Free State Wyoming Forum
Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Prospective Free State Wyoming (FSW) Members and Interested Parties => Topic started by: Tornos on August 29, 2009, 04:58:07 AM
-
Hello fellow Freedom Lovers,
Before I get too deep into who I am, and all that, I want to find out if I even fit here. I've read your FAQ, and the 'about us' section of your website, and several threads on this forum that caught my interest. I haven't yet read 'Molon Labe', though I've ordered it... along with 'Hologram of Liberty'. I have some concerns that I hope the kind posters here can help me with. Please know that my questioning is not intended to incite, and is honest.
It's important that I reveal one thing about myself, by way of disclosure. I work as a Deputy Sheriff. This is the fountain from which some of my concerns flow, but not all of them. I'm not ashamed to work in law enforcement, but neither does it make me feel powerful or superior. I got into my profession because I believe in the fair enforcement of just laws... those that are founded in Natural Law... the sort that say 'your freedom to swing your fist stops where my nose begins'. I am an Oathkeepers kind of peace officer. I do, however, believe that there is a place for laws in society... just laws as I defined them above, set up by the people, and bound by constitutional restraints. So, without further ado...
Questions: Does FSW completely oppose all government? I ask because of statements I've seen on these forums decrying laws in general, and putting down 'cops'. Is there any place in your vision of Wyoming for local, community based government? State government? I wont ask about Federal government, because I think we're together on how out of control that's become. Is the goal to live completely without restraint on any level other than personal?
I truly appreciate your honest answers.
-Shawn
-
Welcome, Shawn. Only you can determine that for yourself, but give it some time. Each of us can only speak for him/herself. You'll hear from others, I'm sure.
Every society needs those who are willing and able to be peacekeepers. The 'peace officer' of today comes closest to that professionally, but the bottom line is that each of us who are able must be willing to do that for ourselves. For example, I carry a gun every day, everywhere I go. I don't even dream that I could handle each and every potential danger on my own, but as a trained and armed person I have a MUCH better chance of doing so than someone walking around unarmed and oblivious to their surroundings who is trusting the "cops" to protect them.
If you are able to accept that each person owns their own life and body, and is fully responsible for that life, choices and actions... then you will probably fit in here well, regardless of your current job.
Most of us have had very bad experiences with "law enforcement" and many are not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think most of us will give that chance to a "peace officer." Let's talk about it. :)
-
Hey, they seem to accept me, and I'm a federal naval officer. I even admittedly fly black helicopters! >:D
Honestly, there is a spectrum here. Generally I'd say most lean towards the anarchist, no government side of that. However, when you get out the microscope and look closer, there are pure anachro-capitalists, minarchists, and even a few that touch more on the traditional "republican-conservative" side. There are atheists, agnostics, and devout practitioners of a few religions (though mostly Christian-based). The common thread that seems to bind us all is a love for all things shooting related, a general feeling that there's something amiss in the world right now, and a strong belief that government has grown too unwieldy to handle it and was the biggest cause of the problem anyhow.
I think if you take some of the folks here who bash cops in stride, and you truly believe you're a peace officer, you'll fit in just fine. Take a few people with a grain of salt. We can't all agree all of the time. That would be the other side of the spectrum, communism.
-
Yes, there's room for a wide spectrum here, I for one might fit into the conservative republic category. (NOT Republican). I've said I would settle on the federal side just for strict adhereance to the Constitution. (Not that much to ask for)
-
Welcome!! i for one would like to hear a LEO imput on some of our issues. Some behind the scenes opinions. We all like to spout off, but its obvious that our opinions are not always reality based. it is our 'druthers'. i am focused on survival, and that is all about reality. i also have my preferences but they arn't always connected to reality. and reality is what is hitting us all in the face right now. i am very concerned about networking to be prepared to get through the hard times here and coming. and i don't like playing with guns so much as feel it is necessary to survival. i live in Fremont Co and out in the country. the 15 min plus time of response of the LEO is what i have to survive. And when it gets bad, there won't be near enough LEO's to go around. i have a relative who is a LEO and have treasured the advice he can give me. Dove
-
I personally do not like the term LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), to much authoritarianism to it. The term (Peace Officer) to me was what they were yrs. ago. LEO has a grate to it for me, but thats a personal take. I see no problem here for you if you can take what is said and roll it around in your head with reason and thoughtfulness to come to terms with it. You will find that most here do not hold back in there opinions but this is the kind of place this is. On the other side of it you may say your piece just as anyone else does. Our government (Fed) is completely out of the fence of the constitution and should be herded back inside that boundary. Some of our local gov. (Chicago) for example is corrupt to the core and gov. as an overall example from great to the worst on the meter. Discussions here cover it all and in a direct and to the point manner. You will also find the deportment the best you will find on any forum of its members. Look us over, make up your own mind. Nothing is held back here.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.".
Edward Abbey
-
You are welcome here as far as I am concerned. If you are more of a peace officer than a LEO .
There are many laws on the books, so many that we all become criminals.
Others have already said it better than I, just be willing to debate with an open mind and you will be fine.
I believe we have had a lot of other discussions on this topic so dig around in the threads to get a better feel.
By the way if you are an Oath Keeper you are a giant leap above most in your field.
-
Good Morning, Shawn,
Only speaking for myself ... but, I don't think anyone here truly believes in "no government what-so-ever". After all, when you have two people trying to co-exist you have a form of government, by agreement. Even in a household - who does what, when, where, and how, is a form of government.
If you are refering to the Deer Creek / beat up on the tractor driver, JBT type of law enforcement officer - then, yes we (many of us) have put down "cops". I don't think too many us would not like 'cops' just because they are cops. If they abide by their oath and engage in LAWFUL activities, as opposed to "legal" yet "unlawful, o.k. Many 'laws' are not lawful and should not be enforced. Unfortunately, there are those in uniform simply to force their will on everyone else under "colour of law".
A small word of advice. Don't make the same mistake as others have recently done. Don't be 'secretive', and, at the same time, pump everyone for 'personal' information. Give a little in order to receive. Be open and above-board when dealing with the people here. When you get on a 'personal' and/or 'friendly' basis, then deal with information of a 'personal' and/or 'friendly' nature.
We have many different people here, with many different outlooks and beliefs. Have a certain amount of respect for others and they will respect you as well. Agree to disagree, so to speak, but don't try to hammer anyone with your beliefs. If it's good, and it works, you'll eventually make your point.
Good books, both, and there are many more out there to read as well.
I live just down the street from a deputy, and count a few LEO's as 'friends'. All I ask, personally, is that you live by the oath you took, and administer the 'lawful' laws in as fair and just manner as possible. There are many things that should not be done in some situations, but that do not need a "law" saying the these things CANNOT be done. Perhaps, a warning as regards the possible consequences of continuing a certain behavior ... Why would one need a ticket for driving too fast on an open road with no traffic, etc., - if you drive too fast, trash your own car (or motorcycle) and bust yourself up ... whose business is it but your own, just fix the damage to the road and clean up the mess. When I was 16, I lost control of my car, doing something stupid, ('51 Plymouth - I loved that car!) and took out 6' of Ontario, CA, city curbing. I got to pay for the curb replacement and my car sat down at Uncle Carl's for about 9 months, until I had the money to get it fixed and driveable. Yes, the cops talked to me, so did my dad, so did my granddad (that hurt worse than anything else). Did I learn my lesson - Yes! Did I ever do another 'stupid thing' that cost me? Of Course! But I learned to accept the responsibility for my actions - if everyone accepted the responsibility for their actions, I don't think we'd have a need for "Law Enforcement" and you guys could go back to being "Peace Officers".
Sorry about the Rant!
From what you've written here, It seems as if you are on the right, proper, correct, what-ever, side of things - and welcome! Come on in, kick off the boots, relax, enjoy yourself. By and large, most here just want to be left in peace and try to do the same for others.
Ask questions, read the past postings, be honest and forth-right, and everybody should have a real good time.
-
Only speaking for myself ... but, I don't think anyone here truly believes in "no government what-so-ever". After all, when you have two people trying to co-exist you have a form of government, by agreement
Actually Big Ugly, that's often called "society"
or a "natural social construct." I.e. humans are naturally social creatures and try to get along with others of their kind. Spontaneous order arises, but natural constructs like "society" do not require imposition on others through force. Animals with claws respect each other, hell, even the skunks out here don't shoot first. They stop, appraise me, i'm armed walking my dog, i stop appraise him, then from 5 feet away we each nod away and keep going. There's no cop to tell me not to pick him off with my .22 and no skunk cop to arrest him if he sprays me. We're each armed, and conserving of our ammo.
Government is, by its nature, an artificial construct, imposed by the governing upon the governed. All pretenses to the contrary have had very bloody results (as they will again and again wherever tried.)
Waste is a natural government feature. Think of Buffalo Bill. I recall him and others being hired to destroy the native food supply. Today the army corps are funding genetic sequencing projects all along the york river. Why? Well certainly not to increase the food supply. After 20 years of such work, they would've figured something out. It only took Tesla half that to come up with the electrical grid, generation devices and overhaul the multi phase motor. But he was a private scientist, while these are government scientists.
So back to our subject. As far as I'm concerned, Shawn, you're fleeing the sinking ship before you end up getting picked off by vengeful types. HOWEVER! Once in Wyoming, if you turn over a new leaf, get a productive job, and don't get authoritarian with me or those I know who don't demand your "shepherding them"... I'll gladly drink a beer with you, or shoot some prairie dogs together.
The state is every man's enemy, even its servants. You, however, are not, at least not until you pull me over or put your hand on your gun while interacting with me in uniform. Many a cop has done that walking up to my vehicle, and I had to resist the instinct to shoot a man so wantonly threatening me with lethal violence before we'd even made eye contact. Each cop who pulled me over, in that swaggering bullying, threatening manner, announced he was my enemy before we ever met. Don't behave like that, and, if you're able, stop accepting stolen loot as paycheck... and I'll have no beef with you from the perspective of "you were a cop." Even if you can't stop accepting tax money (aka, tribute, or plundered wealth/stolen loot) having an insider as a friend can't hurt... but I wonder, when we meet, if you're in uniform, will you act like the servant, or the master? Will you act like the thankful dog that eats the bread taken from me to feed you, or will you bite the hand that feeds you? That alone will tell how our potential friendship would progress (i.e. if at all.) I won't judge you as a "piece of crap cop/LEO" UNTIL you behave like one. After that, all the leaves in the world turning over won't redeem you in my eyes.
However, based on the uniform, I'll have to assume the worst, just as if Blaineus landed his "black chopper" on my lawn, I'd greet him over my sights (while grabbing one more girlscout cookie, to paraphrase a recent thread here), and if he then tells me who he is, and says he's "finally making proper use of company resources" to come toss down a brewski with me, the sights go back over my shoulder, I greet him, and grab two cold ones from the fridge, and maybe some of those deeelicious but dubiously composed girlscout cookies...
-
However, based on the uniform, I'll have to assume the worst, just as if Blaineus landed his "black chopper" on my lawn, I'd greet him over my sights (while grabbing one more girlscout cookie, to paraphrase a recent thread here), and if he then tells me who he is, and says he's "finally making proper use of company resources" to come toss down a brewski with me, the sights go back over my shoulder, I greet him, and grab two cold ones from the fridge, and maybe some of those deeelicious but dubiously composed girlscout cookies...
You'd have to have a REALLY big lawn Elk... so, I don't think you have any worries. Plus you can hear the Big Iron from about three miles away at least, so I imagine I wouldn't get that close. Love to share a beer though! :P
-
Questions: Does FSW completely oppose all government? I ask because of statements I've seen on these forums decrying laws in general, and putting down 'cops'. Is there any place in your vision of Wyoming for local, community based government? State government? I wont ask about Federal government, because I think we're together on how out of control that's become. Is the goal to live completely without restraint on any level other than personal?
My views are my own... the FSW is not a "collectivist" group, and thus, while we are "we" insofar as our conversations go, and potential interpersonal interactions, there is no "we" as far as, one speaking for all. As far as I understand, the FSW is private space, the forum belongs to Joseph, and the FSW trademark belongs to Boston. All comments belong to the posters who post them.
