. It is possible that I don’t have all the facts; I am open to that possibility. Instead of accommodating for that it seems clear to me that voluntarism is just a haven for atheists and anti-religious people.

  42. NonE Says:

    Mally Sed: …it seems clear to me that voluntarism is just a haven for atheists and anti-religious people.
    ———-
    The implication being that believing in a god grants authority to force others to do what you want them to do, where not believing in a god does not grant the (any) authority to push people around? Sure, I’ll sign up for that! In a heartbeat!

    – NonPoleDancer2

  43. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ incubus, Malinson always starts off reasonable.

  44. eye2i Says:

    Ah, yeah, the ole tossing in of the “a” words (“atheist” and “anti-religious” and -tho not specifically, by inference, “anarchist”).
    Well, so long as you also use words to describe those asking for similar fact to back up their imagination labeled (?) similarly? Are you an asantaist? aleprechuanist? afairyist? aflatearthist? agizmoist? awidgetist? ad infinim, ad nauseum?
    Seeing as how i’m asuperstition, and anti-slavery how ’bout tossing around that instead? While the rest of us aren’t all calling religionists of the genre “theist” and instead call you superstitious?!?
    [but then where would "theist" have any credibility? other than around similarly hallucinating folk? call me an ahallucinationist? and the "religion" bit? yeah, it's governmentalist to try to make it only about "theism"; circle for a landing...]

  45. NonE Says:

    Eye3, “afairyist” ? Isn’t that just another way of saying homophobe? ;p – NonE

  46. Malinson Says:

    I’m still waiting for my evidence Marc. Where is the evidence that belief in government is morally wrong? Where is my evidence that your BELIEF of is irrational behavior is in fact – morally wrong?

  47. Malinson Says:

    You advocate that force obligations are ‘not okay’. You tell me that it is ‘not okay’ to support them. Where is my evidence that forced obligations are morally wrong?

  48. NonE Says:

    Mally, Please insert a dollar and seventy-five cents for another three minutes.

  49. Dan Says:

    Malinson is asking for evidence that forced obligations are wrong. Wow! Really, REALLY?
    This Malinson, whoever he or she is sounds like a real winner. But to address the question, I do not know about the moral thing except to say the empirical evidence that forced anything brings about unintended consequences and has absolutely no merit is overwhelming. Just take a look at the present state of affairs, there is your evidence.
    Besides, where is Malinson’s evidence that his or her obligations apply to me? Oh yeah, he or she believes in using violence to get what he or she wants from people.

    Will the World ever see the last of these assclowns? Probably not.

  50. Pete Says:

    Wow, what an awesome exchange in the comments section! Thank you, Malinson, NonE, Incubus and Eye2 for the entertaining mind-combat!

    @Malinson: I tuned in late, and I’ve never read your previous forum posts, so would you mind restating your position? It seems that you’re asking Marc and NonE for their evidence that non-voluntary interactions are immoral, right? I think what you’re trying to get them to admit is that their voluntaryist positions are buttressed on arbitrary moral opinions, right? I’m guessing this line of questioning is intended, ultimately, to force your opponents to admit allegiance to one of two possible philosophies: Nihilism, or the existence of God.

    I agree with Jan Helfeld that these types of debates, although entertaining, don’t work, and that the only effective way to really get to the truth is to subject your opponent to Socratic questioning (only Yes or No answers allowed). Unfortunately, Calvin and Jan Helfeld have not yet created their weekly radio show featuring Socratic debates.

    I think your statement about voluntaryism being a haven for atheists can easily be proven wrong. The contraband turkey farmer is a voluntaryist who is aware of the existence of God. You pulled a bit of a straw man argument by mixing up words: “Religious”/”Religion” and “God” are two completely different but oft confused concepts. For example, one can oppose religion, while believing in God. There are also plenty of atheists who support religions.

  51. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: While i can understand the desire to claim that religion and “God” are different, apart from what religion eventually calls for, or they aren’t religion(s “re-liege-meant”), i’ll counter that the word “God” is akin to saying “Huf” and “Gii” (the latter chasing BlooMalinson’s rabbit) aka saying nothing aka communicating nothing? aka yet another one pulled out of the proverbial strawman’s hat? Isn’t it only through religion(s) (see indoctrination?) that the word “God” has any significant meaning? –etymologically speaking, of course.
    [what the liege (allegiance/all-liegiance?) is from and to being what makes it significant?]

  52. NonE Says:

    I just want to point out, for those who haven’t figured it out yet, that this is ALL Calvin’s fault! – NonE

  53. eye2i Says:

    i suspect there’s a major luv fest going on with Calvin about now, for the MyBB crew?! (they of course, would remind, hey, you’re gettin’ what you paid for…?)

  54. Malinson Says:

    Here is a short four paragraph Synapsis sisnce the forum is down…

    Marc can only prove that he has no evidence that rights exist but he can’t know that none truly exists as he claims. Unless he’s omniscient he can’t prove that claim; he’s human like the rest of us and could be wrong.

    All I ask is to be open to the possibly so as to accommodate others who would not have otherwise rubbed elbows in this cause. Else folks of the more major religions would see this as more of an attack on their faith than not.

    I have my ethics and I live my life as if they were fact; but I don’t prescribe my opinions of rational behavior upon others as if they were fact, nor do I resort to calling those who disagree with my beliefs psychopaths.

    I don’t believe voluntarism or its endorsers set them up as being trust worthy of investment of my faith that they can work out the social/economic issues I raised years ago in the forum. I don’t believe that Marc’s efforts will bring about a voluntary society because of both him and the many of his followers behavior.

  55. Dan Says:

    I’ll bet if Marc Stevens jumped off a cliff you would too. Bozos

  56. Whip Says:

    If you atheists are so damned smart – fix the forum!
    Oh, that’s right, you clowns don’t fix anything, you just complain about it.

  57. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ whip, you have no idea what goes on behind the scenes so please stop with the personal attacks. For one, I can’t even log in to fix it, so relax.

  58. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ Mal, all are welcome here, I only ban those who advocate the initiation of force/violence. You did that on the forum and skype chat despite knowing the rules. You were unbanned, you didn’t mention that. You’re also only one of maybe 3 people banned out of over 1k and in 6 years. The radio show is live and dissent is welcome, so please don’t try to make it look as if I run a closed forum/show.

  59. Malinson Says:

    Marc, you refused to dialog with me because I didn’t believe that ALL forced cooperation was wrong. You put forth on your own forum that if anyone didn’t believe that ALL compulsory services were wrong, that they were irrational advocators of violence unworthy of your time.

    All you have done is lash out calling me a statist, a psychopath and a troll, all the while I spend countless hours of my time trying to reason with you.

    There is no factual answer to your legal question as to the rightfulness of compulsory services. I can’t prove to you that my support of a particular type of forced cooperation is a factual moral right; I would have only my belief of its rightfulness

    Yet; you berate me for failing to provide evidence of belief of such right when you fall short of the very factual evidence your ridicule should have that my choice was morally wrong. You rant all the time of the lack of evidence of the beliefs of your adversaries, I think it only fair that the tables get turned.

  60. Dan Says:

    @Malinson, This is not hyperbole, Nazi policies appeal to you right?

  61. Pete Says:

    @eye2i: You said, ” Isn’t it only through religion(s) (see indoctrination?) that the word “God” has any significant meaning?

    No. I once believed what you are saying…that religion and God were the same, and they were tools of enslavement. However, after some study and thought, I’ve come to think that the concept of God is very natural to humans across time and across the world, but that it gets hijacked by power hungry rulers to serve their goals (I think this is similar to the way honest, voluntary money is almost always captured and abused by the rulers).

    Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God, and I promise you these people are much less of a threat to you and your beliefs than an atheist who believes in the state.

    “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear” -Thomas Jefferson.

  62. Dan Says:

    Pete said, “Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God, and I promise you these people are much less of a threat to you and your beliefs than an atheist who believes in the state.”

    I agree

  63. gearheadmm Says:

    Oh good! The holy war continues even with the forum down.

  64. gearheadmm Says:

    Back on subject
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3uOyhFy4Lo

  65. Whip Says:

    @ Marc – Wasn’t addressing that at you.

  66. pop de adam Says:

    Did a google search concerning the forum and found some promising information:

    http://community.mybb.com/thread-105849-post-771860.html

    perhaps someone with more experience and detailed information could make the appropriate queries.

  67. NonE Says:

    Pete Sed: Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God, and I promise you these people are much less of a threat to you and your beliefs than an atheist who believes in the state.
    ——-
    I think you are probably right here, Pete. Or at least emotionally I react positively to your statement. But I would have to point out that “faith,” which is what backs a belief in a (or many) god(s) is what makes the whole subject dangerous. To accept something because it feels good, instead of because you have examined evidence and come to a rational conclusion that the idea has merit, that is the dangerous part, in my eye. True, you can examine false data and come to an erroneous conclusion, so the examination of evidence is not a guarantee of success, but at least it is further along the path of knowledge than simple emotional passion. It is at the point where you accept something as “truth” that the really scary failure occurs, as I see it. The scientific method suggests that one is ALWAYS open to new ideas, to new data, even when something appears to be a solid “truth.” That is what keeps one humble. People with religion are dangerous because they are not humble.

    Just some thoughts on the subject at the moment.

    – NonE

  68. pop de adam Says:

    “If involuntary services are truly wrong then I want the fact that it is and not just an opinion.”

    I think the answer is contained in your question(although it is absent a question mark). Involuntary services aren’t services, since someone who is desiring them can be quite seperate from who they act upon and seperate again from the actor who brings the action to fruition.

    Can we aggree that services in most situations are purported to have some value? If we utilize said services and they enrich all parties involved can we aggree they are good and right? If they are voluntary, we have chosen them. If they are involuntary, we likely have no choice. If we utilize services we don’t want or need, wouldn’t this be wrong and a waste of resources and time? Feel free to substitute you or I for we if you wish.

    Concerning “belief” and “faith” one of my favorites:

    The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.

