Who Plans Whom - Latest Comments

Re: The Ideal Form of Government

justino — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:06:08 -0000

I guess I should have proofread better.

Re: July’s FIJA Outreach

georgedonnelly — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:13:51 -0000

Kudos on your excellent work!

Re: July’s FIJA Outreach

Yellowdaysbluenights — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:43:11 -0000

I thought this event was pretty successful. I think that the more people we expose to this information, the more commonplace jury nullification will become. If people are willing to question the nature of the law, they will also begin questioning the legitimacy of government authority over the lives of people in the first place.

Re: Resolving the Shire Society Dispute

justino — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:28:19 -0000

After reading this, I should reiterate that ideas themselves cannot be owned, but the labor that created those ideas are owned. That is why I believe someone can set conditions when sharing one's ideas.

Re: Constitutional Arguments for Open Immigration

justino — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:22:13 -0000

Now that I think about it, a better title would have been "Constitutional Arguments Against Immigration Restrictions."

Re: Lawyer Defends Racial Discrimination During FIJA Activism

georgedonnelly — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:16:42 -0000

Kudos on your activism.

Re: How to Start a Movement

georgedonnelly — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:14:20 -0000

Exactly right, very succinctly stated.

Re: How to Start a Movement

justino — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:35:54 -0000

Some other ideas now come to mind: courage and certainty.

We gain certainty by acting on our beliefs and experiencing the consequences. It takes courage to go on the line, so the speak.

Re: Support* the Troops

ijustino — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 14:53:22 -0000

No doubt, part of taking personal responsibility should include providing some sort of restitution.

I would personally offer my forgiveness if someone was truly remorseful, but others who have been more directly affected may feel differently.

Re: Support* the Troops

Pete Eyre — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:17:25 -0000

A thought-provoking question no doubt but I think we may disagree on our conclusion. Should an individual be supported - even if they stand in opposition to immoral orders - if their position and training were paid for by theft?

I'd love to see some pro-freedom activists do outreach outside of military recruiting centers. Hopefully get potential recruits to think about their actions. The biggest difficulty I'd guess would be to offer them something tangible in terms of a better standard of living or other opportunities since many who do sign-up are looking for a way out of their current environment (the negative characteristics of which are often caused and/or exacerbated by government).

Re: Lawyer Defends Racial Discrimination During FIJA Activism

Chris H — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:27:34 -0000

1. Your link needs to be to the 1876 Constitution. My progression from the 1836 to the 1845 Constitutions was to demonstrate that "as in other cases" are deliberate words that were added.
2. Those talking points need to follow a progression from as in other cases to Article 1, Section 15 "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. The legislature shall pass such laws as may be needed to regulate the same, and to maintain it's purity and efficiency"
Jury nullification is a consequence of a trial by jury, "for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge."

Your point of contention will ultimately be with the Code of Criminal Procedures Title I, Article 36.13.
"Jury is judge of facts. Unless otherwise provided in this Code, the jury is the exclusive judge of the facts, but it is bound to receive the law from the court and be governed thereby."

The counter to this is again to return to the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 29.
"To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions shall be void."

Article 36.13 is in direct contradiction of Article I Section 15 as it does anything but maintain the purity of the trial by jury.

Re: Google Voice, a Work in Progress

Chris H — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:49:21 -0000

That's a bit unfair. 99 out of 100 humans would transcribe that incorrectly. Give the computer algorithm a break.

Re: Rockwell’s Anti-State Cornucopia

Leopold — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:49:30 -0000

LR also has a podcast he updates pretty regularly. He's got some great anti-state stuff there too.

Re: Odds and Enders for Feb. 22

Garn LeBaron — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:43:59 -0000

Grandview Council Rejects Stimulus Dollars
This is a political football. Evidence can be found here: http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/grandview/x1...

Re: Toward a Consistent Immigration Policy

Eli Wilde — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:53:46 -0000

There is so much information here! I love this website.

Re: Even Jonah Goldberg Gets Why Electoral Libertarianism Fails

clay barham — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:00:21 -0000

Howard Roark, in the Fountainhead, epitomizes what the earliest American settlers discovered that did not exist in the world at the time. It was the ability for each individual to think, imagine, create, build and change the environment with their own sweat, even disturbing the established and accepted way things were done, and without fear of punishment. That was America, and what set her apart from all other nations, as cited in Save Pebble Droppers & Prosperity at Amazon and claysamerica.com.

Re: ‘I Will Hang Your Ass’

justino — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:45:26 -0000

No, I think a statist is one who believe that sovereignty (or political autonomy) rests in the state or that individuals exist to serve well-being of the state.

Re: ‘I Will Hang Your Ass’

Kirsten — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:37:56 -0000

Would you say that everyone who supports a form of state is a collectivist?