That being said, while amongst the FSW I abide (as much as necessary for civilized discourse and association with others here) by its rules. If, someday, Boston or Joseph really get upset with me being fairly outspoken, I'll have to respect their views and walk away (or get banned)... but by the same token, if they're ever on my property I expect the same civilized behavior from them. And indeed, your right to enforce laws, regardless of their "constitutionality" ends at my and others' noses. I have no need of your laws, I am, in fact, MORE civilized when I'm not worried that someone's trying to entrap me into breaking a law, be it constitutional or not. So as far as I'm concerned, that's my view on "law" and man. There's natural laws, and there's government laws. Nature's laws ensure man keeps living as man. Government's laws ensure man is reduced to a worthless beast of burden, carrying the load of the parasites AND the taboos and idiocies pushed forward onto men's backs by government and its willing aides.
That's the way I see it. If others see it differently, by all means, they're welcome to their views. But if they seek to enforce them upon me... I'm fast approaching that time when I'll be utterly sick of living under threat of robbery under color of law. Thankfully, I've still got things I'm unwilling to lose. But the government is daily finding ways to strip me of them. When it finally robs me of that final thing, whichever that may be... well, hopefully you won't be the one sent to take it, because that will be the day I stop being civilized.
---------------------
Blaineus, hahaha, I got a garden, mate. You land on that, I might not be too forgiving, and you'll damn well be paying for the watermelons! :) That aside, the parking side of the house isn't half bad, just be careful of the power lines and internet feed... same as the garden, I paid for that, and it was money earned honestly, hauling stuff people paid for. (had them moved away from the trees during the last hurricane, apparently the neighbors branches kept breaking my lines, and they were not willing to cut down the trees. See, you just reminded me of yet ANOTHER civilized solution that was resolved by me, the cable company and my neighbors. Amazing how this civilization thing works when not interfered with... and despite me packing a pistol, nobody got shot. Crap, there goes another of Sarah Brady's little idealisms.
But yeah, the brewski is game... If I see you in the near future, before the idiots declare beer against their national health care "imperatives"... we can still "legally" enjoy it... and poor Shawn won't have to jump through hoops to drop by and "not find" anything. Hah!
-
So back to our subject. As far as I'm concerned, Shawn, you're fleeing the sinking ship before you end up getting picked off by vengeful types. HOWEVER! Once in Wyoming, if you turn over a new leaf, get a productive job, and don't get authoritarian with me or those I know who don't demand your "shepherding them"... I'll gladly drink a beer with you, or shoot some prairie dogs together.
.... Don't behave like that, and, if you're able, stop accepting stolen loot as paycheck... and I'll have no beef with you from the perspective of "you were a cop." Even if you can't stop accepting tax money (aka, tribute, or plundered wealth/stolen loot) having an insider as a friend can't hurt... but I wonder, when we meet, if you're in uniform, will you act like the servant, or the master? Will you act like the thankful dog that eats the bread taken from me to feed you, or will you bite the hand that feeds you? That alone will tell how our potential friendship would progress (i.e. if at all.) I won't judge you as a "piece of crap cop/LEO" UNTIL you behave like one. After that, all the leaves in the world turning over won't redeem you in my eyes.
However, based on the uniform, I'll have to assume the worst, just as if Blaineus landed his "black chopper" on my lawn, I'd greet him over my sights (while grabbing one more girlscout cookie, to paraphrase a recent thread here), and if he then tells me who he is, and says he's "finally making proper use of company resources" to come toss down a brewski with me, the sights go back over my shoulder, I greet him, and grab two cold ones from the fridge, and maybe some of those deeelicious but dubiously composed girlscout cookies...
Do you "allow" the loot to be stolen from you? Until you quit feeding, supporting, and upholding the machine with your taxes, all your brave words are nothing but hot air. You like to gripe a lot about government waste, and you LOVE to brag about how you will shoot others for much lesser infringements, or come close to shooting them for touching a gun on a traffic stop, but then do you meekly submit to the government taking more money from you then you will spend on food, clothing, and shelter this year? I wont say you are bluffing, I will say you are either a liar or you don't know yourself very well at all. If blaineus landed in your yard tomorrow and flattened your entire garden, I doubt very much you would do anything other than complain on here about it.
It is very easy to gripe and make long-winded speeches on an internet message board, it is another to actually do anything productive toward the cause of liberty. It is time a lot of us libertarian folks got our head out of the clouds and quit complaining that we dont have utopia, and do something realistic about making things better.
For my part Toros, I say good work and keep at it. The position that you are in is going to be filled by SOMEONE, as long as people like elk and I are still paying the taxes to support the position. Much better to have a Peace Officer in that position who understands Natural Law and will respect others liberties, than to have someone in there just because they want some authority. Spend your time chasing the thieves, murderers, rapists, and those who commit actual crimes against others. If more GOOD people did it, we would have a great deal of improvement very quickly. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what laws the goons in Washington pass if the "enforcement" arm refuses to follow them.
Better yet, let them pay for your training and your inside intelligence to help the cause.
-
I, for one, have never had a bad experience with law enforcement. Quite the contrary. Both in NV and here in WY the local deputies seem like pretty good folks. We had two nice guys visit us during our summer get together and was refreshing to see the attitude of the both of them.
I try to judge each person individually. I don't always succeed, but I can hopefully look beyond whether they wear a badge, the color of their skin, or their religion (as long as they don't try to force their views on me).
Welcome.
Mac
-
We had two nice guys visit us during our summer get together and was refreshing to see the attitude of the both of them.
Yeah, how often do the local Sheriffs stop by to talk guns and hand out free ammo! 8)
-
Thank you for all of your replies! I feel somewhat reassured, after reading them all. It’s obvious that there is indeed a wide spectrum of opinion here… but the majority of that opinion seems less anarchist than I had feared. I think I’ll fit in well enough.
MamaLiberty / KentuckyRifle / wyomiles: I’m glad we agree that peacekeepers are necessary. That is a large part of what I believe a peace officer should be. Those who can defend themselves, have every right to do so. Unfortunately, those who are helpless for whatever reason, make easy and frequent victims for true criminals. The problem most people have with ‘cops’ comes from either the wrong people doing the job, or the spiderweb state of our legal codes. You’re right that there are too many damned laws. Busybody legislators are to blame for that… but so are we all, because we elected them. The solutions are to make sure good folk are working in local law enforcement (can’t do much about the feds), and organize to vote in good representatives.
Elk : Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. It seems you’ve had some very bad experiences with law enforcement. I hope they were more misunderstanding than real injury. There are some working as law enforcement officers who don’t understand their role, or are bullies by nature. It’s unfortunate that they are the ones many people remember so vividly. On the other hand, I can assure you that I will never approach another man and act like a ‘thankful dog’… whether in uniform or not. Expecting that kind of thing could set the foundation for a negative encounter with anyone. We could get into a discussion about the evil of taxation and government that would go on for pages… let’s just say that I agree the government in general is a bloated parasite… but I think that law enforcement and national defense are necessary duties of it… though even those two duties are overfunded and abused by our lawmakers.
Big Ugly: You're right. And I will better introduce myself in another reply. This one is getting too long for my browser.
And to everyone else, thanks very much for the welcomes. I hope we’ll have many productive discussions in the future. Maybe I’ll even have the chance to join those of you on the frontiers of freedom. Handing out free ammo?!? I can't even get any for myself around here.
-
Well, this turned into another political philosophy thread. :P I'll just add a bit, can't help myself...
Does FSW completely oppose all government?
No. I oppose all government. As do some others, obviously.
I know there are good cops and bad cops. Bad cops are bad for obvious reasons. But good cops are also bad, for the same reason that good government school teachers are bad: because they are the ones propping up the system. If it weren't for them, people would much more quickly tire of government and do the right thing (that being defend themselves, and school their own children).
I also know only a small minority think the way I do. I would be happiest if government ceased to exist, but would be satisfied if government simply left me alone. I know most others are not ready for "no government" yet. That's why I think it should break down by communities, some of them with some different forms of government, others with no government, just voluntary associations. See which ends up working best.
It's also a matter of, well, consensus might be too strong a word, but most here think that counties like Crook and Weston need a pro-freedom sheriff. Even if that implies government (details to be worked out later). So on that score your presence is particularly welcome.
Don't mind the anarchists. You will find them as easy to get along with as can be. Particularly when you are out of uniform. ;)
-
Thanks Paul... sort of. ;) You were one of the folks I was worried might want to rip my head off. I saw "Laws turn men into sheep" and had to disagree. I'd say "Unjust laws turn men into sheep", because decent folk aren't touched in the least by those laws firmly grounded in the Natural Law. But we'll just disagree a little, and that's cool. I'd be most happy in a nation founded on a Constitution along the lines of the CSA's (minus the sections sanctioning slavery, of course)... and you might chafe in a nation founded on the Articles of Confederation. But we'd both be much happier with either option than with what we're getting now.
Introduction:
Hi! My name is Shawn, and I live in California (Kalifornia? sure, fine). I was born here, as was my wife. For the longest time, we didn't know anything different. There was a time when Reagan was our Governor, after all. The state's been on a steep downhill grade for a long time. I was born in the Los Angeles area, and have steadily moved away from that Sodom... but obviously haven't escaped far enough yet.
As you know, I'm a Deputy Sheriff. I'm fortunate enough to work for a Department that's still pretty old fashioned. I have no pressure on me to write tickets... and I write very few indeed. I enjoy taking thieves and liars to jail... especially liars. Once in a while I see something that truly disgusts me, or disturbs me. Gang members, for instance. Once in a while I get to help someone who truly needed me. There are ups and downs like anything else.
I have two daughters, ages 6 and 5. They're in a form of public school called a parent choice school. I tell myself that it's better than most public school situations, and it is. I tell myself that I can educate them at home to fight their indoctrination, and I do. But deep down, I know it's not good enough.
My wife, Alina, and I have been together for 17 years. She wants to move out of California too, but can't understand what I'd see in Wyoming. It'll grow on her... I'm thinking a vacation next summer will be a huge step toward that. For the time being, I'll post here and there, and try to become one of the community. I hope to make a lot of like minded (some more, some less) friends.
Talk to you soon!
-
Tornos,
I think you may have found a home... and welcome. :)
I, much like Paul, would be very happy to suffer from benign neglect from the government. I like the concept of natural law, but then do we need enforcers or instead do we need just judges, much as the Old Testament. A complaint was made, for instance, the case was tried, and if the party was found guilty, the injured party cast the first stone, so to speak.
I would be interested in your comments on, "What is natural law?" You can click through to a thread that might be considered more on topic for this response. I have posed this question there. Liberty without Morality will bring Neither (http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=8169.msg68452#msg68452)
Once again welcome!
Regards, Danl ~W~
-
fwiw, i'm in the no gov't group as well. society yes absolutely - division of labor is great!
i have no use for law enforcement. it is part of a continuing stratifcation of this country. the politicians are practically untouchable and can get away with anything. cops can lie and kill also with practical impunity. one mans word in a 'court' of law is better than anothers if he wears a badge...puhlease..that's ridiculous
i like the 'idea' of a peace officer, but how does the man leave all his baggage at home and bring no bias to the job? law enforcement.....most don't have any idea of what constitutes a common law crime. if the critters in the state house or congress passed a law stating 'receding hairlines are a crime', most cops would arrest hair challenged folks and say 'i'm just doing my job'.
so, do you know what a 'crime' is?
-
Hi, Shawn,
I, too, was born in Southern California, still have brothers there.
I grew up there in the 50's and 60's, when there were still some freedoms inherent.
I left in the early 70's, went back to visit in the mid-80's - vowed never to return!
It was quite a shock moving from an area where, if you drove more than 5 or 10 miles to get to a store, you were just wasting gas, to an area where a 2-hour drive was a requirement. Tell your wife, it's the starkness ... that's part of what makes the people less so. The harsher the environment, seems the kinder and more resilient the people, but not to be taken advantage of. Bring the family out and see what's out here - they might be surprised.
May I ask, what County?
-
May I ask, what County?
San Bernardino.
-
San Bernardino.
Oh dear... my condolences. >:D I lived and worked there for more than 20 years.
-
Actually, Most of the Deputies in San Berdoo County were better than most, right there along with the most Eastern and Northern Counties.
Stand to, Hold true to your Oath.
-
Actually, Most of the Deputies in San Berdoo County were better than most, right there along with the most Eastern and Northern Counties.
Stand to, Hold true to your Oath.