  69. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: “Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God, and I promise you these people are much less of a threat to you and your beliefs than an atheist who believes in the state.”
    And i disagree. So we’ve got two opinions? So now what? A Vote? And a “promise me”? Might i ask for some fact to prove that (or are we talking politicians here)?
    Aren’t both positions ultimately, factually, belief in men aka belief in “Authority”? Belief in what particular men have said? Some saying “God” said what they said? And isn’t the real problem with Governments/States the number of individuals believing in said Authority? And which of such superstitions –or, ok, beliefs– is likely the more difficult to sway, the Authority claiming only it’s own opinion about it’s Authority, or the one claiming to have “God” granting it’s Authority? Isn’t saying “God” claiming the ultimate Authority?
    And i also ask that you consider: it’s not so much your “God” choice/vote that may be a “threat” to me, so much as it is the credibility you inherently grant to the concept of a “personal God” (who speaks/commands/reveals); it’s there even being an “Elect”ion. And using the very word “God” (instead of at least “Huf” or “Gii” etc etc? All the more so, no? (see “Yah”, “Jehovah”, “Allah”, “LORD”, all “The” “God” etc).
    Lastly, you mention that the concept of “God” comes very natural; doesn’t superstition (aka “answer”ing the unknowable anyway) as well? And hitting, biting, pitching temper tantrums, lying, etc etc? All quite natural but in need of being critically examined regarding their social application? i’ll offer to you that any inclination towards “God” is indeed from that same nature, coupled with the very word being available only from religion –see any child not indoctrinated come up with “God” (the word) on their own (for their imaginary friend/monster?). A concept, or imagination, or fantasy, or opinion about human and the cosmos (as we presently “know” it) origin, well, they’re just that, factually, aren’t they? And if not for the inherent stamp of approval, a “God” (or “Huf” or “Gii”) that’s grounded in critical thinking and logically consistent reasoning, would be “the one” i could get behind. But “getting behind”, isn’t that the problem in the first place? There even being (much necessary) “The” “God” Stamp of Approval, embraced by one, granted to one, granted to any and all?!? Who am i to tell otherwise? Or you? No (f)actual evidence required, just child-like belief, aka whatever one can imagine/conceptualize?! Endorse “The God Stamp Of Approval”? For what reason (“reason”?)?
    [if you've not read it, i highly recommend M. Faber's book, "The Psychological Roots Of Religious Belief: Searching For Angels And The Parent-God" --i.e. anthropomorphic parental transference]

  70. NonE Says:

    Reflecting on what Pete said, and then what Eye2i said, I had this thought which I will share.
    Pete indicated that a belief in god (or similar) is pretty universal. I’d have to agree. And this is only natural. If you consider that a child’s creator is it’s parents, and it’s life is totally dependent upon them, the sense of authority (of the parent) that a child must feel is not only natural, but from a biological and developmental perspective a requirement. But at a certain point one grows up. Or not. And I think the key here is the “or not.” I think the issue is that very few people ever actually grow up and learn to become responsible for themselves totally, which ultimately is reality, for no matter how much of a support system on might have on whatever level, it is always ultimately the individual’s personal choices that determine one’s success or failure, and there is no avoiding this fact. Even if you want to. When one finally accepts this reality, then one has grown up. I’m feeling like I’m paraphrasing “If,” by Rudyard Kipling here.

    – NonE

  71. NonE Says:

    Addendum: I just saw a photograph of a home with the flag proudly flying and it struck me powerfully just what a totem that flag is. It is like a notice to the world that I’m protected by daddy, by something big and bad and you’d better not mess with me because if you do my daddy will whip your butt and you’ll be REALLY SORRY! – NonE

  72. Dave Says:

    @malinson! Is violence good or bad?

  73. NonE Says:

    On a totally different subject, I think if Calvin would post his Bitcoin address somewhere on the site he might find some people would be inclined to fatten it. – NonE

  74. eye2i Says:

    addendum: @Pete: “Many people come to accept the existence of God …” –pretty nice bit of framing there, aye? Like the existence is simply a matter of accepting or rejecting it as fact?! Rather than it actually being accepting of hypothesis, conjecture, speculation, hallucination (‘seeing’ what isn’t actually there), anthropomorphism, superstition, belief, hearsay?
    Nice subliminal/word craft (i almost missed it2).

  75. Incubus Says:

    Nice catch, eye2i. I was just going to point that out. As if the existence of said “God” has been proven.
    But alas, believers do not abide by logic. Unless it suits them. What’s worse than selective critical-thinking?

  76. Pete Says:

    @eye2i: Obviously, there are people who run religious institutions who have hijacked the concept of God for their own gain. We see this throughout human history across the globe, from our European ancestors to the ancient stone inscriptions on Mayan temples. As Marc has mentioned, there were times when the so-called church created its own archdioceses (imaginary geopolitical boundaries), then brutally enforced laws and collected taxes at gunpoint,…er, sword point, to fund Holy wars, cathedral building, and other complete wastes of energy. You’re smart to fear this situation!

    However, I think you’re making a mistake in assuming that the concept of God is completely irrational and/or necessarily associated with religion and religious leaders. Your etymological root-word evidence surely reveals an intertwining of those concepts long ago, but does not prove that God and Religion are necessarily attached nor dependent upon one another.

    Two great questions to ask are, “Why do many humans, wherever and whenever they live, find themselves pursuing the concept of God?” And, “Why do these concepts of God share many common characteristics?”

    My best single answer to these questions is, “Near Death Experiences.” I’m sure you’ve heard of these accounts of people who’ve experienced physical death and returned with tales of amazing spiritual experiences. These experiences seem to be highly similar regardless of language, religion (or lack thereof), culture, nationality, etc. (However, they are often interpreted by the subject through the prism of their preexisting religious or spiritual beliefs). Most of these experiences contain common elements that include meeting an amazing being that can only be described as God. These experiences are so powerful that they frequently turn atheists into spiritualists. The earliest known NDE was recorded in ancient Greece, but strong, common evidence of NDE experiences exists in many religions. For example, Christians had angels carrying them to meet God, while Norse Pagans had Valkyries carrying them to meet Odin. I think its safe to assume that the NDE has been a part of the human experience since before our Neanderthal days.

    It should also be noted that many of the brightest men who committed their lives to pursuing the truth have come to conclude that God must exist (Newton, Descartes, etc.). At some point in the pursuit of truth, we must concede that most of the knowledge of the universe is completely outside of human understanding and probably outside of human mental capacity and comprehension. If the universe is truly infinite, it is then full of infinite possibilities. Is it really such a stretch to conclude that a perfect, all-knowing, all-loving being exists?

  77. NonE Says:

    Pete, So what you’re saying here is that the deprivation of the brain of oxygen and glucose, causing hallucinations, is pretty solid evidence of supernatural beings? I can tell you, I’ve had lots of psychedelic experiences and they were almost all of a deeply spiritual nature, and many friends have had the same, and I certainly don’t consider that proof of anything aside from a change in the way my brain processes information and the natural inclination of the human brain to have various sensations and such. I actually think that a sense of spirituality is a quite wonderful thing and I support the idea, but I certainly don’t jump from there to believing in magical beings. Especially just ONE magical being. If there are magical beings, why not all kinds of them? I just don’t see any evidence leading to that kind of conclusion.

    – NonE

  78. Pete Says:

    @Incubus: I’ve never seen the Alps, but I believe the people who’ve been to Switzerland and tell me they exist and that they’re beautiful. I’ve never been in a cage, but I believe Larken Rose when he says living in a cage is no fun.

    Why should I dismiss the claims of trustworthy people who’ve come back from death and reported seeing what they describe as God? Especially when their experiences are nearly identical to hundreds of other recorded experiences? How does studying these fascinating stories and being open minded make me opposed to logic? Is closed-mindedness a prerequisite to logical thinking?

    @eye2I: You said “Nice subliminal/word craft” I wasn’t trying to be subliminal…I was stating a fact. If you disagree with what I claim as fact, make your case.

    If pondering the existence of God is a crime, who is the victim?

  79. NonE Says:

    I must say, it is such a relief that Marc’s site is one where religious discussion is set aside in favor of more important topics. It’s such an oasis from the normal world of self-righteous people telling each other what “TRUTH” is. ;) – NonE (go on, incubus, I can hear your gears just itching to engage! :) )

  80. Pete Says:

    @NonE: You said: “So what you’re saying here is that the deprivation of the brain of oxygen and glucose, causing hallucinations, is pretty solid evidence of supernatural beings?”

    No. I am saying that the NDE experience, starring a Godlike being, and experienced by people whose hearts and breathing stopped for some time, has lead to the acceptance of the existence of God and life after death. This belief seems to be universal in some degree amongst all groups of humans (please correct me if I am wrong). I am also saying that this belief is hijacked and corrupted by conquering rulers (Marc would call them sociopaths) for the purpose of ripping people off and tricking them into doing things they would never do otherwise. The institutions formed around this deception are commonly called, “religions.”

    That was my original point…religion and the concept of God are not the same thing at all. And the acceptance of the existence of God, especially in ancient cultures, was in no way irrational.

    NonE, the experience of the NDE is so powerful that it turns atheists like you into instant spiritualists…even amongst people of your generation who popped acid like PEZ.

  81. Incubus Says:

    Whoops. Burden of proof. Why should eye2i have to prove otherwise? You’ve made the claim (as “fact”), the burden belongs to you.

  82. NonE Says:

    Pete said:
    NonE, the experience of the NDE is so powerful that it turns atheists like you into instant spiritualists…even amongst people of your generation who popped acid like PEZ.

    Yeah, like I sed! “So what you’re saying here is that the deprivation of the brain of oxygen and glucose, causing hallucinations, is pretty solid evidence of supernatural beings?”

    – NonE

  83. Xaos Says:

    Marc, I love your videos and I’d love them even more if I could hear them. Please, please, please turn up the gain on your mic!

  84. Pete Says:

    @NonE: Please show me when and where I said there was any evidence for the existence of supernatural beings. (No lengthy, convoluted interpretations, please. Simply cut and paste my words.)

    @Incubus:
    Definition of Fact: Incident, act, event, or circumstance.

    My claim of fact(disputed by Incubus and eye2i): “Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God.”

    I hereby swear that I have personal, firsthand knowledge of at least twenty persons (this meets the definition of “many”) who accept the existence of God while rejecting religion.

    I move the court of Incubus and eye2i to take mandatory judicial notice of the following: Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God.

    I now formally request Incubus and eye2i to present any evidence that I ever claimed God was real, or that I made any intentional subliminal messages.