Re: Getting Across to Non-Libertarians

clay barham — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:14:33 -0000

TRUSTING A POLITICIAN
Can you trust your politician, the one you voted for? Here’s a simple way to find out. If the elected official, at any level, swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend the United States against all enemies, then turns around to justify legislation and political power that trashes the Constitution and the nation, don’t you believe he or she is not trustworthy? Look at President Obama. He took the Oath in front of the whole nation, and then began trashing it right out of the bag. He, and his Party, does not believe in the U.S. Constitution, preferring instead law by a parliament. But, if they told you that when they ran for office, they would loose. You would never vote for them, yet, many roll over and accept what is given us in the way of tyranny substituted for freedom, of the importance of community over the individual. Are they trustworthy, or is it better they lie and do what the community of organized crime in the American capitol. Claysamerica.com

Re: Toward a Consistent Immigration Policy

fightfortruth — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:28:51 -0000

The last paragraph is the coup de grâce to anyone who puts all their hopes in the state to relieve us from tyrrany and wishes to stay clean of conscience. Why must you remind me of what I believe, they will say? Why must you pull back the curtain? Reminding people of their own shame in participating in this charade of election politics can be painful, like it is for myself. There is no such thing as compromising your principles, they can only be preserved or abandoned.

I know that you are right and that I would be abandoning my principles if I vote for Medina or anyone else, but desperation makes people act like the people who put them in that despair. We forget everything that means something to us, making ourselves believe that what we do is right even though it only serves our purpose, our ends.

Illegal immigration is not the problem and never has been. Any illegal immigration issues that have arisen over the years are merely a symptom of the problems manifested by the state by providing welfare programs to everyone including illegal immigrants (which solve nothing and never end once established), bleeding the people of their hard earned money through THEFT (taxation), and abandoning the principles of free enterprise through regulation and force. The state is the cause of all our economic and political woes. When you have an infection, you don't allow the bacteria to spread, you heal it at the source. Increasing the power of the state and using aggression to take care of the illegal immigration problem is not curing our ills, it is only spreading the bacteria. I do not wish to use the long arm of the state to create more tyrrany and misery.

Illegal immigrants have done nothing to me and are as much a victim as I am. It is the state that stole from my pocket through threat of violence to provide these programs that are being exploited. Put the blame where it belongs. Don't perpetuate the cycle of violence by creating a mythical scape goat (illegal immigration) to sacrifice to your god, the state. Who knows, you could be the next goat on the chopping block; that is the nature of democracy after all.

Re: For Rules, Not Rulers

Gregory Despain — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:36:14 -0000

I simply wanted to add a comment here to say thanks for you very nice ideas. Blogs are troublesome to run and time consuming therefore I appreciate when I see well written material. Your time isn't going to waste with your posts. Thanks so much and carry on You'll defintely reach your goals! have a great day!

Re: For Rules, Not Rulers

Matthew C. Kriner — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:45:05 -0000

What a wonderful post! Please continue this great work I will be sure to check back regularly...

Re: For Rules, Not Rulers

justino — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:07:59 -0000

"It would scarcely be too much to claim that the main merit of the individualism which [Adam Smith] and his contemporaries advocated is that is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity, sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes intelligent and more often stupid." — F.A. Hayek

I agree that there will always be criminals (those who commit aggression) and a proper social system should discourage their behavior rather than supplement it. The more free a country is, the more wealth the residents produce and the more valuable they are as livestock for tax eaters to dominate. Government breeds and attracts criminals because it gives them the legitimacy they need to openly coordinate their aggression with other like minds. Natural law does not provide a method for criminals to presume to regulate other people's lives and property because the market discourages aggression and promotes the voluntary and the consensual.

In part, I agree that we can't just abolish one form of institution and expect to live in liberty. It takes changing the prevailing idea that one person's gain is another person's loss, which encourages the notion that it is necessary to govern others by force. I think history played this out. Religion was abolished as the prevailing method of control, and so serfdom and slavery were elevated as the preferred method for a minority of people to dominate the masses. Those are mostly eradicated, so a more deceptive form of serfdom has risen. In all that time, they never shed the central premise of all institutionalized methods of coercion, the necessity to control others. Finally, I think David Friedman makes a convincing case that the state could not return if abolished peacefully. That would need an entire post to expand upon.

Re: For Rules, Not Rulers

Chris H — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:02:46 -0000

I've created a mess of work that I'm behind on. A proper answer would require a manifesto of sorts. To balance those two constraints, I'll attempt a brief answer.

The point I'm making is that the government does not have a monopoly on force.

"After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest." - Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

While he debunks this point as far as he doesn't resign his conscience to the majority, it confirms that there will always be coercion. Whether your 'state' is 300 million within the borders of the United States of America, the 24 million within the borders of Texas or the 25 that live on your block, there will result in a unit that grabs power because they are the strongest. The key in a republican form of government is to ensure a moral people elect a moral representative body that has the wisdom to understand when its use of coercion is running exactly contrary to its purpose.

When you get done abolishing today's perceived institutions of coercion, there will be the next institution that is no different than the one you vanquished to stand in its place waiting for you.

Your stateless society is a state society. Your only argument is under the number of states. You wish to impose rules on their accepted belligerence and never have a means of enforcing those rules, except through the same moral people that I put on a pedestal.

Re: Our Hero, the State

Lester Gambrel — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 01:13:44 -0000

awesome article. I am so looking forward to reading more articles!