Depends on when you were there. Sheriff Tidwell, a neighbor of mine in the 60s and 70s, was an old time 'peace officer' and a fine gentleman. After he retired, several far lesser men were sheriff, and at the last (late 1990s) the entire sheriff's department had a reputation for corruption and growing gestapo tendencies. Many of the local police departments had similar reputations.
-
Well, you can unelect a sheriff you can't unelect his posse of unelected deputies. I was in gloucester. One old fellow guards the cinema on saturdays on the point. Total gentleman. Damn shame he wears an uniform. I'd rather see him as well paid private security.
A younger, crew cut JERK, for lack of more christian friendly profanity (family friendly's a misnomer pushed by the theocrats as far as I'm concerned) decides to thug on me while I'm waiting for my father outside the farm fresh. Now, get this right, I'm in the fire lane... there's space all over, I'm where I can see any vehicle coming and move my car. Yet the idiot just wanted to exercise his "authoritah."
Sorry, I don't agree with you on that Shawn. I don't need protectors, and neither does any man worthy of life. If you deserve your life, you take steps to protect it as best you can, and enrich it, in both material and spiritual wealth (goodies + friends + accomplishments and knowledge)... however I must draw the worst of the cops out when I'm out... or I simply don't kowtow to them.
Hint, the rules out here are fairly simple... you can be waiting for someone outside a store in the fire lane ONLY if you're awake and in your car. I even had the car running. If a fire engine or ambulance could not have found anywhere to park but my spot, out of the 300 square feet of firelane in front of that store... I would have gladly moved to make room. Deputy Dipshit just wanted to show me who's boss. Since I didn't feel like being arrested, and put my new home on the office record by giving them my address, I decided to play along... merely to keep my anonymity.
I can't say as I'll feel sorry for Deputy Dipshit's family when some gangbanger blows him away in Hampton. In fact, I might just cheer and praise the man in the local rebel rag. This jerk has it coming.
So no, I wager all we're seeing now, is simply the end result of government, sorry to be the bringer of bad news Shawn. You're in a line of work for cutthroats and murderers and thugs. If you're a good guy, start your own private security group, and screen your customers. Contract with a gated community, and screen your employees too. Short of being sheriff voluntarily and running a department based on voluntary donations, I don't see how it can be done via natural law. I thought the concept of natural law was, you seek what you desire and compensate those who possess it, unless you prefer to overpower them,and take, and then run the risk of them fighting back and defeating you. "We" have no natural law, since uniformed men automatically have all the rights, and non uniformed men are "civilians" receiving neither respect due, nor any thanks for the fact that the uniformed, producing nothing, would starve to death without those whom they tax, abuse and fleece.
Sorry mate, just how I see it. I understand that the position would be filled.
My father once asked me "and what would you replace the government with?"
I asked him... "if you got cancer, what would you replace a bulging deadly tumor with?"
He doesn't get metaphors easily, but I wager you do. So while its still around, sure, do it since policing is one of the few paid jobs left (as is the case in all metastasized states.) However, line up something honorable for when the state goes away... if even for a brief interlude in a sea of stupidity or tyranny. (Something honorable means that I can opt out of it without your colleagues dressing up in Counterstrike getups and kicking my door in to "confiscate" my "unlicensed paraphernalia" for whatever the new taboos will be.)
-
I'd say "Unjust laws turn men into sheep", because decent folk aren't touched in the least by those laws firmly grounded in the Natural Law.
So Shawn, you don't bother folks driving around with expired tags? We'll get along just fine. :)
I can kinda see your point about unjust laws, but it's not just the unjust laws that turn men into sheep. The just ones do too. What I mean is, they make people stop thinking about what is right and wrong, what they are willing to put up with, what they purposefully disobey, why they should or shouldn't do that, how to respond if braced by a cop, etc. If there were nothing but just laws out there, they would still cause that problem. "It's the law, all I need to know!" Er, no.
Ever read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience? Everyone should be familiar with it, and others like it. But they are not. They are sheep. (Here I am, calling people sheep, when I have nagged others about doing that. ::))
People need to get beyond their indoctrination in the government youth camps and start thinking about these things.
-
'Gestapo tendencies' is a little dramatic, I hope. There are those in my Department who are more like what you describe, yes. My only point defending my Department is that I'm not pressured to go that route. I never said it was a perfect example of what a Sheriff's Office should be.
To Elk: Yes, you can unelect a Sheriff, but not his deputies. However, a County Sheriff has near total influence over how his deputies do their work, if he cares to exercise it. And if they're not working according to policy he sets, he can fire them. It happens all the time. That other stuff you said... like the man who ticketed you because you were in a fire lane deserving to be gunned down, and having no sympathy for his family, is hateful garbage. Luckily, I know it isn't representative of the spirit of this group. We disagree, and it would be useless to argue with you.
In fact, I won't argue with any of the 'no government' crowd. We just disagree. I'm an 'almost no government' sort... a 'government that stays within the bounds of the Constitution' sort. I'm of Ron Paul's philosophy. And even then I admit that the Constitution has a few Hamiltonian poison pills in it that it would be great to correct. One day perhaps we'll have another Constitutional Convention and do that. But, even as it is, if our Constitution were interpreted according to what was meant at the time it was written, instead of twisted and tortured by successive generations of political lawyers, it would serve its purpose fine and we wouldn't have these problems.
Now, to get more realistic and into the short term... Isn't one of the major purposes of the FSW project to weigh the population of Wyoming such that political change can be affected... through the system? There is a way to limit the government, to get them out of your life, through election of liberty minded representatives. Dont like having to register your vehicles (just one example)? Get your representatives to repeal that law. Privatize the roads and maintenance of them. I'm all for that... but expect to pay the folks who maintain those roads then.
If what I described in the last paragraph is a goal of the FSW, along with having good, freedom loving neighbors, then I belong here. If the goal is to overthrow all government, I do not. I still have hope for a return to freedom through educating the citizenry and state-level political organization.
-Shawn
-
HMMmmm, well Shawn, if you want a political solution to the problems politically. How do you solve them with politicians making the decisions to solve the political problems??? Oxymoron????
-
Hi Shawn, and welcome to our forum.
As the Founder of the FSW, I can state that the FSW is not an anarchist org.
Personally, I'd like to reduce government to the smallest level possible, but I
also am doubtful that government could be erased altogether. Besides, it would
take decades to achieve that, making the prospect more theoretical than practical.
Basically, I think that most FSWers want a small and responsible government acting
in the best interests of The People, and constrained by law. We don't yet have that anywhere.
I am an Oathkeepers kind of peace officer.
Good enough for me!
I'm looking forward to meeting you and your family out here sometime.
~W~
Boston
-
Jubal: Elect the right ones. If the right ones aren't running, get someone you know is right and make them run! Then vote for them. Or run yourself. There are a few examples of politicians who will shrink the state out there... Ron Paul of TX, Jason Chaffetz of UT, Michelle Bachmann of MN, to name a few. And those are from the U.S. House of Representatives, so there must be even better folks to be found in local politics... if we really, really look carefully. Why the state of politics in the U.S. is in such disrepair is that we didn't pay attention... and neither did our parents or grandparents. Most people still just look for an R or D after a name, and then pull the lever. It can be done if we educate ourselves, educate our kids, and work smart. Maybe I'm just an optimist?
Boston: Thanks. I appreciate the welcomes from everyone. I'll stick around, meet and greet on the forum... and even read some good books! With any luck I'll be in Wyoming with the family to visit/recon next summer. Until then!
-Shawn
-
That other stuff you said... like the man who ticketed you because you were in a fire lane deserving to be gunned down, and having no sympathy for his family, is hateful garbage. Luckily, I know it isn't representative of the spirit of this group. We disagree, and it would be useless to argue with you.
Its not tickets that piss me off, Shawn, those are just cops extracting undeserved wealth. How do i produce the wealth? By exchanging my finite lifespan for goods... by exchanging the lifespan of my body by working it and keeping it for things that produce wealth. What does a cop do when he bullies me? He robs me of my dignity. If I do it to a cop, I either get, tazed, shot, or arrested and beaten within an inch of my life. What does a cop do when he extracts my wealth via tickets, fines, or impounding my vehicle? He steals time from my life. He murders me early. I find those who do that get what they deserve. I'm no longer sympathetic to the "plight of the officers." Let Yahweh and Jesus forgive and sympathize... I don't have that luxury. Spend a day or a week working for free to feed a cop's family after getting a bureaucratic ticket for a malum prohibitum, and see how much sympathy you feel for them.
State cop cars out here state "Sic Semper Tyrannis." Really? Funny hypocrisy given that the symbol surrounded by the saying is a tyrant slain by Lady Liberty."... though of course, I've lately understood it differently. Its a sovereign freeman killed for not submitting. Maybe its a matter of perspective.
I just hate bandits who steal from me, regardless of how many kids they have. Its nothing personal with you mate. But if you choose to be a shepherd, you'll naturally eat sheep meat, fleece sheep, and raise sheep.
-
But that being said, that's food for thought for you. As far as I'm concerned, until you steal from me directly via a ticket, waste of my time, or impounding, you and I will see eye to eye. After that, lets say your humanity decreases in my eyes.
Until then, if a bad guy goes after you out of uniform, you'll have my willing help/support fire/ etc. If you ticket me or rob me, or threaten me and humiliate me from the protection of your uniform, your wellbeing no longer matters to me, don't expect me to spare even a band aid or a cellphone call to the ambulance if you're hurt. Call it a contractual remedy. I won't go out of my way to hurt you unless you hurt me directly, but as with the first ticket I ever got... I had been a willing donor to several "help the deceased officers' families" funds. First ticket I got, was half of what I donated to each of those funds... I saved a lot of money since that year.
That's what I meant that I'd feel no sympathy for him or his family. Why should I donate for their kids to get teddy bears, when that ticket money is teddy bears my potential kids wouldn't have? So as far as I'm concerned, any cop who wastes my time or resources, is what any other robber is. My enemy.
Don't act like my enemy, and we can be friends for sure. I'd have more to say on the bureaucratic nightmare that the roadways have become, thanks to "effective policing." But I wager cops don't care since it keeps them fed and employed, and everyone else doesn't care because it only affects them when transportation costs go up, or things aren't shipped to the store on time. And then they blame greedy companies instead of effective policing of whatever malum prohibitum "crimes" they can nail you for.
But as you said you're a good guy, I'd say, so get the hell out of Cali before the floodgates open, and get yerself to Wyoming where they need a good sheriff who minds his own business.
-
Well Shawn, very idealistic at the most. But in terms of realism, very far apart. Democracy is mob rule and you cannot have any progress with that, not politically I'm afraid. To much goodies to be handed out by politicians. Extremely hard to get around that politically. Corruption just oozes and schmooses in.
-
fellas, i just don't think he gets it....
-
Nah, he might just be one of those judeo christian morality types, who truly believes that man requires shepherds. Problem is, shepherds eat sheep just as wolves do. That has ALWAYS been the problem with "benevolent shepherds of men." Shepherds don't raise sheep as pets, to cherish and love, and not eat. They raise them to eat them. Part of what always scared me about judeochristian "salvation"... and the wonderful police states that have ensued from that morality wherever it "enlightened" men is precisely... SHEPHERDS EAT SHEEP!
So, I tend to believe that the whole idea of being shepherded by a benevolent shepherd still comes out at the wrong end. Someone eating delicious lamb. So... that being said, who wants to be the first to get his or her throat cut to be the provider of deeeeelicious lamb chop that the shepherd serves to his guests at his feast table?
-
I'll second Paul's "Don't worry about the anarchists", just in case I was one of the ones you were worried about. I disagree with libertarian statists, but I don't have a personal beef with any that agree that individual liberty and responsibility are the most important things. Everybody has to do what they think is right, and words only go so far in convincing them that they are not. And hell, there's that itty bitty tiny chance that I could be the one who is wrong. >:D
I'm not looking for a minimalist federal republic, but if the train needs to pass through that station to get where I want to go, fine, I'll buy a ticket. If we get there, I can go on to work peacefully on my own anarchy with minimal civil disobedience and the resources to defend myself against your state should it turn foul again. (My certainty that it would is why I am an anarchist, by the way.) But getting there might just buy me enough time to demonstrate that no government can work, and that "no government" can work, then y'all are welcome to join me.