  85. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: One thing you seem to be missing or overlooking, that is my main point: one wishing to claim “God is” (aka Ultimate Authority) grants to any and every other legitimacy to make their own claim. There’s the terror. Why does one need “God”? And it’s from there that the second crucial point arrives: if there’s a “God”, then what of or who is such? Says who? Any and every body (that has the gonads/audacity to do so).
    Who stands to gain the most: a.) a “God” who has to hide from humanity, so much so that debates are necessary, and can only be revealed to special, chosen ones (e.g. in your case, the “NDE” ones?) –or–
    z.) the special, chosen ones who are the ones who tell the rest of us “God” has to be hidden in the first place (“just trust me/trust us!”)? Again, why “God” at all? (hint: it’s because some special ones want, eventually or ultimately, to say what “God” said/says –for and to the rest of us?!).
    Secondly, you can re-claim as often as you like, that religion and “God” are separable (like the claim about “church” and “state”?), but it’s just that– another claim, like it or not. As i noted, show me children that come up with “God” on their own? Who don’t also come up with all sorts of imaginary “beings”? It parallels what Marc has said about whether folks who say they do, really want to pay taxes; it can’t be known, because it’s enforced. Ditto, with “God” (and “State”) indoctrination aka religion –and the fact of superstition and/or the phenomena of Parental Transference (and “Authority” Figures).
    Again, you go with “Huf” or “Gii” or “Giz” instead of “God” and i’ll consider listening to you about non-religion and your evidence/facts. (when you actually do that, you’ll see quickly enough the religion factor –otherwise, you’ll find the word science suffices?!)
    Thirdly, there’s the evidence behind the theory offered by Faber in his book, “The Psychological Roots Of Religious Belief: Searching For Angels And The Parent-God” –i.e. anthropomorphic parental transference. It addresses the probable source of said “light” experience(s), and the nigh universal interest in “The Protector-Provider” so many speak of as adults, as nigh desiring and longing for, rather neatly (and all terra fermaly firmly!)
    Lastly, as to “NDE” –emphasis on the “near” and not “DE” –these folks are only near “death”-as-it is specifically defined, with present knowledge regarding such, with some saying it is need of redefining, per growing evidence. The human brain (as well as the body) is an amazing organ, capable of amazing things –including schizophrenia, hallucination, superstition, paranoia, psychopathy, OCD, and NDE for starters. And then there’s the potential on top of or added to all such per chemicals/”drugs”…

  86. NonE Says:

    Refering back to my “totem” post above, it sure is amazing how important it is to these godists for others to believe as they do. It must be sad to feel so insecure. – NonE

  87. euripides pants Says:

    the problem is trying to prove a negative. you cant “prove” something doesn’t exist. thats a logical fallacy. this is why the burden falls on the one who makes the claim. evidence is used to prove that something “does exist”
    as for NDE there is a reason why lots of people have the same experience. its called dimethyl tryptamine. when oxygen deprivation occurs DMT becomes active in your brain causing hallucinations. the evidence for my claim can be found in DMT: The Spirit Molecule – By Rick Strassman. dr strassman worked on a federally funded project that was subsequently shut down by the feds when his results were showing the opposite of what “they” wanted it to find.
    as it turns out, people are tripping on DMT when we are born and then again when we die.

  88. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: “NonE, the experience of the NDE is so powerful that it turns atheists like you into instant spiritualists” –you’re doing it again?! i of course can’t know your intent, but you phrased this like it is a fact, that if one has the “NDE” as an “atheist” then they’re “turned into instant spiritualists”. Is that a fact, as stated? Every individual? Then on top of that, with only implication, that said “spiritualist” is a “God”ist? And every “atheist” even? (can one know themself as an “a-theist” apart from having crossed religion aka “theism”? whence forth cometh all these terms?) Every case –as you wrote it? Or more accurately, some cases; and the more accurately, the cases you’ve picked and chosen?
    Isn’t the fact with NDE, that there’s an experience of a “light”? How does that get to “God”, factually? (hint: religion!? aka “re-liege-ment”, a new “allegiance”?) And how many having such experiences resulting in “instant” change, had zero prior exposure to religion(s)?

  89. NonE Says:

    Pete Sed: I’ve never been in a cage, but I believe Larken Rose when he says living in a cage is no fun.
    ——
    Then why do you choose to live in the cage where it is not acceptable for others (who wish you no harm or ill-will) to experience the world as they care to?

    – NonE

  90. euripides pants Says:

    religō (“I bind back or behind”) as in ligature. religion means to tie down.

  91. NonE Says:

    I also should add that I find it equally strange that Eye2 should have such a powerful need to badger others almost ’til they bleed if they don’t see the world as he does. – NonE

  92. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: I wasn’t trying to be subliminal…I was stating a fact. –first, one doesn’t or can’t “try” to be subliminal, right?
    Secondly, i included with subliminal/ “word craft”; why did you ignore that, you suppose? As to stating fact, to which my counter was addressed, were you now? You wrote (as i specifically quoted you): “Many people come to accept the existence of God …” Said “existence” is yet to be proven as fact, no? “Many may come to accept the claim of or belief in the existence” being the factual statement, no?
    If for no other reason, there’s only a religious term on the table i.e. “God”. You wish to claim it’s not a religious term, then tell me about these facts, as evidence, without using that term, or it’s religious synonyms? After all, if we’re talking facts, we’re talking evidence, and we’re talking referents, and existence, and reality, that any human with the common senses can sense, agreed? (or are you saying “God” can’t get to any and every human –and talking religion?)

  93. eye2i Says:

    And like NonE in turn badgers me about “badgering”? (strange too, that i’ve noted time and time again that Government is religion; In God We Trust –even if from my own point of reference –so i suppose Marc is badgering folk as well…?)
    Badgers? Badgers?! We don’need no stinkin’ badgers! ;-)
    NonE, consider yourself fortunate that you’ve not experienced deep losses, financial and otherwise, per influence of both religions per interactions with the believers therein. Myself having done so, yeah, let me offer that perhaps you can relate per experiences with only the one religion? (dividing such, of course here, by your measure, not necessarily mine)
    Strike the root~

  94. Pete Says:

    @eye2i:

    When did I say God was an ultimate authority?

    I haven’t read this book, but at a glance I’m much more threatened by your beloved author, M.D. Faber,

    http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/author731.html

    who eagerly takes money stolen at gunpoint to write his freudian-derivative psychoanalytic perspectives from his cushy state-college office than any new-age hippies in Sedona, Arizona who peacefully, privately contemplate the existence (or non-existence) of God.

    I think its funny that you fear the concept of God but embrace the writings of a man who supports the hellish concept of freudian psychoanalysis as a state-sanctioned determinant of non-existent “mental health diseases.” The concept of “mental health” is invented and will always be a weapon in the arsenal of the state.

    NDE is a catch-all term. Some people have been gone only a few seconds, while others have been declared dead and left alone on the operating table for shipment to the morgue before somehow coming back to life. They were as dead as any medical definition of the word allows, and they came back.

  95. Pete Says:

    @None-responsive..er, I mean, @NonE:

    Just so you know, I’m not religious, and I have only recently opened my mind to even the possibility of the existence of God. This all came from the quest for truth which sometimes requires challenging everything I thought I was sure about.

    I think its unfair and unjustified for you to imply that I am living in a cage and being intolerant of the beliefs of others when in fact I’m trying hard to get my mind out of the cage.

  96. NonE Says:

    EyeTooooo. I’m sorry that you’ve had the experiences you’ve alluded to. That’s gotta be rough, and I can see where it would elicit anger. My standing on the issue remains the same, but I’m sorry for your experience(s).

    I might mention that for a big part of my life I was a very angry person. I finally found that it, no matter how justified I felt I was in my anger, did me no value at all. I’ve now come to a point where I don’t hold on to anger, or at least I don’t think I do. And in any case, if I do, it is dramatically less than in the past. I am finding a lot of pleasure and joy just in the day to day mudanities of life, in spite of all of the insane injustices that are inflicted on all manner of living things around the globe. Anger only hurts the one who holds on to it. It does nothing for those who might “deserve” it. At least, that’s the way it looks to me.

    – NonE

  97. eye2i Says:

    NonEntity, thank you and gratitude for the expressed kindness. Actually though, i’m not caught up in perpetual, or even instances of anger about Godism– either. It stirs me, but to nothing near anger. What a perplexing medium of exchange this @texting is, that emotions come across, well, as so.
    The way i’d express my emotions about it might be that it’s the same when encountering the other major religionistas, aka Governmentalists with their expressed and given arguments/points (and you thought i was gonna talk about Grammar/Spelling Nazis?!). We don’t get as many of those specifically ’round here (or acknowledging the too typical linkage), so there’s that. So you just seek to change minds –of the direct respondent, but also who knows who’s reading along (anecdotal evidence, mine)? And move on to the enjoyments your situation avails. Again, gratitude for the remarks. The major point is quite valuable (for which readers? ;-)
    –NonspEllingbadger2i :-)

  98. Malinson Says:

    I’m still waiting for Marc to answer my questions.

  99. NonE Says:

    Mally Sed:
    I’m still waiting for Marc to answer my questions.
    ——-
    How odd. I’d never have guessed that. I hope you get a lot of pleasure and enjoyment from your wait! ;)

    – NonE

  100. Malinson Says:

    @NonE, You have already conceded that rights cannot be proven to not possibly exist; I’m trying to get Marc to admit that so as to at least open that closed mind of his to the possibilities. If any here should believe in the possibility of God then by that account human rights have potential do to his commandments to humanity.

  101. NonE Says:

    Mally Sed:
    December 3rd, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    @NonE, You have already conceded that rights cannot be proven to not possibly exist; I’m trying to get Marc to admit that…
    —-
    My Dear Mr. Mally,
    If you’d remove your head from your ass you might notice that Marc has publicly stated long ago and with some regularity that he does not believe in “rights.” But it appears you enjoy the view from where you are, so have at it, enjoy!

    – NonE

  102. NonE Says:

    Oh my, oh my, oh MY! EyeToozela, I think I’ve caught whatever it is that you’ve been spreading around. I now see that I’m actually appearing to possibly think that it might, on an off chance, be possible to have a rational interchange of ideas with… OH NO! Do tell me I’ve not succumbed to the dreaded Eye2 fix’em’all virus! I thought I was immune. Sigh. How stupid I must appear to the sane ones out there (assuming there are any, of course.) – NonNammerGratziTooBeeOrNotTubbie

  103. Malinson Says:

    @ NonE, Marc dosn’t BELIEVE in the possible existance of God-Given rights period. He tells people that rights don’t exist and that they are a fantasy. That is not the words of someone open to the possibility that they could be wrong.

  104. NonE Says:

    OOOoooops. I now see, due to Mally’s perverse attempt to use lots of double negatives and such, that I’ve actually misunderstood his lame attempt at communication and have supported the very contention of his that I thought I was refuting. Oh well. It’ll all come out in the wash, or someplace.

    – ThereZaREasonForGrammarDingBatz-aReason!(soIdiotsLikeMeCanUnderstandYourInanities)

  105. NonE Says:

    P.S. All of those things which looked, LOOKED, I say, like ad hominem attacks by me upon the great and gracious Mr. Mallyson, well, that’s what they were. In case you (especially you Pete, and Incy, too) might have thought I’d never stooop so low. – NonStoopNduss

  106. Malinson Says:

    Double negitive?! Look, it’s one thing to believe that God dosn’t exist because you can’t find the evidence; but another to declare there is no God at all…there is a big differance.