In the meantime, if you don't fit in here, you'll know it in time. Nobody will tell you, but you'll still get the message. Others have. But I think you will. Oathkeepers are real popular in these parts, and true peacekeepers are welcome everywhere. And if you're still not sure, ask yourself this: Are you Andy Griffith or Barney Fife?
-
Ooops, that should read Andy Taylor or Barney Fife, but you get the idea.
-
I'm not looking for a minimalist federal republic, but if the train needs to pass through that station to get where I want to go, fine, I'll buy a ticket. If we get there, I can go on to work peacefully on my own anarchy with minimal civil disobedience and the resources to defend myself against your state should it turn foul again. (My certainty that it would is why I am an anarchist, by the way.) But getting there might just buy me enough time to demonstrate that no government can work, and that "no government" can work, then y'all are welcome to join me.
That is very well said. I think we as a group would accomplish more if we all held the same attitude.
Elk, you really need to head west. I think living in the east is really getting to you. I don't blame you, that is why I moved too. It isn't perfect, it isn't even great, but it is much better. Maybe with all your energy, combined with a few others, we can make it better yet.
-
Tornos, you're welcome here as far as I'm concerned. I have more than a few friends here in Laramie who are 5 county sheriffs deputies, UW Police, Laramie city Police and even a Wy highway patrolman. 3 of them are also on the local Ski Patrol with me. Speaking only for myself, I believe in self reliance. Like Mama and most others here, I carry firearms for several reasons. My 5 year old sons safety in town and up in the mountains is MY responsibility. I believe in the 10 Commandments and the first 10 Ammendments. I also believe the fedgovcoinc is completely out of control and acting WAAAAYY beyond its Constitutional duty. You'll probably be referred to another favorite website of this groups that says "We have to keep bailing". Sorry,,, the ship already sank, we are now in the lifeboats and Wyoming is the most seaworthy. Do you ski?
-
from KR:
Elk, you really need to head west. I think living in the east is really getting to you. I don't blame you, that is why I moved too. It isn't perfect, it isn't even great, but it is much better. Maybe with all your energy, combined with a few others, we can make it better yet.
Good point!
Boston
-
Do you ski?
I do. Not the best at it, but I've done enough tumbling to know that I won't have to use a tree like that Kennedy fellow. >:D >:D >:D
from KR:
Quote
Elk, you really need to head west. I think living in the east is really getting to you. I don't blame you, that is why I moved too. It isn't perfect, it isn't even great, but it is much better. Maybe with all your energy, combined with a few others, we can make it better yet.
Good point!
Boston
I'm taking steps, pardner, taking steps... (more like jogging towards it as we speak.) Short of being stopped by government thugs... I should be out there within a year. Or less. Depending on the economical climate.
-
Tornos, you're welcome here as far as I'm concerned. I have more than a few friends here in Laramie who are 5 county sheriffs deputies, UW Police, Laramie city Police and even a Wy highway patrolman. 3 of them are also on the local Ski Patrol with me. Speaking only for myself, I believe in self reliance. Like Mama and most others here, I carry firearms for several reasons. My 5 year old sons safety in town and up in the mountains is MY responsibility. I believe in the 10 Commandments and the first 10 Ammendments. I also believe the fedgovcoinc is completely out of control and acting WAAAAYY beyond its Constitutional duty. You'll probably be referred to another favorite website of this groups that says "We have to keep bailing". Sorry,,, the ship already sank, we are now in the lifeboats and Wyoming is the most seaworthy. Do you ski?
I agree totally. I still feel there is much we can do to salvage our liberties on a local level though. And... I've only been skiing a couple of times, so would be a rank beginner. Loved it though, and would love to take my girls out on the slopes someday! Around here everyone drives quads and atvs in the desert... and I just can't get into that. Too hot and dusty for me, too deadly for my girls.
Oh, and to the others. Again... thank you for the welcomes! My question is answered, and I do belong here, at least until I find out differently. Keep discussing as you will, though. ;)
-
I do belong here
I thought so ;D
Regards, Danl ~W~
-
Give your wife time. Let her know that for a some of the men on the forum there is a wife who was initially reluctant--Me for one. We have now lived here 3+ years and love it. We are in a small town just outside a little bigger town just outside of a bigger town and I think I have the best of all worlds. We home school and there is a large community of homeschoolers. Went back to our old home about two weeks ago and it just reinforced that we had made the right decision getting out when we did. If we had drug our feet we wouldn't have been able leave as easy as we did--by the way it wasn't real easy but the rewards were worth the grief and making two mortgage payments for about a year.
Point being--I am a mother of 5 daughters and two of them are right in the age range of yours and should your wife want a wife's perspective send her my way.
As for being a law enforcement officer--I tend to shy away from ya'all. I seem to have a stamp across my forehead that screams she needs a ticket. ::) ??? ;D
Brandy ~W~
-
Hi Brandy!
The first thing Alina said when I mentioned Wyoming was, "we're not moving to Wyoming." ;D That was days ago though (ancient history), and we've agreed that we'll take a family vacation to Wyoming next summer. I think the idea will grow on all of us once we get there and look around. She loves outdoorsy activities... camping, hiking... I do too, and would love to shoot more often (and learn to hunt/fish).
When we do make the transition, it wont be easy. Two mortgages until we can move/sell... yeah. Finding new jobs, or learning to survive on a single income... yeah. It's going to take planning and a lot of budget trimming.
Maybe she'll have a chance to talk to you next summer when we make the trip. Oh... and I write traffic tickets like... once a month, maybe. So don't worry about me, I'll be safely out of my jurisdiction anyhow. I much prefer being able to say "Ok, ma'am, just get that headlight fixed when you have a chance, ok? Drive safe."
-Shawn
-
FISHING!!!!! Now yer talking! Don't mention my name anywhere near the water or the fish will depart in a panic stricken frenzy ;D My boy is 5. How old are yer kids?
-
I have two daughters, 5 and 6. :)
-
Shawn... a trucker I knew a long time ago, heard a story from a friend on "how to move out west."
He said to him... "buy you some land, son, and then go ahead, and buy a trailer or mobile home, 10 grand or so, less if you don't mind fixing up a used one or old one. Slap it down on that land you bought, and voila, home with no mortgage. Then while you settle matters over here, and build your home over there, take your time and do it all right, you'll have that small but safe place, your mobile home."
To that handed down advice I can add "insulate the bottom, and get some of the more space age centimeter wide air bubble insulation as opposed to fiber glass, and you've got yourself a toasty place to weather a winter or two." I don't have any mortgages, so, for me, that might be easier than for you. But we'll see who gets where and gets settled in first. :) My friend's advice might help you avoid a second mortgage until you're rid of the first one. If you don't mind dealing with cramped quarters, it will hopefully help you not have to go too far broke or into debt servicing two sets of interest while trying to pay down two sets of principal amounts.
Just my ten cents, may it help you.
-
Sound advice. If I can convince the girls to give up some comforts temporarily, it may just be a plan.
Thanks. :)
-
Electoral politics consist of the idea that we're all too stupid and evil to run our own lives peacefully, but we're all smart and good enough to "elect" other people to run them and force us to be peaceful...
Does not compute...
-
I agree completely!
It really doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
-
It really doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?
No...............it doesn't make any sense at all.....................
-
Bigger problem than that we have elected officials is that they were never supposed to have the power to run our lives, or force us to be peaceful. Within the bounds of the enumerated powers, they'd actually be useful servants. I know many disagree with me on that last, but nobody here likes that they've usurped so much power. We just have divisions on what we want to do about it.
Go team!
-
A few problems with that. You might personally hire some "servants" and get them to do what YOU need them to do. But if many thousands - or millions - of people "hire" them, they have different needs and different ideas about what their servants are supposed to do. How can a servant satisfy millions of people? How can anyone actually "represent" more than a few folks who have similar ideas?
Those servants then are either confused and ineffective, since they can't satisfy everyone, or they manage to take control of the means (taxes) and exercise the control themselves. They then cease to be servants and become masters.
As long as those "elected" have the power to steal (tax), they will have the power to call the shots. When they "share" the loot with enough of those who are electing them, you have a closed loop. The servants, become masters, are now free to rob us all at will and can't realistically be fired.
Oh, you can "elect" different people, but since they will have the same power to rob and control, nothing will change but the names.
The key here is to ask if the whole process could be totally voluntary. If those who wanted to elect such "servants" were free to do so, and those of us who don't want any servants were free to opt out completely... do you think that would be acceptable to either the "servants" or those who hired them? Oh no... All must be controlled and "taxed," and the ultimate penalty for resistance to those "servants" is death. Not compatible with freedom in my book.
-
Actually, Mama, you are describing phenomena that are in agreement with what I said. The power to tax... didn't exist in our founding documents. The government was run completely on tariffs. The fact that one congressman represents 300,000 people or more... is as a result of their manipulation, similar to their jerrymandering of districts to create 'safe' districts for themselves. These are distortions of what our government was meant to be... though the tax power was amended in legally, it was completely misrepresented to the american people by those selling it. Since the early 1800s we have increasingly tolerated our politicians to be powerhungry liars, and now we have real problems as a result.
We disagree that there are no people who could be elected who would work to turn the clock back on these usurpations. I listed a few in another thread who are in congress, who are trying to do just that. We need many more like them. We need to pay better attention in the voting booth... and encourage/support the right people well before election day.
Let me do something different. Mama... let's accept that we're in complete agreement on everything that matters. Please answer two questions for me, then:
1) Is there any need for a national military? Even a small one, to defend our borders against foreign aggression? To protect our shipping? Are you suggesting that the defense of our nation be given over to private industry, or left in the hands of individual localities?
2) What do you propose to do to fix the situation we find ourselves in, if you've given up on the idea of electing likeminded representatives?
:)
-
And yet trade tariffs, so to speak, were part of the primary reason why the real founders (the spilled blood and spent treasure guys) REBELLED!
Why should I pay washington for the "privilege" to trade with you, are you incompetent at dealing with others and require regulation of your actions? Are you implying I might be? Then why do you believe in requiring me to pay for all this, when in the end, it feeds an army of unnecessary bodies and creates no safety, just expense.
A cargo of flour to the mill, going through one or two states (which is okay as far as trading goes) ends up paying SO many tariffs, permits, operating authorities, license fees and other extortions which the "law abiding" call "the fair share" that by the end, from a 50 cent bag of flour (in today's economy) you'll be lucky if the buyer gets it at 1.99 a bag... factor in profits, and inflation and you still wonder why you're getting wiped out by food and commodity costs?
I understand paying a port owner his due, because I'm putting use on the docks HE paid to build and maintain, but that's a private issue between ME as the captain of my ship and the port owner as the owner of that very real set of docks and warehouses, and the employer of those very real dock employees. I don't see where the government keeps me safe. In a free nation (think Free Luna before it develops government) there would be no "revenue guard" to board ships in harbor and demand tribute, while also condemning nongovernment piracy as "bad" or "evil."
But you may feel free to justify piracy under color of law any way you want.
Going back to truckers... you've got the IFTA (international fuel tax agreement) sticker, which requires the owner of the truck to keep track of odometer ratings and fuel consumption so he can pay taxes to the government and receive a sticker... not having the sticker results in cops doing to the "evil" trucker what cops do best. But wait!!! You already pay fuel taxes at the pump!!!! So, technically, the way I understand it your fuel is taxed TWICE! (And then you get the ignorant / useful idiot government apologists who scream "without income taxes how would we pay for roads?!")
But wait till you see what happens to any poor bastard caught on a highway at the "fuel check" inspections. See, for those of you who don't farm or drive diesels, you aren't aware that the bastards put red die in "tax free / farm" diesel. That stuff's significantly cheaper than the "road" diesel, usually left murky and being either green, gray or brown in color. If people actually paid attention and did the math, they'd realize that the government extracts insane, nearly incalculable amounts of wealth out of every day of your life. Via both taxes on you, and everything and everyone you interact with, there is nothing you touch that hasn't been taxed, retaxed, supertaxed, and fleeced some more by those government thugs that are so necessary for our "safety." At least according to the braindamaged apologists.
I believe all those interstate operators permits that each state extracts, and the feds extract some more are yet another form of "trade tariffs." So while you as a cop can justify it, Shawn, think about the fact that everything you buy, had you had an honest productive job, would be MUCH cheaper. And if people were still self policing as was the case before the invention of the criminal enterprise known as professional police, instead of people looking around like scared rabbits and slamming their brakes at the sight of a speed trap cruiser or ticketlight, we'd have almost no accidents caused by such ridiculous fearful action, justifiable though it might be. People seek the freedom of speeding on the road and people seek freedom, but know that bullies will demand their wealth, and have been mentally neutered to respect your uniform, rather than see those of your profession for the highwaymen and JBT's they actually are.
That's my view, and while I'll be nice to you while you extract my time and wealth from me at gun point, the day you do, you stop being human, in my eyes, that standing invitation for a brewski when we meet gets silently cancelled, and you add another straw to the camel's back. And we're not far off from when the guillotines roll out and justice is meted out by the throng... as Jeff Snyder so snidely put it, and I so snidely paraphrase it, "french revolution style."
Also if you start saying that "free trade brought ruin to our economy" ask yourself... "free trade?" Free trade would've implied a 1 page law, stating as follows... "no trade imposits or tariffs will be placed upon any private vessel or its crew, when entering a non government or privately owned port that has signed onto this free trade agreement, such port being a non government port and purpose of vessel being for any purpose, be it commerce or recreation, or other non government purposes not explicitly listed in this document.
Take note: vessels setting out from a port abiding by this agreement will be advised to be careful of docking at foreign ports that aren't signatory to this 1 page, very clear and simple agreement, and to negotiate fees and rates with the owners of the port prior to docking.."
Somehow, NAFTA/CAFTA/etcFTA's have all been a lot lengthier in their setup, and nowhere nearly clear... so let US be clear, trade controls by governments are precisely why we are where we are, why we're all looking to leave where we live now, to go to a freer area and to try, for a change, to at least keep that area INHOSPITABLE to fools, so that they might, for a change, stop following us once we tame the place. We're in this predicament because, free trade agreement or no free trade agreement, there hasn't been actual FREE (unregulated, untaxed, uncontrolled) trading in known history... the little that was, was the buccaneers of Tortuga and the privateers of the past (not the government licensed pirates who helped empires dominate the sea, mind you, but they're lost to history and mostly villified by every history book sold to us as truth by the very establishment whose existence, such lies guarantee.
-
I forgot to add one thing (I'll let Mama take first crack at your other questions about national military and navy to 'protect' "our" shipping)... but I'll address the protection of shipping lanes.
Did you ever read the article that ran on yahoo! news about a year back at the height of the media frenzy on somalian pirates? Did you notice, perhaps, in that article that it was mentioned that the pirates were actually a lesser expense for the cruise liners than paying all the tribute... AHEM... tariffs and operating authorities and fees they required to travel through "national waters" of established plunder bands... AHEM... "national governments" ?
Apparently 1 in 100 ships gets jacked, 1 in 1 gets ransomed, the pirates treat their "guests" reasonably (except, apparently, those guys dumping toxic waste off the coast, those are apparently the ones that require military rescue and keeping of story under wraps.) Either way, apparently having to ransom 1 ship every 100 runs is cheaper for the cruiselines than sailing through nearby national waters... how very strange, is it not? Guess maybe the cruiselines find it less damaging to them to do this, than to accept the 'protection' of national militaries? Weird that. Must be a fluke, I'm sure.
-
And yet trade tariffs, so to speak, were part of the primary reason why the real founders (the spilled blood and spent treasure guys) REBELLED!
Why should I pay washington for the "privilege" to trade with you, are you incompetent at dealing with others and require regulation of your actions? Are you implying I might be? Then why do you believe in requiring me to pay for all this, when in the end, it feeds an army of unnecessary bodies and creates no safety, just expense.
Ok. I wasn't specific enough. The government was originally funded by import tariffs on foreign entities wishing to trade with us. That is my understanding, anyhow. If anyone can correct that, with a historical source I can look at, please do. I wasn't suggesting any tariff between citizens. That's a sales tax, and tariffs between states are prohibited by the constitution's interstate commerce clause.
-
Tornos, the presence or absence of some sort of military is not the real issue. The issue is theft. Is theft ever justified?
If some people, companies, shippers, whatever, decide they need a military - then they organize one and pay for it. They can collect donations from others, hold a bake sale, or sell part of their assets - but they can't legitimately steal from people to finance it.
Will there be some "free riders?" Of course. There are millions of them today and nobody seems to notice. But will the really necessary jobs get done? Most likely, since those who would lose the most by an invasion or piracy or whatever would pay the most - and be willing to do so. The key is voluntary cooperation and mutual defense.
The misadventures and invasion of other countries probably would NOT happen, however, since even if funds could be raised for such, these sort of actions would not be supported by most people. Think about how far the insane invasion and destruction of Iraq, etc. would have gone if it had been financed voluntarily rather than by massive theft. Would all the people who screamed "support" of the invasions and "wars" have actually written checks monthly to carry them out? I don't think so.
As for your second question, sorry, but I'm not obligated to present a 100% foolproof, totally planned and organized future for every person in order to know that theft, murder and lies are NOT the answer.
How about leaving people alone to live their lives, own their bodies and property, be personally responsible for their actions and choices, and figure it out as they go along. That's called the free market. There is no way to plan for the details. People have to negotiate their interactions moment to moment between themselves and agree on contracts for longer term situations. That's what makes freedom!
The exciting thing is that we already know how to do this! We all do it each and every day in MOST of our interactions and activities. We don't need a "law" to tell us to do anything, or NOT to do anything. Most of us know right from wrong without a politician making the decision for us.
Those who harm others, lie and steal, do so in SPITE of all the laws, politicians and so forth. Always have, and always will. All we can do is be aware, alert, self responsible and defend ourselves from these people - and help each other to do so. VOLUNTARILY!!
-
So while you as a cop can justify it, Shawn, think about the fact that everything you buy, had you had an honest productive job, would be MUCH cheaper. And if people were still self policing as was the case before the invention of the criminal enterprise known as professional police, instead of people looking around like scared rabbits and slamming their brakes at the sight of a speed trap cruiser or ticketlight, we'd have almost no accidents caused by such ridiculous fearful action, justifiable though it might be. People seek the freedom of speeding on the road and people seek freedom, but know that bullies will demand their wealth, and have been mentally neutered to respect your uniform, rather than see those of your profession for the highwaymen and JBT's they actually are.
That's my view, and while I'll be nice to you while you extract my time and wealth from me at gun point, the day you do, you stop being human, in my eyes, that standing invitation for a brewski when we meet gets silently cancelled, and you add another straw to the camel's back. And we're not far off from when the guillotines roll out and justice is meted out by the throng... as Jeff Snyder so snidely put it, and I so snidely paraphrase it, "french revolution style."
I'm not talking as a cop here. I'm trying to have a honest discussion between folks who agree about 95-99% of the issue. Your fiery condemnation of my profession, and my personal value or lack of humanity because of it, do not advance that discussion.
I wouldn't mind some other perspectives on those two questions I aked though. ;D
-
"Tariffs" on imports are just as much theft by force as any other tax.
-
Voting one gang of thugs out and voting the other gang of thugs in doesn't change a damned thing in government just a different gang of thugs is all. Extortion is extortion no matter which gang is in, nothing changes. How many different governments have there been in the world in the last 5000 yrs?? Are they missed?? Nope. Whats important is humanity and we're still here. Government aint to damned important. Politicians aren't that smart doing anything except running for office which is as close to a circus act as it can be, preening and gas bagging until elected. Once they're in they're still not any smarter than what they do and thats run for office. Losers just hang out til next election, they don't get any smarter either in the interrum. Which gang do you want to root for, thats about it.
"the dogs bark but the caravan goes on."
Arab proverb
-
MamaLiberty:
Alright. I think I am finally starting to understand your position. Thanks for bearing with me. No government. Tell me if I am wrong on that, I don't want to put words into your mouth. With no government there is no need for any sort of income raising method that burdens citizens, or even foreign entities, true enough.
I believe there are threats in the world that require an organized and funded defense to deter/repel. We have wealth in this country, and it's naive to think that foreign empires wouldn't take it if they could. You're right that you're not obligated to present a plan for the future. My apologies for asking if you had a better plan to fix the situation we're in. Please continue to just tear down my plan.
At some point it's important to not only decry the sad state of things, but to point to what might be better, and start planning how we could get there. That's only my opinion, but I've seen no reason to change it. For now, I continue to think the best way is through education and election of likeminded representatives who will shrink the government back down to its (intended) constitutional limits.
Jubal:
Our form of government was, when it was created, the best hope yet. I'm for a Ron Paul sort of band of thugs. There are some more like him in office. I'm sorry to have to point this out, but anarchy doesn't always result in paradise, either.
-
Nothing said about paradise. We got kicked outta there a long time ago talkin to snakes and eatin apples remember :'( ;)
-
election of likeminded representatives who will shrink the government back down to its (intended) constitutional limits.
Your mistake is thinking that political power is a result of elections and written laws, rather than the other way around.
-
Tornos, I DID offer a better plan:
Leave everyone alone to work it out voluntarily with everyone else. Freedom! The free market!
Not "no government" - SELF GOVERNMENT, self responsibility in mutual cooperation with others.
What isn't needed is coercion, murder, lies and slavery.
-
2) What do you propose to do to fix the situation we find ourselves in, if you've given up on the idea of electing likeminded representatives?
I believe that if we could learn to identify the psychopaths and stop "feeding" them, we could probably do fine with little or no government.
But first, one needs to understand just what a psychopath is. Here is a short essay that I think is a good intro:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html
Here is one my more recent posts on the subject, with links going back to previous posts:
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=7861.msg64562#msg64562 (http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=7861.msg64562#msg64562)
In short, about six percent of people have no conscience. That is the part of your mind that keeps reminding you to do the right thing, and makes you feel guilty when you don't. This just does not exist in six percent. It has been found to be genetic and there are medical and psychological tests that can detect it. These six percent, I believe, are directly and indirectly responsible for most of the crime, conflict, and human misery that we have. If we could banish them, or at least find a way to immediately identify their nature and not fall under their influence, the rest of our problems would be simple matters of misunderstanding and petty emotions that could be quickly resolved.
Some people think that humans are inherently evil and need to be chained down with laws. Without laws and punishments, everyone would be thieves and murderers. Hogwash! Suppose you were to ask ten of your friends the question, "If there were no laws and punishments, would you steal from your neighbor?" Do you think all ten would say, "Hell yes! The only thing keeping me from stealing is the police"? Or do you think they would say, "What? No, that would be wrong, laws or no laws"?
Most people are good, decent people that don't need the threat of punishment to do the right thing. It is the psychopath who has no conscience about stealing or killing, and he is only concerned about whether he gets caught, and what the punishment will be.
Remove the psychopath from the system and you will probably remove 90% or more of crime, manipulation, and misery.
As for foreign invaders, please consider that if there is no nation-state, there is no politician who can surrender the nation to the enemy. The invader will have to individually conquer each and every village, neighborhood, or home. And then deal with uprisings the moment the troops move away to the next village. Sure, an invading military unit might kill an entire village or town. Depending on losses, maybe even a second one. But defenders with nothing to lose can surely reduce an invading army to nothing.
Again, "If there is no nation-state, there is no politician who can surrender."
-
The nice thing about 'not too long ago' is that psycopaths and the like were found out and dealt with courtesy of the nearest tree and a length of rope - after a fair trial and judgement by a jury of their peers, of course.
Now? We must coddle and soothe those very same.
I ask, "You don't try to pet a rabid dog, do you?"
-
A trained organized military would have to commit genocide to conquer a nation of guerillas. I do not believe there is a military made up of ordinary citizens is capable of killing all the men, women and children of any country unless they ALL were psychopaths. The 2nd Amendment is in place just for this doomsday scenario condition.
-
rhodges/Big Ugly: Yes, there are the psychos. There are quite a lot of folks who can put their conscience out of the way if the reward is great enough too. I get to see it a lot. They make up their own codes to justify their offenses against others. As you say, the solution to crime is a stronger penalty for true criminals. And less (or no) resources spent on "crimes" of social conscience.
jubal: An invader does not need to conquer and permanenty subdue an entire country to rape it of its resources, and steal its wealth. We need to protect against lesser aggressions than total conquest/annihilation.