  107. NonE Says:

    Hope y’all are enjoying the entertainment. We’re just trying to fill in the dead space between podcast posts and actual forum functionings soze you don’t fall asleep during the intermission. (CALVIN!!!! HELP!!! Itz getting like TOTALLY out of hand down here in the hinterlandz.) – NonSanity

  108. NonE Says:

    Mally Sed:Double negitive?! Look, it’s one thing to believe that God dosn’t exist because you can’t find the evidence; but another to declare there is no God at all…there is a big differance.
    ——-
    OkeeDokey. Let me put it this way: there is no evidence that rights or godz exist. Izzat better? (And I will admit that you are correct in your assertion of this difference.) But, did you ever read my diatribe, er… post, above where I pointed out that the lack of morality is not IMmorality but rather UNmorality, and that is also a BIG DIFFERENCE.

    – NonLozzyFudgic

  109. gearheadmm Says:

    Jeez, It’s good to see that the holy war is still raging, even with the forum down. I don’t know a better way to turn off new members!

    Back on subject…

    This is for A2i2C http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3uOyhFy4Lo

    Entertaining…

    Cryptic, http://www.dinarrecaps.com/1/post/2013/12/poofness-for-dec-3-on-the-edge.html

    Fulford, http://hipknowsys.blogspot.com/2013/12/benjamin-fulford-december-2-2013-heavy.html

  110. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: “When did I say God was an ultimate authority?” — where have i said what you believe *about* “God” matters (and, i actually wrote as much) to me? Rather, it’s that you choose persistently to use the word “God” (why exactly?), and stating that your belief grants it legitimacy and risks fueling belief by any and every other. The vast majority of which, if you don’t accept that they see such as precisely The Ultimate Authority, i’m inclined to say, puts us at an impasse?
    If you recall, i did write that if you’d quit using that term, i’d be open to examining any evidence you could present –apart from any other such religious belief influence, as that term arguably is. (have you considered why you insist on/persist in/need to be using the word “God”?)
    Regarding Faber, your remarks strike me as disingenuous at best (that may just be me of course). While factually accurate, what, you didn’t think to consider i’m fully aware of such affiliation (all too typical as it is)? Or perhaps you reject any and every thing that’s written by any and all Stateists? [pardon my quasi-sarcasm] i’d be curious to know how many who believe in, or perhaps even came up with the concept of, the “God” you espouse are also similarly Stateists?
    Regardless, what of the facts in support of Faber’s thesis (he himself doesn’t refer to it as fact or “truth”)? Contrasted with the facts behind your “Gii” proposal? Which btw, i wouldn’t say i *believe in* Faber’s position; rather that i see a high probability of it being accurate. And that being a higher probability than any “God” proposal [part of which is that i'm amazed how one --any one-- can or could miss a "God" in the first place?! Gosh, can't miss the "creation" but can't get similar, no middle man (like "special" Pete?) necessary, proof of "The Creator"?!? Why is that? And no, i'm not asking you, i'm asking this "God" you want others to believe in along with you...].
    Lastly regarding “NDE”, i agree it is a catch-all, because that’s about all it can be at this time scientifically/factually. It’s an interesting enough phenomena, but that in no way is factual evidence of “Huf” or “Gii” (or “god”) –again, besides its being hearsay and/or anecdotal evidence, it’s basically about “light” –and as i noted, the reporters too typically have religious exposure, to indoctrination, running all before it, along with the propensity towards superstition/hallucination –just like the other major religion, Government. And you have heard of the experiments with neural electrodes producing/replicating the same “NDE” reports for similarly many, right? No “near death” even required, just another means of monkeying with the hardware.

  111. eye2i Says:

    **edit note: i typed: “and stating that your belief grants it legitimacy ” –where it should have been: and stating that as your belief grants it legitimacy . **

  112. JP Says:

    It’s quite obvious to me that force and violence is wrong period. Negotiations are far better paths to follow. However In matters of defense, force is often necessary for self preservation. The evidence is in the outcome of force and violence. The evidence goes back thousands of years and is self evident to me. The end product of violence is always either a form of destruction or complete destruction that does facilitate a position of evolving. However the philosophical aspect of these notions have run deep for many thousands of years and is a very interesting debate. I choose peace to evolve myself. What do you chose? Maybe its a matter of choice and the universe is at play here? I really don’t know anything . . .

  113. Whip Says:

    eye2i said, “consider yourself fortunate that you’ve not experienced deep losses, financial and otherwise, per influence of both religions per interactions with the believers therein. Myself having done so,…”

    So it’s about the money, huh? You got conned and that is the fault of religions, how? Let me give you a free edumacation here, son. This is how a con works: You take a greedy person and offer them something of value above the value of what they are willing to invest and then run with their investment, or induce them to invest even more, possibly until you have depleted/drained them of all resources and you move on. This leaves the conned one feeling raped, robbed and embarrassed. The stronger take a lesson from it while the weaker blame others and/or get conned again and again, never realizing it was their own greed that got them conned in the first place.

  114. eye2i Says:

    @JP: I really don’t know anything — This reminds me of my purposing to always think in probabilities, contrasted with ‘knowing’ and ‘the truth’. Yet while i (‘1′ of ‘me’) see it’s value, man do i find it tough to consistently practice! And the lingo of ‘The Sovereigns’ aka Angloish/English, with it’s forms of “to be” (is/are), doesn’t aid one much with such. Words can be such mental detour signs, and stop signs/road closed/do not enter signs, too. So often i can find a word that i never or too seldom question regarding it’s (f)actual referent. Making the map to be territory, as they say.
    [note2self: me, myself, and i-i-I really need to get back to working with e-Prime...]

  115. eye2i Says:

    @Whip: So it’s about the money, huh? — All too typical of, and classic with buybullists (pronounced “bible-ists”); pick and choose from the writings. Your masters at such, aye? Say wwWhip, what part of “other” don’t you have eyes to see? [scrolls up] Yupp, i typed “financial and otherwise”. Check (and used “financial”, not “money”, along with including “other”).
    And i luv how you jump to speaking of cons and skip right over the element of indoctrination, since childhood. Yet more pick and choose to suit you (like you do with those “Deuteronomy” verses)?!
    But sure, it’s also about the finances –but not just about mine, tho. Yeah, tell me about those who are so desperately poor and being the least that can afford it, getting “taught” buybull (“bible”) verses/truth about “tithes and offerings” to receive (not “get”) “God’s promises/rewards”. None of you “Christians” are doing any “miracles”/”greater works” to actually provide for them, so what else is “written” for them to turn to in their dire straits?
    [wait for it... wait for it... w-a-i-t... "that's not what it says!/that's not what it means", r-i-g-h-t, per the special, chosen one, the self-elected Whip --aka all the "god" there is when it comes to such; repeat ad nausum, ad infinum, because yupp, the "bible"=buybull is a classic con scam]

  116. NonE Says:

    I’m beginning to thing that Mally’s nattering at Marc, and the resultant back and forth he and I have been having may have been of value. I see his position and I am seeing the difficulty of logically refuting it. My thread “Morality. It’s a one way street,” is an attempt to do just that, but I don’t think I’ve yet succeeded in clarifying my ideas such that they are easily grasped. (Of course I could also be totally wrong, but I don’t think so.) It will be interesting to see where, if anywhere, this may lead.

    – NonE

  117. NonE Says:

    I made the above last post of mine before reading the last several posts by Whip and Eye2. Now having read them I can see that the same underlying issue that Mally keeps hammering at is the essential issue in the divide between Whip and Eye2 in the last couple of posts. How interesting. This is getting to be perhaps a worthy intellectual/moral challenge. I also note that my descent into hurling ad hominems (sp?), as I did at Mally, is perhaps a pointer to myself that I’m failing at my task of rational argument and that I should stop being an ass and pay more attention to my thinking. Of course I could be totally wrong about that! ;) – NonE

  118. Whip Says:

    @ eyi2i – “Say wwWhip, what part of “other” don’t you have eyes to see?”
    I don’t have “eyes to see” that which you are too lazy/afraid to post. When you speak of finances, you speak of money and that is all you gave me to go on.

    Why is it you always attack the Bible or Christianity when you lack an intelligent response? Is it because you are a coward who wont accept his own responsibility for failure? You can’t blame a god or a book for your downfalls. Nor can you blame an entire group of people, (Christians) for that failure.

    I don’t know what happened to you in your childhood in church (and “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”), but you need to get over it and move on. Hatred consumes you and it is not becoming on you.

  119. Malinson Says:

    There is a difference between not believing in rights and not believing in the existence of rights; between not believing in violence and not believing in the righteousness of violence.

  120. eye2i Says:

    @Whip –tsk tsk tsk; shame that you can’t see the only hatred herein is all your own. But i am grateful for you demonstrating, yet again, “God’s Love” here for all to see [ssssh tho, we don't want to throw any pearls before swine!]. That, and demoing how it works to pick and choose as you please. Say, why aren’t you a Muslim? Jihads instead of Inquisitions and Crusades after all?
    And the reason i persist in addressing the buybull (“bible”) and your “Christ”halluciNation is because it supports Government (First to Last, “Old” to “New”). [this is a No Government/State website, aye?]
    Oh, in spite of what i figure you actually intended/wish to infer in posting it as you have, all that “happened” in my childhood was that i was indoctrinated with Christinsanityism aka “Christianity” (the “Baptist” version since you don’t give a damn –but probably actually do, aye imprecatory one? per “God’s Command”?!) –just as i was with USAism, and desire to see such ended.
    –NonsupErstitionist

  121. eye2i Says:

    “I’m beginning to thing that Mally’s nattering at Marc, and the resultant back and forth he and I have been having may have been of value. I see his position and I am seeing the difficulty of logically refuting it. My thread “Morality. It’s a one way street,” is an attempt to do just that, but I don’t think I’ve yet succeeded in clarifying my ideas such that they are easily grasped. (Of course I could also be totally wrong, but I don’t think so.) It will be interesting to see where, if anywhere, this may lead.

    – NonE” —[if this were facebook, i'd have clicked the "Like" option here] i appreciate the post.

  122. Malinson Says:

    In order to complain the theft of government they must show a taking of that in which they have no right to take. Without right of possession there can be no basis of complaint on anything taken. This applies to murder, lying and force. To show standing of complaint against these things you must have rights to show their unrightfulness.

  123. Malinson Says:

    Theft; theft; theft, it’s in nearly all of Marc’s articles on how the people of government are thieves stealing our life’s energy. Yet, without a right of possession there is no such thing as thievery. You can’t steal anything without transgression of right of possession; it’s an oxymoron to reject rights of possession whilst complaining against theft…

  124. Malinson Says:

    Marc has no standing to complain against government unless he embraces the natural existence of rights.