I want the government to leave me (and you) alone, too. I want to put it back in its cage (the constitution). I'd like to fix a couple of holes in that cage and make its bars stronger, so it doesn't escape again. I'd like us all to stand watch outside of that cage with our guns, pitchforks and torches just in case. But I think there are a couple of things (national defense being the most important) that need to be done on an organized national level. It's cool with me if we don't agree 100%. Any change in that direction from what we have now will be a good thing.
-
Wowwee, 2 weeks away from the internet, and quite the discussion has developed!
I agree that anarchy holds the best ideal for society as a whole. I believe that any other system only fights the laws of nature. However, I still have my reservations about whether or not it could be a practical solution in our lifetime. As long as other nations pose a threat, I have pretty strong doubts. Because of this I'm much more inclined to the minarchy solution. I think that early America was a big step in the right direction...this "new constitutional convention" talk sounds intriguing. I think we need a "reset" on the system, and maybe this time we could nudge the new system in a direction that was even more laissez fairre than early America. Especially the electoral system, which is fairly obsolete in the information age. Not an ideal solution, but certainly more achievable. The system laid out in Molon Labe looked like a pretty good baseline to me.
My biggest concern is the military one. It is true, even with modern weaponry an army could not conquer a nation of guerrillas...the fact that there is still ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is proof positive of this. Never mind the image of Americans that most other nations hold. Just have to remember the quote from the WWII Japanese general who decided on attacking Pearl Harbor: "it would be suicide to attack the mainland U.S., there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." We also just got in a new student here who just escaped from China, and he honestly believed that there was mandatory military service for every able man in the U.S. Every foreign perspective I've heard paints Americans as some of the most violent, well-armed, indomitable savages out there.
That being said, if there was a large, unclaimed tract of fertile land full of vast resources and hard-working, creative people, I have a hard time believing that there wouldn't be a powerful country that would try to plant their flag here. Just look at the other recent post here that depicts how America could, imaginitively, be carved up like Thanksgiving dinner. And true, they may well come and wipe out a few cities, but could we not avoid that expense by simply maintaining a government with almost no practical power over the people, that was able to "provide for a common defense?" Say what you will about the military, but also take note of the number of battles involving foreign forces that have occurred on U.S. soil in the last 150 years. I'm more inclined to go with Teddy Roosevelt on this one, "speak softly and carry a big stick." Also remember that in America, it is patriotic to hate the government.
As for the police, pardon my non-expertise on the subject (You and the Police is near the top of my must read list), but I have made quite a few observations over the years. I have found that most of my friends who are cops fall into the "peace officer" category, while most cops I encounter during their professional duties fall more often than not tend towards the bullyish asshole category. I think that speaks for a fair number of people here who have little nice to say for the police. Granted, these observations are affected by the fact that I tend not to make friends with bullyish assholes, but it all still doesn't quite add up to claim that the majority of cops are bullies.
Instead, I surmise that the bullyish assholes are just more inclined to intervene (especially in mala prohibitum matters), whereas peace officers would simply give a nod and move along. The asshole officer will daily ruin 30 random peoples' day, while the peace officer will only act on something they perceive to be an honest offense, and may only even interact with a handful of people a day. Would be nice to get some feedback from someone who sees this sort of thing daily though, who could give a more professional opinion.
I also don't think it's fair to blast cops and service members as thieves. Not to say that the accusation is false, but it really doesn't tell the whole story. Yes, by just the right train of logic it can be deemed true, but it's really nothing more than a skillfully crafted low blow. Would you rather that the military and police force were made up solely of thugs? The military and police are a reality in today's world, that much is absolutely certain. And as long as the government is training people in the military and law enforcement crafts, and as long as they are still accepting liberty-minded people, what is there to lose? Like they say, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" Also, consider this: only 3% of the American populace overtook the British Army at its peak. If 3% of those in the military were of the same persuasion, what impact could they have on the military as a whole? Who would have more influence, the minority of the "Pavlov's Dog" types, or the minority of those who fought for something they believed in their hearts? What course would the majority of the military then follow?
Also, while we're playing the numbers game, does anyone else find it sickly ironic that 6% of all people are tyrant sociopaths, while 3% will fight for liberty? :-[
-
Shawn, I believe the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of These United States was for National Defense!
An armed body of private Citizens, trained, willing, and able - to be deputized by the County Sheriffs, called to duty by the Governors of the Sovereign States Several, or placed under the temporary control of the Commander in Chief of These United States, as necessity dictates.
The Militias of the States States Several and the Committees of Safety were the means by which the Federal Government was to be kept in their cage, so to speak. The problem is, we've forgotten who WE THE PEOPLE really are and who the Militia really is and what our purpose is supposed to be. The key, I think, is to get Sheriffs who truly understand their purpose as regards the Constitution, and the law enforcement arms of both State and Federal. As exhibited in Weston County, last June, the Sheriff IS the legal authority in a County and is superior to both State and Federal.
If my limited understanding of this is thought to be in error, please (anyone) feel free to comment.
-
adambomb: This probably doesn't bode well for you, but I agree with every word of your post. Even the part about anarchy might be the ideal situation in a perfect world... a world where opportunists don't marshal huge masses to conquer/kill others. That would be as close to paradise as possible on this Earth, and government would be obsolete.
I also agree wholeheartedly about the percentage of cops who contact the public skewing perception. There are professional ticket writers who pull over (and cite) 15-20 people a day on the highways. Then there are officers like me, who might take a burglary, theft or domestic violence report on a typical day... and pull over a couple of people but not cite them. As long as our localities are addicted to the money they get from traffic fines, the image of all officers suffers.
Big Ugly: While the 2nd Amendment is certainly meant for defense, I believe it is defense against our own government that was the primary motivator for its authorship. Certainly, a militia could help a great deal against invaders. But it would be quite the impressive, well funded, organized militia indeed that would be necessary to defeat a modern army. I'm not sure I can even imagine private persons owning and maintaining jet fighters, tanks or naval warships on a large scale. Nor would most folks have the time to train together, the communication equipment/protocols, and that sort of resources. Guerillas can be an annoyance to a modern army, yes. They can even repel a modern army through attrition, given time. But at what cost to the homeland/population in the process?
-
Sorry, but the defense of the nation against our own government was not precluded in my previous post - sorry that I did not so state more specifically.
Also, as brought out by my little brother in another post where he did a 'word-by-word' of the 2nd Amendment, the term "arms" is not exclusive. Should one have the means and the desire to own and maintain a jet fighter (my father used to fly with a bunch of guys that had their own P-51 Mustangs, in the early 60's), that is his choice, is it not. Personally, I'd like to have my own PT boat, fully armed. As far as training, why not. On a squad or company level, it is entire possible - including comm gear, support infrastructure, transport, etc. I guess some would call this guerilla action, but where is the break-point? Iraq, Afganistan, and Vietnam show what a dedicated group can do against a "modern" army. Remember the Rev. War? A loosely organized 'army' of private citizen groups of militia took on the best the world had to offer. They didn't fare too badly.
Please do not think I am being deliberately antagonistic towards you or your profession. Frankly, I honour you for your apparent (sorry, but I don't know you personally, yet) stance as regards being a "Peace Officer" as opposed to being a LEO. I'm not sure what ever happened to "Protect and Serve" but and glad that there are those of you who still believe those ideals.
Be Safe!
-
adambomb: This probably doesn't bode well for you, but I agree with every word of your post. Even the part about anarchy might be the ideal situation in a perfect world... a world where opportunists don't marshal huge masses to conquer/kill others. That would be as close to paradise as possible on this Earth, and government would be obsolete.
Why shouldn't it bode well for me? I know not everyone here will agree, at least to some degree, and I am fine with that, as long as they don't pidgeon-hole me as some sort of orders-seeking mindless tool of destruction just because of my choice to serve in the military!
But hey, as Boston mentioned, this isn't an anarchy org. While there's a good number of people that can appreciate what a true anarchy would be like, what makes this forum different is that we don't just talk about how good things could be, but instead create a truly workable plan to make the best of what we've got, taking into consideration the current state and ways of the world.
-
Hello Tornos, I'd like to give you late but hardy welcome to the forum.
(My laptop was down for a while.)
While I'm of the self-government out look, I'm more than ready to make common cause with small government folks. Frankly, we aren't numerous, and I say any friend of Liberty is a friend of mine.
I think you'll get allot out of reading 'Molon Labe' and 'Hologram of Liberty', I know I did.
As you might have guessed I'm in SoCal, have you been to an Appleseed?
We have been to a couple of San B. locations and we have shoots at MIKE RAAHAUGE's near Corona every couple of months.
http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php
There might be no better preperation for Wyoming than to become a Rifleman.
-
But it would be quite the impressive, well funded, organized militia indeed that would be necessary to defeat a modern army.
I have to wonder if it would be necessary to actually face an army in battle in order to defeat it. Logistics, morale, funding, and the need for a soldier to "have a good time" suggest interesting possibilities of alternate resistance.
I'm not sure I can even imagine private persons owning and maintaining jet fighters, tanks or naval warships on a large scale.
That is a good point, since these military items have great offensive capabilities, defensive attributes (altitude, armor, distance), and the tremendous cost that prevents regular people from having them. As you say. All I can say in response is that the tremendous cost per unit would necessarily require the government to decide its priorities when allocating thousands of machines against tens of millions of targets. Jet fighters suck fuel, parts, and maintenence hours like a bottomless bucket. Warships are pretty much limited to the coastline plus some XX miles inland. Tanks are pretty strong, but they also require plenty of fuel and maintenance. I also seem to remember from "somewhere" that tanks really need dismounted infantry for full protection. The idea being that "naked" tanks have tactical weaknesses.
Guerillas can be an annoyance to a modern army, yes. They can even repel a modern army through attrition, given time. But at what cost to the homeland/population in the process?
I guess that depends. I am reminded of several cases however. In recent history, consider Afghanistan versus the British, the United States versus the British, Vietnam (North and South) against the United States, Afghanistan against the Russians, Iraq against the US, and Afghanistan against the US. I am sure this is just a small subset of the bigger picture, just one that comes easily to my mind.
And what does the "cost to the homeland/population" really matter when freedom, liberty, or autonomy is at stake?
-
rhodges,
Yeah you got a good grasp on what it's about.........................the only way to fight a modern military force is via guerilla tactics..................because it costs the modern military force millions of dollars a day just to operate......................
Heck...............we're gonna' get stomped in afganistan because they can do for pennies what it costs thousands or millions of dollars for the US military to do, and in reality, all they "need" to do is keep the US government spending big bucks on nothing...................moderns wars aren't won or lost on the battlefield, but instead they're won or lost at the loan office...................
-
And what does the "cost to the homeland/population" really matter when freedom, liberty, or autonomy is at stake?
All the same, I'd like to go for none! Well, that isn't possible, even with a minarchy a military would have to be funded. So then I suppose your choices are either some form of taxation or else some "acceptable" level of destruction. Now consider that every $1 of explosives can do thousands of dollars worth of damage. Destruction can be dealt out with great efficiency. I would consider paying to have a military around, if for nothing else but insurance, to be a pretty good bargain.
I'm not quite up to par on my history, but what was wrong with the early American system? As I see it, one of the main drives of our current expeditionary heavy-handed state is the military industrial complex. As Ron Paul pointed out in his book "The Case for Gold" the government would not have the required unlimited supply of "money ::)" for these exploits if sound money were present. Give congress a real, limited budget, and they won't be able to go showboating around anymore!
I know my view is biased, but as I see it a military is to a free nation what a gun is to an free man.
-
I'm not quite up to par on my history, but what was wrong with the early American system? As I see it, one of the main drives of our current expeditionary heavy-handed state is the military industrial complex.
That's about the way I see it.
The reason for the National Guard was that the Feds didn't have enough control of the state militias. They would start a war and when it wasn't popular not everyone would attend.
(You can just imagine their embarrassment!)
Ultimately the early system was locally autonomous, and this is poison to the power mad control freaks who want to rule us.
-
I don't think the necessity of defending the "country" is disputed by anyone. (I put "country" in scare quotes, because anarchy implies that the nature of that entity would be different in many respects). The question is: how would that defense be implemented? It's not necessary to jump to the conclusion that a geographically monopolized, over-arching government with the power to unilaterally tax and with its hands on the levers of power that allow it to expand is the only way to do that. I'm of the mind that that is something that can be figured out later, once the mindset of self-governance has been adjusted to for a while.
Micheal Z Williamson is a good anarchist/milfic author, and his book "Freehold" examines in some detail both how an anarchist society could organize itself, and how it could militarily defend itself against a very large well-equipped and ruthless army. There's some facts of their situation that could never apply to our problem, but some of the principles are good food for thought. And, it is an excellent millitary sci-fi book on its own merits.
Somebody else pointed out that we're all about practical solutions here, and I'm all for that. I like these abstract hypothetical philosophical arguments, but I'm here primarily for the can-do (and will-do) attitude.
-
Micheal Z Williamson is a good anarchist/milfic author, and his book "Freehold" examines in some detail both how an anarchist society could organize itself, and how it could militarily defend itself against a very large well-equipped and ruthless army. There's some facts of their situation that could never apply to our problem, but some of the principles are good food for thought. And, it is an excellent millitary sci-fi book on its own merits.
Somebody else pointed out that we're all about practical solutions here, and I'm all for that. I like these abstract hypothetical philosophical arguments, but I'm here primarily for the can-do (and will-do) attitude.
Freehold is very good reading!
We have talked about it here;
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=1854.0
-
socalserf, yeah, I started a thread on it too, a couple of years ago. It think it got rolled into the one you linked to.
Zoot, and others, this is a great blog on 5th generation warfare, among other closely related topics of interest to many here
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/
Read deep into the archives, its more of a "big picture" kind of blog, any one or two articles only give a tiny slice of it. The blogger is a highly trained intelligence analyst (or so he claims, but he sounds credible).
-
I know my view is biased, but as I see it a military is to a free nation what a gun is to an free man.
Actually a military is to a "free nation" what a sheriff is to a free man. A free "nation" would be a guerilla nation. Trained, and skilled and organized at the local level so that any incursion can be rapidly and decisively diverted and if necessary, put down like rabid dogs once the fuel runs down.
Think on it mate, your kids, "our" kids today haven't even got a grasp, nevermind a firm one, on chemistry or physics, and just forget even simple old ballistics (hell, they're starting to cancel dodgeball, the next generation won't even know how to throw rocks, if their parents are foolish enough to submit them to the public school indoctrination camps.) Its the fact that parents are gullible, or just plain dumb or lazy, and their kids are raised by said parents, in union with the government... what exactly are you expecting EXCEPT the visible results?!
We can't fight an enemy army because our people are dumber than those rag heads in arabia that so many on the news just love to hate. A well educated populace, with a firmly reasoned, not superstitious code of ethics or morals (call it what you want) ready to fight when necessary and ready to mix a few chemicals when a fight would result in defeat, would be FAR deadlier than a bunch of nukes manned by a bunch of guys who only know what their leaders have told them.
There is no such nation on the Earth today. If I hear of one, I'll be sure to inform you folks... it will be part of my dear john as I depart these shores for that nation the moment I verify that it isn't just a hoax.
-
I'm not quite up to par on my history, but what was wrong with the early American system?
Ask yourself what Shay's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion were about, and then answer that question for yourself...........
The fact is the declaration of independance was written by folks intent on ruling themselves, and the constitution, which formed federal government was written by folks intent on ruling others..............
Now............do you see anything wrong with that?
-
Elk--
Taking what you've said into consideration, I think you really pointed out the flaw in regards to a military being to a free nation what a gun is to a free man. Naturally, a free man would have total control over his gun, whereas a free nation would not necessarily have total control over their military. Clearly, if a nation is to be truly free, and have a military, they somehow must have total control over the military. A military made of the people, a militia, I agree, would accomplish that. At the same time, that militia must be capable of defending against attacks from other nations. And as you've mentioned, with kids barely capable of throwing rocks, that's a big source of the problem. Along those lines, I've always thought it would be really cool to have my own howitzer. I imagine an old Soviet one could probably be acquired for the price of a nice SUV... >:D >:D
There was a period of about 135 years where there was a national guard, but no army; the army being formed to meet the needs of the revolutionary war. Perhaps an option? I don't know, looks like we can really agree on the problem, and also that there isn't a clear cut winner of a solution...
Zoot--
Thanks for the reminder, that was really what I was looking for. I need to study these things more in-depth...my specialties have always been more in the technical arts, I've only recently taken any interest in history. Those examples really bring out the deficiencies in how the constitution was written. Perhaps the next go-round we could get it "closer" to right? At least it's refreshing to see that the bastards in charge today are no different than the bastards in charge back then.
-
Shay's Rebellion occurred before the Constitution was ratified, so I'm not sure it can be a very effective indictment against that particular document. The Whiskey Rebellion... was the federal government's first enforcement of an unjust tax. The fact that the Whiskey Tax only lasted a dozen years, and was largely unable to be collected, doesn't really matter to the principle of the thing. You're right that it was a travesty and a precursor to the wide range of travesties we have today. Hamilton was always an oligarch in his heart, and Washington should have known better.
This Freehold book sounds interesting. I'll have to order a copy, if mainly for entertainment value. It would be a major step in the right direction if our military were confined to state militias during peacetime... since states don't have the power to declare wars, we could avoid a lot of foreign entanglements. The federal government would then need to sway the states before any major conflict could be waged. Sounds much better than what we have now, and states are large enough to be capable of funding and training modern defensive forces that would be up to the task of repelling invaders.
We need to return to being a confederation of sovereign states, tied together by voluntary association in a loose federal alliance with very specific, enumerated and limited powers.
-
Hello Tornos, I'd like to give you late but hardy welcome to the forum.
As you might have guessed I'm in SoCal, have you been to an Appleseed?
We have been to a couple of San B. locations and we have shoots at MIKE RAAHAUGE's near Corona every couple of months.
http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/index.php
There might be no better preperation for Wyoming than to become a Rifleman.
Thanks for the welcome!
I hadn't heard of the Appleseeds, but after looking at the website, this does look like something I'd be interested in. I'll make plans to attend one as soon as I can afford the ammunition and gear. Will a mini-14 do the job? I've got to admit I've never tried hitting anything at 500 yards with it. ::)
-
Actually the only reason the whiskey tax was dealt away with, is PRECISELY because it was hard to collect, and made men with guns and homes VERY uppity (remember, back then men actually had functional testicles, that produced that testosterone stuff that helps men remember that spines are for holding heads up and back straight. That and neither men nor women of that era were mentally neutered... today that can be a wee bit of an issue.)
That aside, there have been recent cases, with my personal favorite being the CB radio one (what can I say I've become a big fan of CB, and might get into VHF sooner or later, if more people use it in other places other than just maritime applications.) Nobody submitted info or payment for "registration" to use CB... response was still too low to give them any real power over CB'ers when the fee was dealt with, and eventually the magnanimous government, knowing that they had to pretend they had power, else power perceived might be no power at all.. they "did away" with the "unnecessary fees." You have to go through old CB radio shops and chat with the owners to actually get stories about that, apparently they seem to remember it better than most.
-
Washington should have known better.
"If only Uncle Joe knew!"
-
Washington should have known better.
"If only Uncle Joe knew!"
That is it exactly!
Old George knew Alexander intimately, they were in fact birds of a feather.
Read some of Washington's quotes, there were few men more elitist than G.W.
Adambomb, these are for your use;
A concise work by Rothbard on the Whiskey Rebellion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard1.html
Here is my favorite reference;
The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution by Thomas P. Slaughter
http://www.amazon.com/Whiskey-Rebellion-Frontier-Epilogue-Revolution/dp/0195051912
Shay’s Rebellion-
A short article,
http://www.unknownnews.org/0812-02HR.html
Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle, by Leonard L. Richards
http://www.amazon.com/Shayss-Rebellion-American-Revolutions-Battle/dp/0812218701/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c
Tornos-
PM regarding Appleseed sent.
Elk-
On the money as usual.
Something I like to point out is that if the USA wasn't an Empire we wouldn't have had any wars in the past century.
We would have been served very well indeed by a militia.
BTW, until 1968 ordinary citizens owned and operated light and heavy artillery with no issues or problems.
And before 1934 ordinary citizens owned and operated light and heavy machineguns.
-
Seriously?
George Washington = Joe Stalin?
George Washington who refused to accept a third term in office? Who cautioned against the growth of federal power? Who rejected outright Hamilton's suggestion that Washington be King? He wasn't perfect, but comparing him to Stalin brings ridicule to an otherwise productive discussion. He clearly listened too often to Hamilton, and in this case was dead wrong, but Washington was no 'Uncle Joe'. That sort of over the top comparison may be red meat for anti-government folks, but isn't going to convince anyone else.
Kylben, I'm sorry if this post sounds chastising. I did condemn his actions in regard to the Whiskey Rebellion, but I'm not willing to condemn the man outright. Do you have more examples of Washington's despotic tendencies? I may have been misled by a poor educational system, but for the most part I remember Washington resisting and cautioning against the abuses of government.
-
I don't presume to speak for Kylben; he is far more articulate than I.
I will guess that his reference was to the tendency of the public to absolve Big Men and to lay blame at the feet of unpopular subordinates. Famously illustrated by Kylben’s historical reference quote. Stalin encouraged this, of course.
As far as G. Washington being the equelvent of Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili,
I think Stalin was almost unequalled in evil. Again, that is just my opinion.
-
Old George knew Alexander intimately, they were in fact birds of a feather.
Read some of Washington's quotes, there were few men more elitist than G.W.
Two Washington quotes I like:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
And a quote that in part I agree with, because it refers only to national defense... but which is still very troubling because it advocates compulsion:
"It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it."
So, he was not perfect. I conceed that point. He was a man we needed, to free ourselves of the British Empire. He was an inspirational figure. He was an imperfect servant of liberty. But he was far removed from Joe Stalin.
-
Tornos, context is important. Of course Washington was nothing like Stalin. Socalserf expressed it well, but I'll add that the quote is not about Joe, and the reference to it was not about George. It says nothing whatsoever about either man, and it is negligent thinking to assume it does, let alone to read into it an intent to imply an equivalence.
The quote and my reference to it refer to the naivete of people who think those leading things are oblivious to what is going on, and would put a stop to it if only someone would tell them what is really happening. The fact is that while Hammy certainly took advantage of George's advancing feeblemindedness, Washington was far from an innocent dupe. He agreed with what Hamilton was doing, though it is likely that he failed to understand the full scope of Hamilton's ambitions.
-
Socalserf-
Thanks for the recommendations. I gave Shay's rebellion a quick look on Wikipedia, but, well, I mean it was Wikipedia. Nice to have some more "peer reviewed" references. Also looks like my informal mental list of things to read has now turned into a written list! No biggie though, it's still more satisfying than TV. Ha, that reminds me, during the big DTV switch I had decided I wasn't going to partake in the big converter box handout, my TV would still work with the DVD and Playstation, which is all I ever used it for anyway, but my parents managed to talk me into getting a government-funded converter. Some 9 months later, it's still sitting on the floor, next to the TV, still in its box...
As far as owning machine guns and howitzers, just another example of me thinking perhaps I was born in the wrong century. But then again, maybe I am wrong, perhaps this could be the RIGHT century... ~W~
-
I may have been misled by a poor educational system, but for the most part I remember Washington resisting and cautioning against the abuses of government.
Yeah, but that wasn't reason enough for him to keep his fingers out of the formation and/or function of this abusive entity, now was it?
I'm thinking that by that time he had learned what a grave mistake he had been involved in, and no longer wanted any part of it.....
And as far as that goes, alcohol is still a heavilly taxed product, and you're right that first tax opened the door other taxes, and it wasn't long after a war had been fought against the taxes the king had imposed on them either. And now 250 years later the government gets more of ones paycheck than the person earning the money does.
Slavery comes in many forms, but is defined as being forced to work for the benefit of another...........and whether that benefit is called national defense or law enforcement is irrelevant, what is relevant is that one is forced to work for the benefit of another, and for that matter, even to keep what one has already bought and paid for in this land of freedom and liberty.
In the book of Thomas, there's a passage that goes(paraphrased)
When the lamb lies with the lion and the lion lies with the lamb, does the lamb not become the lion, and the lion not become the lamb?
-
Hamilton and the Whiskey Boys
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was the first major challenge of sovereignty following the War for Independence. It showed that not all citizens would be satisfied with the young government; and, that the establishment was fully capable of responding to a rebellion resulting from such dissatisfaction.