  125. eye2i Says:

    @BlooMalinson: “Yet, without a right of possession there is no such thing as thievery.” “Marc has no standing to complain against government unless he embraces the natural existence of rights.”
    –What of one challenging believers in Government because of the logical inconsistencies and inherent hypocrisies? Why can’t “thief” be used in the perspective of logical inconsistency, with “rights” (belief) irrelevant?
    [bonus: what is the basis for espousing the word "hypocritical" --does it have, what, intrinsic value (etc)? Or is it just (more) opinion?]

  126. Malinson Says:

    @eye2i; Because even if I feel that what you do with your life is illogical or irration, I have no standing to complain if you are not transgressing upon any of my rights.

    Isn’t that the libritarian creed? Do as you please in so long as you don’t violate the rights of others??

  127. Malinson Says:

    If I can’t show how even government is violating my ‘god-given’ rights how can I even have standing to complain against them?! Even Marc uses the ‘idea’ of individual rights to show governmental transgressions; yet he holds no belief that such rights truly exist. If no right truly exists then he can’t even use words such as ‘crime’,’theft’,’murders’, etc…

  128. Malinson Says:

    To have standing in criminal cases you MUST show a violation of a right. Without a right you’re dead in the water…

  129. Malinson Says:

    So Marc, what personal right of yours is government violating that you would like to complain about??

  130. bruce sloane Says:

    Mr. Malcontent said :
    To have standing in criminal cases you MUST show a violation of a right

    Interesting viewpoint, Mal…
    Might You elucidate further, please …

  131. Malinson Says:

    @Bruce; why certainly Bruce I would be delighted. If you would kindly turn to page 4 of Adventures in Legal Land, you will make note of Marc admiting a ‘belief’ in property rights as well as telling us that he has ‘no right’ to violate other people’s property rights.

    In every case where Marc complains about government in his book, he is always backing that up with a violation of some kind of right. His book drips of accusations that governemnts are criminals.

    Look up the word crime…you can’t prove a crime unless you can sho a violation of a right…

  132. Malinson Says:

    Marc must therefore believe in the existence natural rights if he is to have any ethical believability in his complaint against government; even if he truly possesses them.

  133. eye2i Says:

    Malinson, my questioning to you isn’t coming from my holding Marc’s relevant position (as i hopefully understand it, from listening to him). Rather, i’m seeking to get at your position/premise per your challenging, thus countering Marc’s position–with something you value higher (and so might i/others)? [i.e. "moral(s)" is a personal valued concept for some, as is "right(s)" --as far as any evidence i've encountered --thus far; values based in logically consistent reasoning, or otherwise e.g. belief]
    You write: “To have standing in criminal cases you MUST show a violation of a right. Without a right you’re dead in the water…” –is this your personal position, or are you merely speaking from the Governmentallist’s (“Law”) position?

  134. Malinson Says:

    @eye21; You want my beliefs? Well…okay

    Because we all share the same planet and thus environmental effects, I see nothing irrational about people pooling a presumed degree of involuntary cooperation, one given for the sake of the survival and prosperity of humanity.

    This would of course include the belief of specific natural rights that exist above and beyond any contract of agreement. This would give standing in cases outside any such agreement, dissolving jurisdiction in the face of humanitarian disasters albeit foreign or domestic.

    In other words, there would be a degree of humanitarian obligation of defense of these rights inherent in all of us. Although an institution of justice would be required to exist in this light, as long as people uphold their duty of support, the men and women so serving would be that very symbol of trust and hope for that cause.

    Look at Australia’s Law requiring people to vote. Notice the observational belief that we ALL are hold a degree of shared responsibility because we are all of the same family; the family of humanity; not too mention children of the Earth for which we are by nature indebted too…

  135. bruce sloane Says:

    Uncle Mal stated :
    To have standing in criminal cases you MUST show a violation of a right.
    Look up the word crime…you can’t prove a crime unless you can sho a violation of a right

    I am not familiar with the term ” Standing ” when used in a Criminal context
    — further explanation needed

  136. Malinson Says:

    Much of Marc’s work deals with matters of jurisdiction. In cases involving a crime between one person and another, you must be able to show how an individual right was violated in order to have standing in the case.

    It would be funny when a judge looks at Marc and says, ‘Mr. Stevens, you don’t even believe in the existance of individual rights so why are you even in my courtroom?’

  137. Marc Stevens Says:

    The forum is back.

  138. bruce sloane Says:

    Sorry, Mal ..
    I do not see the concept of Standing in a Criminal Action

    the relative associations of Standing relate to Civil
    thus, Standing comes from:

    1) The party is directly subject to an adverse effect of an action
    2) The party is not directly harmed, however the harm involved has some reasonable relation
    3) The party is granted automatic standing by act of law

    none of these legal ” injuries ” come from Crime

    am I misunderstanding Your position ..??

  139. Malinson Says:

    All matters of standing arise from rights. In cases involving either criminal or civil, those points you posted all stem from claims of rights. No rights…no case; albeit criminal or civil….

    Recognition of rights would therefore be paramount in any believable complain so filed…

  140. bruce sloane Says:

    yes, those are Civil injuries
    Sorry, but viewing this from Your context..

    the State reserves the prosecution of Crime
    You are mixing together Standing, and Corpus Delicti

  141. Malinson Says:

    Corpus Delicti ‘body of crime’ is a process that requires one to prove that a crime has been committed. In order to prove the crime you must show how a right was violated. If there is no evidence of a violation of a right then you have no ‘standing’ to complain, meaning you lack the ability to sufficient proof.

  142. bruce sloane Says:

    I would say that we need to back up, and define words —

    Crime:
    Crime is an act that results in Societal Punishment of wrongdoers, as opposed to conduct such as Torts and breaches of Contract that involve private remedies
    The intentionally imposed societal condemnation that flows from conviction is what distinguishes civil from criminal process
    The infliction of Punishment is sufficient to render a legal process criminal in nature
    “crime” or “criminal offense” may simply be conduct or a a result that is forbidden by law and to which certain consequences, called punishment, will apply on the occurrence of stated conditions and following a stated process
    For instance ” Strict Liability ” Crimes have no injured Party..
    Where is the ” violation of a Right ” ..??

  143. Malinson Says:

    You will find the indication of a right on your first sentence of what a crime is.

  144. bruce sloane Says:

    I am getting from You that the State.. has ” rights ” …

  145. Nomos Says:

    @NonE & eye2i(and I know this is WAAAY late in response, but…) In essence that’s what I meant.

    To use the example you gave, the principle is that of “obligation.” No one has an obligation to be honest with that one’s violent aggressor.

    If one denies the principle that unprovoked violence is immoral and unacceptable, then you can’t engage that person in any type of dialog, because there is no foundation from which to have a rational discussion of obligations of truth.

  146. Malinson Says:

    Now Bruce; wrongdoers are unrighteous and rightfully so; you get it? Without a right no wrongdoing can be defined.

  147. bruce sloane Says:

    are You willing to stipulate, that in a legal context that the State reserves the ability to prosecute Crime ..??

  148. eye2i Says:

    ** the forum is back up & online **
    (kudos to Calvin & Marc)

  149. Malinson Says:

    Purpose of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It would be up to the institution of justice raised by the people to decide what constitutes a protection of those rights.

    That which is considered an unacceptable risk to those rights is therefore legislated. Speeding and drug use would is one example of risk commonly deemed unacceptable. Because rights are put forth as ‘endowed by our creator’, there is the assumed belief of involuntary duty of obligation of defense.

    From this believed duty comes a legislative body charged with defining appropriate degrees of protection of those rights on behalf of the people. Crimes against the state would connect to what the state outlines as unacceptable dangers to the peoples life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness..

  150. Malinson Says:

    It is incorrect to believe that the government is charged to protect you as a person; that’s your job. What they are charged with is defending your rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness on a public scale.

    Although individual protection is offered in lieu of those rights per addendums, state reserves discretion for such protection for the sake of its function to protect the rights of the people at large. This is that duty of protection they are charged with.

  151. Malinson Says:

    Duties to protect individual rights does not equate to a duty to protect the individual.

  152. bruce sloane Says:

    OK, so you stated ” standing ” was necessary as a prerequisite to Crime
    not the Corpus Delicti
    therefore, by that statement, the State has 3rd Party Standing to prosecute an individual Crime ..??
    or in the case of Strict Liability, the State has Rights ..??

    because Crime must come from Standing, not Corpus Delicti ..as You stated

  153. Malinson Says:

    State has rights of protection of rights as decalred so in duty.

  154. bruce sloane Says:

    interesting…
    a Corporate Fiction ( speaking of THIS State )
    has Rights

    some very contorted Logic ..??

  155. NonE Says:

    Marc Stevens Sed:
    The forum is back.
    ——
    We got all this goin’ on… and THAT is the best you can come up with! ;)
    – NonMality

  156. NonE Says:

    Malinson Sed:
    Purpose of government is to protect the rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.
    ——
    WRONG!
    The purpose of government is to allow those in power to live comfortably at the expense of everyone else. All the rest is just the story that helps make that happen.

    Until you figure that out there is no help for you.

    – NonE

  157. Malinson Says:

    @None; well, if you feel that these folks are infringing on your rights of existence than I would like to hear what these rights of yours are and why you think you have them.

    Again, wrongdoings cannot be substantiated apart from a dooly established right. This is how the word ‘rightful’ comes into being. You cannot declare an unrighteous act apart a right…

  158. Brevity Moderation Says:

    NonE. 96 occurrences on this thread, so far. Really? Why not start your own web site?

  159. NonE Says:

    Mally, You’re putting words in my mouth. I SED… live at the expense of everyone else. Do you see the word “rights” in there anywhere? Huh? Please remove head from dark area before replying to something I didn’t say, Okay? ;) – NonE

  160. Malinson Says:

    @None; How can you talk about fairness without tipping your hat to the ideas of righteousness? If being fair is what you think folks ought to live by, then surly there is no escaping from the fact that deep down inside your mind, rests a personal belief in some kind of inherent human right. There would have to be otherwise you wouldn’t feel so wronged in unfair situations.

  161. NonE Says:

    Once again, Mally, try reading what I say. Did you get the part where I said there are no rights? Let me repeat that as it appears you are a bit slow on the uptake: Did you get the part where I said there are no rights? Note that I did NOT say that I don’t have preferences about the environs in which I care to dwell. I prefer being treated with respect. That DOES NOT MEAN… let me repeat… THAT DOES NOT MEAN that I think I have a RIGHT to live in a world created in my imagined bestestness. It also does not mean that I don’t have the choice to attempt to sway the world into that direction. Each of us makes the world in his own image by the choices he or she makes. Your world looks like shit from over here, but it seems to be what you want, so I’m happy to let you wallow in it if it makes you happy.

    – NonBinaryThinker

  162. Malinson Says:

    You’re only digging that righteous hole deeper. Your tirades of how government is stealing from you is legendary and its unfairness well-known. You know that there is no possible way to argue a theft without a right of possession; no way!

    All you want is respect? Well, if that’s all you want you don’t have to be fair and righteous to get it; but I think you and I both know that’s it’s not about you. You want people to respect other people; you want that sense of commitment to be recognized an acted upon every human being on this planet.

    I think the belief of human right of life and liberty exists within your heart, you just don’t want to hone up to it because the belief presumes measures of inherent involuntary commitments within the family of man. Well; so what of it? It’s not guaranteed to lead us down the road of destruction, plus I think the idea of a natural commitment to at least respect each other’s life, liberty and property is a good thing; don’t you?

  163. malinson Says:

    My experiences with the folks of voluntarism are that a good many of them have a passion against government; so much so that the anger seeps from their lips. It’s not about the prevailing government for that is just a ruse; it is a passionate philosophical rebuff of the dogma of authority.

    I am convinced that such passion against involuntary authority only comes from core belief of a right to self, self-ownership, self-purpose, liberty, pursuit of happiness, the list goes on. There is no way that such passion can come from one rejected of the idea of right of self-ownership, nor would it even come from one impartial to the idea of natural rights

    They won’t hone up to it because such ideas forces a paradigm shift away from voluntarism which I feel is servant to a rejection of the validity of an authoritarian religion. Most are against an idea of God assuming lordship over man apart from their consent. Thus, I think there would be much more at stake here than a shift away from voluntarism.

  164. David Says:

    Rights don’t exist, other than in our minds. Rights, just like the state or the government, are just a concept that has no material existence. Rights can only be realized when asserted by an individual or group of individuals. If one wants to assert themselves, they may realize and enjoy their perceived right. There will be those that agree with this perception, and in mutual interest, will respect the others in exchange for the formers respect of the laters perceived right. A good example of this would be the right to life, most share the opinion that your right to life is a valid assertion, and therefore respect each other’s right to life. This is not to say that the right actually exists materially, in fact your perceived right to life only persists as long as you work to keep your life.
    As far as injury of asserted rights, that would be the other side of the coin. One who either is not aware of the asserted right, or is aware but doesn’t respect the claim and acts in contradiction to the right leading to loss or injury of material assets that the perceived right allows. Theft and murder are the first that come to mind but not the only examples of injury of asserted rights.
    Just because a right is asserted does not make it valid, validity can only be ascertained through agreement between individuals and or through rigorous trial. Even asserted rights that have been found to be valid may later be found invalid. This being said, in accordance with current knowledge and mutual respect, violence has been found to be detestable to society. Allow me to define violence: Main Entry: vi·o·lence
    Pronunciation: \ˈvī-lən(t)s, ˈvī-ə-\
    Function: noun
    Date: 14th century
    1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage 3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor ; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance 4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)
    Let’s allow that society generally agrees property, life and liberty are a valid assertion of rights and has been found through out history (rigorous trial) to be mutually beneficial to all. Violence is an injury to an asserted right, and therefore allows for a claim against those who would commit such acts.
    Since the mode of operation of people acting as the state is violent it is easy to make this claim.
    If you claim that the state is not violent then just stop complying, and tell me what happened, I can tell you from my own experience, the use of force is applied.
    If you claim that these individuals have a right to use force please tell me what makes them any different from me and you and why any one should just allow violence to be perpetrated against them.
    If you claim there is a social contract such as duty to protect in exchange for allegiance, you might find, some where on this website, several instances when agents of the state claiming no duty to protect.
    If you claim violence is good please tell me if you would allow some one to punch you in the face, take your property or take your life. You might also ask yourself if you are a psychopath.
    Main Entry: psy·cho·path
    Pronunciation: \ˈsī-kə-ˌpath\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
    Date: 1885
    : a mentally ill or unstable person ; especially : a person affected with antisocial personality disorder

  165. NonE Says:

    Okay Mally, finally we get a post from you which appears to attempt to stste something about your position and the thinking behind it. I’ve just read it once, and I’m not clear yet what the point is, but I’m interested in trying to understand what your point is, if you actually have a coherent point. So please continue to try to elucidate, if you will. – NonE

  166. Dan Says:

    @NonE, Whatever malinson’s point is (it eludes me too), I conclude he endorses a certain group of people who use violent force, coercion and the like to have people behave a certain way and to pay for it at the point of a gun. I suggested to malinson that Nazi policies appealed to him. I did not see any comment from him about my suggestion.

    Malinson says “My experiences with the folks of voluntarism are that a good many of them have a passion against government; so much so that the anger seeps from their lips”.

    @malinson, Yeah I definitely get a bit indignant (ok downright pissed off) when individuals, like yourself, buy into a lie then try to use quasi intellect to arrogantly apply it to me or anyone else without any factual evidence.

    Malinson and others of his ilk will always disgust me with their pompous and arrogant disrespect for individual autonomy.

  167. NonE Says:

    Mally, I think I’m getting a bit of a handle on at least part of your position. It appears that you think that if I say that ‘rights’ don’t exist then I have no position to get upset if someone tries to cut my leg off and barbeque it for dinner. Would you say that is a fair assessment of at least a part of your position? – NonE

  168. NonE Says:

    Dan, thanks for your note. At this point what I’m trying to do is to understand Mally, or Mally’s position. Of course that may be as impossible as trying to understand the position of a godist, but I really do want to give it my best, if only for my own sake. – NonE

  169. malinson Says:

    No None, I don’t believe the survival instinct is the source of your fury because of the words you use in describe of this rage. Words such as fairness, criminal, theft, murder and so on, point to only one conclusion. At the heart of your passion is a strong embracement of a right of self; a right of life and to live and to prosper.

    Weapons themselves don’t exist as they are just things. They can either be used as tools of peace and justice, or the can be used as weapons of war and tyranny. I will say this though; humans are indeed a delicacy to some creatures, both on Earth and beyond. Without use of violence and coercion, you and I wouldn’t even exist…

    they can be tools….or they can be weapons…

  170. Malinson Says:

    When a people’s risen system of justice feels that you are a threat to life, liberty and property it’s going to do one of several things. It’s either going to punish and re-educate you, or it’s going to eliminate you – one way or the other.

    So there you have it folks; a perfectly rational and unexpected response in the natural order and ways of life.

  171. Malinson Says:

    Honestly; what else did you expect in the chainmail of society? Your approval?!

  172. Tweedro Says:

    Rights is a 6 letter word whose meaning is being twisted. In the “Rights” Marc is talking about in AiLL, Its the 10 Bill of “privileges” given to us. Standing is based on the violation of these “privileges” given to us by the government. We are forced to work within their construct because they are the biggest bully on the block.

    Doesn’t change what we believe. If a “right” did exist and was “alienable”, then theives wouldn’t exist.
    Theives exist because something can be taken that is your (a baby).Is it my right to have a baby? no, its biology. the babys parents made it so the baby belongs to them. Can it be taken? Yes. Does a baby have a right to life? Well it IS alive. If its life is taken, or its “right to life” is taken, who protects it and gives the life back?

    If “rights” were “god-given”, then wouldn’t they be “god-enforced”?

    sorry, the voices are back……

  173. Malinson Says:

    Tweedro, as long as free will exists you will always find uncertainty. There are many who sense the existence of an innate duty to the family; we are all of that family.

    Some move through life rejecting the potential existence of anything that they cannot see or understand. It is a narrow path, one that never leads outside those limitations. Being open is being open to the reality that we are extremely limited in both capacity of mind and capacity of sight. To follow the path that leads beyond one’s own limitations is to be always open to possibilities…

  174. Tweedro Says:

    @malinson; I answered questions asked in this thread…..not quite
    sure to what your refering too other than that based on your answer, I believe your on the “god” side of the argument. maybe its my ignorance so clarify if possible

  175. Malinson Says:

    Many questions seemed rhetorical so I didn’t move to answer. As to the ‘God-given’ would they not be enforced question one, I would say that it is not something answer because I do not know the mind and judgements of such a God.

    With the idea of inalienable rights, I would surmise that they would be rights that cannot be stripped away from you, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be transgressed upon.

    There is really not much answers I can give factually because lack of evidence of such rights only proves I don’t have sufficient evidence, but it doesn’t prove that I cannot be mistaken in a judgment call.

    much of it falls down to belief of choice really, but I wasn’t sure that an opinion was an answer that you were looking for, so I didn’t go that route.

  176. Tweedro Says:

    With all due respect, you don’t seem to answer any questions directly but reverse our questions of facts and evidence with open ended philosophy. I’ll chalk it up to my ignorance.

  177. eye2i Says:

    [sidetrack] @Malison: “Some move through life rejecting the potential existence of anything that they cannot see or understand.” — i don’t know that this is much of the case, is it? Considering the likely rather than ‘the potential’ audience, especially? Granted, using the word “some” leaves an easy or clever enuff out? Notice though, that you included rejecting “the potential”. The vast majority of those i encounter (anecdotal, noted), personally and cyberly, aren’t of this position at all, as neither am i (fwtw).
    Rather, it’s more “move through life rejecting” specific claims about ‘things’ AS existing, as known, with specifics, but that are without evidence– as that is to be ‘seen’ (and depending on your usage, ‘understood’); verifiable, common, testable, common “senses-capable”; again what the word existence (and it’s cousin, real/reality) essentially have to mean –hearsay upon hearsay as often as not being the equally claimed ‘evidence’ of such “seeing”.
    We have several nifty words at our disposal for ‘things’ for which there is no present evidence, no? Imaginary, speculative, fantasy, wishful, hopeful, hypotheticals, etc?
    Is there the potential for The Invisible Pink Unicorn to exist? Do you, Malinson, reject the potential? But is there any evidence? How many similarly imaginary, speculative, fantasial, superstitious things=claims do you wish to have inserted in the box of ‘things’ with “potential”, but not requiring any evidence for, that one should consider? (and sure, evidence as it’s known/knowable in this time; simply because if it is new ‘evidence’, where’s the issue, it’s no longer a potential?)?
    [bonus consideration: cui bono? who stands to gain the most from something 'appearing' hidden, the potential 'thing' to be discovered? Or the special/rare individuals who claim to have now discovered it--but have no evidence of it's existence? And the more huge/significant the thing? noting, that for humans, gain is more than monetary...]
    [/sidetrack] [like there even is a main track here?! haha]

  178. Malinson Says:

    @Eyei1: Each of us possesses three natured minds; the red mind of strength which serves for the sake of its pride and glory; the yellow mind of passion which serves for the sake of happiness and fortune; and finally the blue mind of insight which serves the sake of enlightenment beyond the self.

    Because each of those contains the aspects of the others, red minded folks have their own enlightened perceptions and desires for the sake of glory and pride, just as the yellow minds have theirs for the sake of wealth and fortune.