Following the 1780’s, the young United States government had reached greater financial needs. Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, wanted to increase revenue. Among other methods, he introduced a stiff new excise tax on whiskey and stills. Congress passed the tax on March 3, 1791. It became the Tariff Act of 1792 and placed a tax of 20 to 30 cents on every gallon of whiskey produced. The measure was not welcomed, and legislatures of North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland even passed resolutions of disapproval shortly thereafter.
Farmers in western Pennsylvania were especially offended; they began to rally together in a refusal to pay the tax. A frontier lawyer by the name of David Bradford helped to organize resistance. Herman Husband, who had previously led the North Carolina Regulars, also assisted the insurgents. Some men opposed a violent
rebellion, most notable was Hugh Backenridge and Albert Gallatin. Their moderating efforts likely prevented the secession of Washington County from Pennsylvania and the Union.
The whiskey producers weren’t just protesters to the tax. On one occasion they tarred and feathered a collection officer. Another was severely flogged with beach rods and run out of the region. Everything came to a head on July 17 1794. Alexander Hamilton related the events himself to President Washington in a letter dated August 2: “Armed collections of men…have attacked the house of the inspector of the Revenue, burnt and destroyed his property, and shed the blood of persons engaged in it’s defense”.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives congress the power “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions”. The approval was given and the Militia was called up. Hamilton implored Washington to gather an “imposing” force, as to “save the effusion of the blood of the citizens”. The President heeded this advice; on August 7 1794, four states furnished him with 15,000 men.
Washington immediately marched on western Pennsylvania accompanied by Generals Daniel Morgan, Henry Lee, as well as Alexander Hamilton in uniform. Hamilton was proving his conviction by going with the army as he explained to Angelica Church in a letter dated October 23, 1794: “’tis useful that those who propose measures should partake in whatever dangers they may involve”.
Hamilton reminded Washington that a proclamation was required by law to be issued previous to the use of force. The proclamation apparently had little or no effects. Upon the approach of the formidable militia, however, the rebels laid down arms, solicited clemency and promised future submission.
There were several factors that triggered the insurrection, this included regional conditions. Western Pennsylvania at the time was relatively remote economically, and grain was not cost-effective to ship long distances. Whiskey, however, could bear the cost of transport; it was even valuable enough to be used as trading currency. Therefore, extra grain was usually distilled. Because whiskey had this ubiquity, everyone felt the weight of the excise tax.
One must remember how recent the revolution was to the new Americans. The United States had declared its independence only eighteen years before. Certainly there were many whiskey-still owners who felt that the tax on whiskey was as objectionable as Britain’s pre-revolution Stamp Act. They likely believed the response should be the same: violent opposition.
Hamilton explains in his August 2 letter to Washington how “Various alterations have been made…” to the excise tax, although it never appears that he would support repeal of the Act. There is evidence that Hamilton was actually expecting a rebellion from the very beginning in his October 23 letter to Angelica Church; he wrote: “Assure [Mr. Church] that the insurrection will do us a great deal of good and add to the solidity of everything in this country”. The rebels seemed to fall into the government’s plans, as Madison charged, to “establish the principle that a standing army was necessary for enforcing the laws”.
Jefferson helped to repeal the tax after he took office in 1801. This surely came as welcome relief to many, but the decade of the Act’s duration and the resulting rebellion had important effects on the nation.
Unfortunately for the grain farmers, the military confrontation was a direct result of their violence in the summer of 1794. If they had continued to peaceably refuse to pay they may have avoided the government’s hammer. The Pennsylvanians had a right to resist the tax, but they initiated force, which gave the government cause to suppress their actions.
Conversely, this gave the government the chance to prove it was strong enough to cope with the situation. Quickly mustering 15,000 militia was obvious proof. This over-capable force was important to President Washington because “we had given no testimony to the world of being able or willing to support our government and laws”.
The first Administration of the United States had successfully established the authority of the system. Men in history have rebelled against oppressive governments many times. The difference was that these governments generally had perpetrated serious crimes against citizen or human rights. This time, the government had only passed a disagreeable tax, which they had not enforced militarily before the rebellion. The rebels had to learn that being a citizen under the Constitution was different from being a subject of a king. The real lesson was that an aggrieved party should work within the system of the Constitution for as long as is possible before resorting to force.
Bibliography
Bailyn, Bernard, et al., The Great Republic. Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, 1981.
Burke, Merle. United States History: The Growth or our Land. Chicago: American Technical Society, 1957.
Carruth, Gorton, and Associates, eds., The Encyclopedia of American Facts and Dates. New York: Thomas Y. Cromwell Company, 1972.
Cousins, R. B., and Hill, J. A., American History for Schools. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1913.
Freeman, Joanne B., ed., Alexander Hamilton: Writings. New York: Library of America, 2001.
Garrity, John A., 1,001 Things Everyone should Know about American History. New York: Doubleday, 1989.
Goodrich, Rev. Charles A., A History of the United States of America, on a Plan Adapted to Aid the Memory by Systematic Arrangement and Interesting Associations. Shoals, 1822.
Montgomery, D. H., The Leading Facts of American History. Chicago: Ginn and Company, 1910
Morison, Samuel Eliot, The Oxford history of the American People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Overton, Bruce, ed., Macmillan’s Modern Dictionary: Revised Edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1945.
Rocheleau, William F. ed., The Home and School Reference Work. 6 vols. Kansas City: The Kieth and Dixon Company, 1913.
Wirth, Fremont P., The Development of America. Boston: American Book Company, 1948.
-
Tornos, context is important. Of course Washington was nothing like Stalin. Socalserf expressed it well, but I'll add that the quote is not about Joe, and the reference to it was not about George. It says nothing whatsoever about either man, and it is negligent thinking to assume it does, let alone to read into it an intent to imply an equivalence.
Perhaps I've become a bit touchy. Yes, of course, Washington was a big boy and capable of understanding what he was doing. My "Washington should have known better" was a statement of disapproval over what he did, not that he was ignorant of what he was doing. Your referencing that statement about Washington, and then adding the "Uncle Joe" quote made me think you were drawing a comparison. Sorry if I misunderstood your context, there just wasn't much context given.
Anyhow, this has been instructive. I've learned something about these early rebellions. :D It's amazing how quickly the federal government started expanding its power. I can't say that the Whiskey Tax was illegal, but it seems to have been the first step down a long road of ever-worstening abuses.
-
but it seems to have been the first step down a long road of ever-worstening abuses.
Yeah.............to the point that government now gets more of your paycheck than you do....
-
I'm glad you've stuck around Tornos. You definetly have a thick hide. I hope you'll show up at one of our gatherings and sit to have a beer to get to know us. ;D Are you former military? ::)
-
Thanks, I like beer. Hopefully we'll have that chance next summer.;D
I was in the Army Reserve. That was during the Bush41/Clinton years. Served out my enlistment, and moved back into being a full time civilian. The military can really help directionless youngsters find their way. Maybe service in a state militia/guard would do the same. In my case it was completely voluntary, as it should be. :)
-
Sorry if I misunderstood your context, there just wasn't much context given ... It's amazing how quickly the federal government started expanding its power.
Well, the context was your quote, which was about his state of knowledge not his actions. Anyway, no harm done. As I say about the Whiskey rebellion, putting it down sent the message that resistance to taxation with representation would not be tolerated. Kinda set the tone for the next two and a half centuries.
You think that was eye-opening, bring up Lincoln around here some time. >:D.
Just remember, when you read history, from the founding to the present, that we live in Hamilton's America more than anybody else's, and that today is part and parcel of it. He was the true father of this country, not Washington. Our country was strangled in it's infancy, and replaced with Hammy's Bastard Stepchild.
It puts a lot of things in a very different context.
-
You think that was eye-opening, bring up Lincoln around here some time. >:D.
There is a saying; "If you can't find anything good to say about someone, don't say anything at all."
That's all I have to say about Lincoln. :-X
-
Tornos, I think your going to fit in here just fine.
Thanks, I like beer.
That is the statement that puts you over!!
Congrtaulations!! ;D ~W~
-
You guys like beer too? YAY! ;D
-
Well, Duh!
And some of us even make our own (or plan to start doing it again).
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms ...
for some - a Federal Agency,
for others - a convenience store,
for the rest - a way of life!
-
You guys like beer too? YAY! ;D
This thread's for you!
Beer we like.
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=5415.0
-
You guys like beer too? YAY! ;D
What Guys dont like beer?
-
There ARE a few of us who prefer a "wee dram" of good bourbon :o And yes, I am a guy, maybe an old guy, but ........ ;D
-
What Guys dont like beer?
Ermmm... **raises hand**
I never got the taste for it. Back in high school, I skipped beer and went straight to Jack Daniels. Beer always made me gag and puke, but wine and hard liquor were never a problem - except for gin, I can't keep that down either. So my high school days were a blur of JD, vodka, and Mad Dog 20/20. Used to sneak out to the farmer's field next to the school during study hall. Even brought screwdrivers to class in an OJ carton. Still got to the top 5% of my class, 4.6/5 GPA. That tells you how dumbed down public education was even 30 years ago. :D
I pretty much stopped right after high school, when I got a full-time job. So I blame public school for driving me to drink.
-
There ARE a few of us who prefer a "wee dram" of good bourbon :o And yes, I am a guy, maybe an old guy, but ........ ;D
What Guys dont like beer?
Ermmm... **raises hand**
I never got the taste for it. Back in high school, I skipped beer and went straight to Jack Daniels. Beer always made me gag and puke, but wine and hard liquor were never a problem - except for gin, I can't keep that down either. So my high school days were a blur of JD, vodka, and Mad Dog 20/20. Used to sneak out to the farmer's field next to the school during study hall. Even brought screwdrivers to class in an OJ carton. Still got to the top 5% of my class, 4.6/5 GPA. That tells you how dumbed down public education was even 30 years ago. :D
I pretty much stopped right after high school, when I got a full-time job. So I blame public school for driving me to drink.
oh....well....ummmm... there are always exceptions!
-
O.K. Clemmac - wee point of correction here!!!!!!
Scotch come in 'wee drams'.
As in, "a wee dram for the pipes - and a wee dram for the piper".
in Celtic, whisky is called "uisge beatha"—the water of life
In truth, Scotch Whisky should be Scot's Whisky - note the subtle bastardization of the true name.
And, Yes, I do drink fine single malt, carry a sword, and wear a kilt -but not on the motorcycle!
There are some places that should never be impacted with 80 mph bugs, especially bees and wasps!!!
Oh, and Clemmac, anytime you're in the neighborhood, stop in ... I've got a few different kinds for your appreciative sampling skills.
-
Big Ugly,
Maybe you'll forgive me this one time, my grandfather immigrated from Scotland so I'm 1/4 Scot. There are still "Ilravie's" in the old country. I do appreciate single malt too, but decent bourbon is more available in Gillette and there isn't a good selection of single malt. My kids sometimes bring some from Minnesota when they visit ;D
Thanks for the invite ~W~ ~W~
Clem MacIlravie
Scotsdown, Wyoming
-
I don't turn anything thats alcohol down unless its tastes like kerosene if its free. I'm a friendly drunk. :) ;)
-
O.K. Clemmac, How about we pass a resolution, here and now, that (on occasion) GOOD bourbon can be refered to by the dram (or is it drachm). Oh, lookie lookie, "Dram is also used informally to mean a small amount of liquid, especially Scotch whisky", however, we still stand resolved, yes?
Your heritage does not surprise me at all - Wyoming is just crawling (esp after an evening of drachming) with Scots - even a lot the people moving here are of Scots descent.
What has always astounded me, here in Lander, the place with the best selection of the better Scot's Whiskys is the gas station!!!
Go Figure?
I'l bring a bit when next I'm out your way.
-
How about we pass a resolution, here and now, that (on occasion) GOOD bourbon can be refered to by the dram (or is it drachm). Oh, lookie lookie, "Dram is also used informally to mean a small amount of liquid, especially Scotch whisky", however, we still stand resolved, yes?
Agreed.
What has always astounded me, here in Lander, the place with the best selection of the better Scot's Whiskys is the gas station!!!
Just good folks in a good town :D
I'l bring a bit when next I'm out your way.
I'll look forward to to it ;D ;D
-
Just saying hi...
-
Just saying hi...
Hi! ;D
-
Just saying hi...
Howdy to you too TheBaron!
-
Hello, thebaron! Don't let these long winded bozos inhibit you, jump right in and join the discussion. :)
-
Hey! I resemble that remark!