    Only one of those minds drives one’s life leaving the others in the shadows of whispers. Two of these minds see only in accord to the bounds of the self, leaving ego and desire in rule of understanding.

    For me, I am in no way qualified to dictate unto you all that is possible or impossible to exist in reality. I therefore grant no certainty to that which is certain, nor do I dismiss the potential of any so listed fantasies.

  179. Pete Says:

    @eye2i: You said: It’s an interesting enough phenomena, but that in no way is factual evidence of “Huf” or “Gii” (or “god”)

    I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU!

    It was never my position that the NDE proved the existence of anything…only that it offered a rational explanation for the ORIGINS of the concept of God, and why this concept seems to be almost universal in ALL human cultures. This concept is therefore natural in humans, but it is hijacked and used as a rip-off scam by rulers.

    Yes, I’m aware of research claiming to replicate the NDE, including high-G gyroscopic devices used for training fighter pilots. And, Yes, you’re right, I also find wisdom in the writings of statists. However, only a rudimentary understanding of Freudian psychobabble (penis envy, Oedipus complex, etc.) makes me distrust the reasoning skills and motives of its few remaining practitioners.

    @NonE: I’ve watched many interviews with people who’ve experienced the NDE. In many of these, the experience shatters previous behavior patterns and beliefs. Common changes in their behavior include, 1) questioning their purpose in life, 2) no fear of dying, 3) a belief that God’s purpose for them is to be all-loving, all-truthful, and forgiving.

    Can you imagine better converts/advocates for a voluntary society? Perhaps you should try being more open-minded and welcoming instead of having such knee-jerk, NonFriendly reactions!

    @INCUBUS: I didn’t make anything up. If you apologize for accusing me of lying, and ask nicely, I will gladly supply you with links to plenty of video interviews and written accounts ex-hippies and drug fiends (like NonE) who took acid and later had NDE’s. (Not hard to do…something like 13 million plus Americans have had NDE’s).

  180. Incubus Says:

    Huh?

    I don’t ever recall accusing you of lying. So I won’t be apologizing.

    Ask nicely? Pete, I don’t who you think you are but I don’t appreciate being spoken down to like a child. The sooner you come down from your high-horse, the sooner you’ll make friends.

    I’m aware of parallels between NDE’s and certain drug induced effects. DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) in particular is said to be produced by the pineal gland in the brain and released during dreaming and just before death. It’s found throughout nature, and in the Amazon it’s extracted from plant sources and consumed as a drink known as ayahuasca. Accounts vary, but its effects have had similarities drawn to NDE’s, as in both cases the person is being flooded with large amounts of DMT (and in the case of the NDE, likely several other chemicals).

    Interesting stuff indeed. I’ve had experiences with hallucinogens, but none as powerful as DMT. I would like to try it one day.

  181. NonE Says:

    Pete, the mind is quite the amazing device. ” 3) a belief that God’s purpose for them is to be all-loving, all-truthful, and forgiving.” I think that is exactly the sentiments most of the general public seem to have regarding “government.” (Another of those “G” words.)

    – NonDruggedOutSpaceCadet

  182. NonE Says:

    “181 Comments For This Post” HOLY CRAP, BATMAN! YO! Calvin! Wake up here before we totally descend into *od only knows where!

    – NonCalvinNeedlerEspeciale

  183. eye2i Says:

    @Pete: “It was never my position that the NDE proved the existence of anything…only that it offered a rational explanation for the ORIGINS of the concept of God, and why this concept seems to be almost universal in ALL human cultures. This concept is therefore natural in humans, but it is hijacked and used as a rip-off scam by rulers. I’ve watched many interviews with people who’ve experienced the NDE. In many of these, the experience shatters previous behavior patterns and beliefs.”
    –apologies in misunderstanding you.
    i hope you’ll reconsider Faber, as he has a captivating theory on the origins of the (actual) experience of “ND”Es (and it’s touched on in the book’s subtitle: “The Parent-god” via parental transference/primary caregiver transference from infancy ‘memories’ aka developing/’growing’ primary neural synapses; could you get more natural and universal than that?). And your concerns about Freud ring familiar to me2, as my own. i found Faber to do a nice job of dissecting and tossing out that aspect of Freud (as inaccurate/now disputed).
    If i might ask, in your viewing of individuals discussing their NDE, did any of such ever delve into examining prior religious/cultural-religious exposure via potential for bias/influence of interpretation? [not to necessarily imply anything in asking, more just simply fascinated to know if that's ever considered; nor would it be particularly significant, considering again Faber's theory that addresses it at least as satisfactorily, if not convincingly, per the universal commonality aspects of such and factual evidence]
    And if indeed, the “ND”E, however induced, gets folks detoxed of Authority-think, mahn, let’s figure a way to make having such as appealing and common as Xmass parties and 4th of July bbqs! ;-)

  184. staljans Says:

    WOW, I missed so much..will try to add my 10 cents in here..hope i dont get tasered by you god fearing people.

    re;Mally Says; …it seems clear to me that voluntarism is just a haven for atheists and anti-religious people.
    …I used to be in part of a “church/reLIEgion”..too many questions, not a single real answer…I volunteer to work or not to work, and am forced to work, only to pay the ever increasing bills.

    Malinson Says:
    I’m still waiting for my evidence Marc. Where is the evidence that belief in government is morally wrong?
    ..EVIDENCE?, what planet are you living on? what crack are you smoking?, dont you see what people called gov.co. are doing?,evidence? its all around you, are you so blind?you cannot see? or so deaf you cannot hear? is your head so far up your ass to not smell the rotting decay of death?

    Dan Says:I’ll bet if Marc Stevens jumped off a cliff you would too. Bozos.
    …we all have our own roads to follow, if you jumped of a cliff i’d just wonder why?, and what god complex you might of had?.and then continue on my own path, as if you never existed.

    Whip Says:If you atheists are so damned smart – fix the forum!
    Oh, that’s right, you clowns don’t fix anything, you just complain about it.
    …if you ?non-atheists? were so smart youd HAVE THE EVIDENCE of God, and ask him to fix the forum, in your prayers.

    re;“If involuntary services are truly wrong then I want the fact that it is and not just an opinion.”
    …if involuntary services were right, what evidence would you prove?to show me they were right?

    re;If the universe is truly infinite, it is then full of infinite possibilities. Is it really such a stretch to conclude that a perfect, all-knowing, all-loving being exists?
    …any evidence of this all loving being?..so far all i see is “it” rested and left after the 6th day…and not come back, guess it figured it screwed up, and no way to fix it.

    re;Many people who reject religion come to accept the existence of God.
    …and you have the proof? and evidence? of this all mighty god/God/GOD?..and if!? (this be true?) “we” were made in his?image (maybe its a female? since females create, and males destroy?),therefore, would we not be little “gods” our selves?, and if so (being little gods) why are we killing things, even just by walking on the ground? (ever see how many little creatures you kill everyday just by walking?..do you ever look down? , and see what you are trampling on?, not mentioning the animals we all kill to eat, and vegans? plants feel pain to, the aura changes as you eat/kill/boil/etc it)..so would god do the same?…if (he?) did make us in (his?) image..does that mean he? to is a sociopath? phsycopath? violent?, prejudice?, and what colour would he be?,grey?pink?black, white, yellow,red, or see through? or all colours combined ?

    re; rights don’t exist and that they are a fantasy?
    …hmmn? hypothetical, does a Lion have the right to kill and eat? its prey?, does the prey have the right to not be killed and eaten?, whom gave the priority of these rights..are some rights less then others? whos then more right? whats left?….I used to think I had rights not to be assaulted by crown/clown agents, they think they have the right to detain/arrest/assault me..so really? are there rights?, if so whos rights take priority? or are they just privileges? given to us little people? and termed “rights”.?

    re; Yet, without a right of possession there is no such thing as thievery. You can’t steal anything without transgression of right of possession; it’s an oxymoron to reject rights of possession whilst complaining against theft…
    …I possess things like cars, dogs, chickens..dosnt mean I have a “right” to possess it..i just hold on to it till the next thug takes it from me, with or without a badge…do chickens have rights?, do dogs have rights?

    re; Australia’s Law requiring people to vote. Notice the observational belief that we ALL are hold a degree of shared responsibility because we are all of the same family
    …so? I am forced to vote for “hitler” or “stalin”?..and that they get to decide what “our” family gets to do?..either kill jews or the slavs?..and I’m part of THAT? same family?..smoke another one dude…NO RULERS, no princes, no kings no queens, need apply…but who? will build more roads?..we have so much cement, and so little earth left to pave…who votes for more roads? and less trees? voting is a “right”? or a privilege? or a waste of my power of attorney?

    re;Mr. Stevens, you don’t even believe in the existance of individual rights so why are you even in my courtroom?’
    …cause one of your goons with guns, assaulted me..does he have a right to do that?, if so then “rights do exist?”..he had the right to shoot me for asking for evidence of his authority?..well guess rights, god, das state, do exist , Alice, pour me another cup of tea.

    re;Your tirades of how government is stealing from you is legendary and its unfairness well-known. You know that there is no possible way to argue a theft without a right of possession;
    …THEFT by gov.co.agents writting “violation” tickets, has nothing to do with my (alleged right )”possession” of my property., they steal by saying i did some wrong, and i need to pay them for my “sins”..isnt this theft? under the guise of “protecting my rights” and others rights?

    re;With the idea of inalienable rights, I would surmise that they would be rights that cannot be stripped away from you, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot be transgressed upon.
    …UN a lien able vs. IN a lien able..one is? liened, and is stripped? , other is not not?(un) liened..correct me if i’m wrong?

    in a nut shell…
    “God”..any evidence of it? besides blind beLIEving?
    “state”..any evidence of it? besides wo/men dressed in uniforms and carrying guns and badges?pretending to re-present it? like preists re-presenting god?
    “rights”..I still dont see the evidence of it?, i have a RIGHT TO SEE IT.show me the evidence, show me the right to it.(the “right” is a gov.co. privilage,(gov.co.word play))the gov.co. agent violated my “privilage” not to be assaulted..is it a privilege to be alive?, or a right to be?, life is violent.

    Jan, ( my right? to say my 10 cents worth )

  185. NonE Says:

    staljans sed: “…and ask him to fix the forum, in your prayers.”
    ———-
    LOVE IT! :-) :-) :-) – NonE

  186. Dan Says:

    Them canucks are a riot

  187. NonE Says:

    I”m wondering if anyone has an address for where we should send flowers in respect of Calvin’s passing. Anyone? – NonE

  188. eye2i Says:

    @MaliBloo: ” Each of us possesses three natured minds; the red … yellow … blue…” — That’s a fascinating way of expressing the experience of “mind”; the “light” spectrum and all. Tho it leaves out the aural? That’s not “mind” too? (granted, you may have simply been brief?) [and that it leaves out “black and white”…? well, most minds could do with a lot less of that, aye?!
    –NonProvErbial
    ______________________________________________________________________

    @NonE / staljans: “…and ask him to fix the forum, in your prayers.”
    ———-
    LOVE IT!

    –DITTO2!!
    (seeing as how beJezeus didn’t have (‘er, hadn’t “shared” *wink*wink*) the etech, would that have qualified as a “greater work”?!? raising the forum from the dead!?)

  189. eye2i Says:

    stalanjans / Jan,
    Have you considered participating in the forum? (you know, the one i prayed to MY doG of choice about and actually miraculously got it back up… sorry ’bout that, Calvin (that’s my goD’s name btw); he’s a good boy, yes he is, he’s a good boy! lol)
    Really, dude, you’ve obviously got h-u-g-e problems (probably from your abusive childhood, being gay, gang-banged, etc)– and they can all be further ridiculed and ignored over on the forum (and as a bonus, you may be called names; like “atheist”!! which isn’t as bad as when they do it in ALL CAPS!?! then there’s a corporation created!!!!!!! by The Creators of ALL!!!!!)!

    [seriously, hope you'll consider joining in over in the forum!?]
    http://marcstevens.net/board/index.php
    –eye2i2here (♫ but Betty when you call me you can call me An Asuperstitiousiest ♬…)

  190. eye2i Says:

    @NonE: Calvin hasn’t passed (which is not necessarily2be confused with having not passed gas); rather, he’s off chasing another bone(r), or sumpin’ (see “got a life”?).

    Which is just to say: there was no show this past week (due to continued lack of prayers –‘er due to further unanswered prayers?– or was that actually answered prayers!? ‘er aka continued technical diffiCULTies)

  191. eye2i Says:

    @Jan (duly noting that bit about “right” and 2cents worth). You talked about “right”, from the divine-reliegio=belief angle/construct– what of the result, as the product of logically consistent reasoning, or critical thinking and deductive evaluation, as the perspective and concept of ‘right’ values? You value the word ‘right’ in that context per chance? (it too, of course, is but a concept to value (or not), but where conceptualization being what distinguishes “us” per the “law of the jungle” as the only other option? As what “we” are left -or right- with?) ヅ

  192. NonE Says:

    eye2i Sed: Which is just to say: there was no show this past week…
    ———–
    Oh, THAT’s why there was a notification to that effect above. I couldn’t figure that out at first. I thought it was a pun based on the show and no state and such. I didn’t think it was too funny though. We need to get someone PERfessional to run things around here… like maybe GearTwit. That’s it! GearTwit. – NonSarcasticTwit

  193. malinson Says:

    @Eye11: In Giionism, the white and black you mentioned represent the pillars of existence that allow for the rising of the three main aspects. Think of them as the foundation of which allows for the rising of the land, sea and sky of our world.

  194. Steve Says:

    Did you quit? Haven’t seen a show since 11/30.

  195. Marc Stevens Says:

    @ steve, no I was starting the show yesterday and my audio wasn’t going to the network. I’m going to record the show for next week in case I can’t get this fixed.

  196. michael gazi Says:

    Hi Mark,Thanks you for the signed book haveing a job to put it down, your books will be a great help when i get the guts to take on these psychopaths i will let you know, i have to apply for a street trading licene every year and i hate giving them every bit of my busness details, like who are you employing how old you are how old they are what streets your doing at what time, and how about this,wear badges with there name and logo on it for a fee of 295 pounds for 6 months, if they want part of my busness how about a paying me a advertise fee. thanks again for the books, hope your soon back on your radio show can’t wait. Mick

  197. Jeffrey Evans Says:

    Hey Marc,

    I don’t know how to thank you for providing me with years of education within 500+ pages. You are a gifted man. I have been following you for over 6 years. I am presently living in Georgia (12 years now) and after calling the bureaucrats out 2 years after I moved there it was pure attacks on me and my son who was 16 at the time. I studied your method of effective damage control like I was in middle school; every night watching videos, researching Lexis-Nexis, and catalogs of Supreme court cases.
    I have been you student for a longtime. What empress me is that you do not let your knowledge of facts that can disembowel bureaucrats instantly with to or three questions get to your head. You are not narcissistic like the clowns you have on your call of same, I do admire you deeply in an emotional way because you help not only me but my family to shed the attacks by anti-social psychopaths. Many of the people I know, I have been spoon feeding them the “No State Project. You should (as I know you experience) the look of lethargic teenaged children diagnosis with sever cognitive dissonance. I have used in your “Adventures” book to heighten affidavits, and it is like I pimp smack the attorney’s DBA public defendants and our local prosecutors. I am a little apprehensive about writing summary judgments or writs of prohibitions because I haven’t had enough exposure or practice.

    I cannot exclude your buddies J.T., Calvin and Ian who make the No State Project an machine. I also like to thank those on your comments board who also bring a different perspective as individual for the cause non-violence, non-aggressive principle.

    I’ve learn to stop calling the pitiful bastards; officers of the court names involving profanity and used those to truthfully describe them, liars, thieves, crooks and anti-social psychopaths. They don’t not know how to respond to such truths when hit with their own citing’s from the lawyer in black dresses DBA the Supreme Court.

    Language is very powerful and more powerful in written form, because once in the record cannot be erased. Hell Marc, I got a pen gun and tape a calendar call my son had with a senior judge named e.m. wilkes III. I didn’t send it because in the background I used to much profanity and it was embarrassing, knowing you taught us to stay un-emotional and stick to the facts professionally. My son showed his pretense of fairness in that calendar call, and when we returned the next Friday, Mr. Wilkes III rescued himself (Tucked his gray-ass tail between his scrony legs), bailing out on the prosecutor Jan Kennedy who look like she was constipated trying to pass a turd upon hearing his voluntary copout.

    I live in Baxley, GA-the ole South! I intimidate these bureaucrats because of the literal/legal education you gave me, that they avoid eye contact with me; I’m talking about even the sheriff Benny Deloach.

    A deputy stopped my close friends Mexicans who were driving my truck with an 8ft. trailer attached. They got pulled over, and they stated the cop first words where “Your gonna get a ticket today” (no tax tag on trailer) My friend Daniel said, he told the cop that the truck belong to “Jeff Evans.” The cop wave him off and told Daniel to “get the F**K out of here. I wear no seatbelt, drive according to what I feel is a safe speed, come to a full stop and signal when I feel its safe to do so and these autotrons can be right behind me. I sometimes I feel in my heart they want to assassinate me. If I get more people to challenge them effectively in court that may try. I also am using the jurisdictional challenge with property taxes. The equalization board, city attorney, city manager again, act like I pimp smacked them and came back with the “because we say so,” B.S. So I hit them with some citing from the Supreme Court, and I haven’t got a response yet. I am a very visual and well-known and liked person in the community. My wife who is in Indiana (freezing) now, was a Ob/GYN who delivered a lot of babies in the 12 years of her solo practice. I’ve held, and watched many grow, and keep up with their names. Like when we were kids; I give them a quarter or fifty cent each time I see them. That’s approx. 2800 kids, and their parents know of me, and there is only 12-18k people in the county. Lots of Potential No Stater’s HuH!

    What also help me I am 6’2, 306 (not sloppy fat) Black and wear my hair in Locks that are a foot and a half long. I look similar to Lenox Lewis. So, I have an imposing image and when I speak, I use the language in “Adventures & GI” to present facts and this gets them stammering, lying as though they are punch drunk. Look me up on Facebook. Marc for a visual and believe me some day soon I will attend you seminar and be able to set one up next year. I will keep in mind to send in donations consistently because you deserve it. You could have publish this book in my name. You know and I know this book would have been a million seller the first few days upon it inception. Enough bending your ear. I love you Bro for care and concern for humanity and making a change for the better in my life. Do No Harm + Non-Violence and Non- Aggression Principle + Voluntary Society = Abolished Government(just a silly bunch of violent psychopaths.

  198. Jeffrey Evans Says:

    Please excuse my bad grammar and spelling to all! I don’t hold an advanced university degree! I am not an attorney.

  199. NonE Says:

    Jeffrey Evans, What an inspiring message to Marc. I couldn’t have said it better. I happen to agree with you. Marc’s humility and humanity is quite humbling to be around. I, like you, am so pleased to have encountered him in my life. – NonE

  200. ConQuesta Says:

    Apropos to questioning authority, in Washington State. Here is a dumb question. The WA State Constitution prohibits corporations from forming there own armed private militias. If municipalities are corporations, are not their armed police illegal armed militias? Assuming the State constitution, which allows creation of corporations applies to them, albeit not to humanoids, of course.

    Should they be disarmed? I.e. to make them behave more politely and act less dangerously to people who don’t believe in States or Cities? Is there a bond one can go after to stop Corporations from having armed milita? Mayoral? Police Chief? Who?

  201. NonE Says:

    ConQuesta Sed: WA State Constitution prohibits corporations from forming there own armed private militias. If municipalities are corporations, are not their armed police illegal armed militias?
    ——
    DUDE! This is brilliant. I would love to see someone take this ball and run with it. WHAT FUN!!!

    – NonE

  202. bruce sloane Says:

    @Conquesta
    they fulfill their role as Peace Officers, authorized by the State

  203. ConQuesta Says:

    Are Peace officers also “law enforcement officers”? I.e. enforcing revenue generating laws inapplicable to most people. Is there a difference?

  204. bruce sloane Says:

    Private corporations can also register their employees as peace officers with the state Division of Criminal Justice Services. example is the resident-owned RiverBay Corporation’s Co-op City Department of Public Safety in New York City which, as of 2008, employs more than 100 public safety officers that are sworn as Special Patrolmen.[11]

2 Trackbacks For This Post

  1. NSP – Nov 30, 2013 – [LRN.fm Broadcast Version] - Unofficial Network Says:

    […] post NSP – Nov 30, 2013 – [LRN.fm Broadcast Version] appeared first on […]

  2. Page not found | Earth Freedom News Says:

    […] NSP – Nov 30, 2013 – [LRN.fm Broadcast Version] […]

Leave a Reply

Advertise Here

Upcoming Events


Saturday, November 1st, 4-7pm EST: Marc will be broadcasting another LIVE edition of the No STATE Project radio show again this week from deep within the 'fortified compound.' If you are being attacked by those with arbitrary titles and shiny badges, or if you have an interesting observation or criticism; then you can call into the show at (218)632-9399 or we can skype you in during a break. 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 role play to refine your litigation and boost your confidence if you have a court hearing coming up.

Here is a comprehensive list of ways you can interact with the No STATE Project community should you feel compelled to fall even deeper down the rabbit-hole.











Join Marc Stevens' Newsletter


Advertise Here