this is the paradox of the modern society built upon the political setup of the "social contract" on the ideas of Roussaue, Locke, and the magna carta, the american constitution, etc.
so now we need to form our own local currencies, our own local farming, our own community networks, our own DIY lifestyles and ways of living together while living in this society :>
We need to opt out and make our own communities, our own local currencies, our own urban farms, our own local gardens, our own sharing of resources for CO OP health covrerage, etc etc/ DIY PUNK HIP HOP style
What about people voting for Ron Paul because they see him as a path to a voluntary society, in which you wouldn't have problems with the IRS? Paul is very familiar with anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism, he was a good friend of Rothbard and is a declarded fan of Lysander Spooner...
@ericpduarte Trouble is, Ron paul is NOT a step toward freedom, or on the path to a voluntary society. A slave being sold to a nicer, more permissive master is NOT a step closer to being free. He's still 100% a slave, even if his lifestyle is drastically improved. Begging a ruling class for legislative permission to be free--which is all "political action" amounts to--is the opposite of freedom. That's why the tiny authoritarian seed planted by the Constitution was doomed to lead here.
I have an honest question for you. Who do you think would be the best president. NOT a good president (because you clearly don't want a president). However, you know someone will become president in 2013. Is there anyone that you would say "Oh. [Insert name here] got elected president. At least he will probably be somewhat better than all the other choices (although not very)"?
How do you feel about Ron Paul? He advocates getting rid of the IRS. I normally don't vote but when i see an opportunity to elect someone who might steal less from us is it not then prudent to vote for that person? Maybe the best idea is actually to vote for someone who wants to impose absolute tyranny. Maybe we have had it all wrong. Maybe the only way to get people in the streets shooting back is to force absolute tyranny on everyone.
If I was on your jury my verdict would have been not guilty .But I would have recommended that the IRS give back any money that you gave them ,With interest ! And penalty's
@kevlarunderware Unfortunately, the chance of you--or anyone else with a brain--getting on a jury in a tax case is exceedingly low. Well, there have been occasional exceptions, which is why Joseph Banister, Woody Harrell, Tommy Cryer, Vernice Kuglin, and some others were acquitted. But prosecutors try hard not to have people with brains on juries in tax case--and they sure succeeded in mine! But thanks for the thought.
@LarkenRose - Heard about a court case that involved a jury selection that couldn't be seated because the "defendant" didn't claim to be a citizen (he knew the jig) and all jurors said they WERE citizens so basically, they weren't a jury of his peers because they claimed to be citizens.
@DrHeinersSanatorium Don't believe everything you see in the movies. The "wild west" ... well ... wasn't. A more accurate portrayal than shoot-em-up westerns was "Little House on the Prairie," based on the real life of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and her "Little House" books. And by the way, it was ANARCHY! The settlers spread faster than the control freaks could follow. (I suggest you read "Discovery of Freedom," by Laura's daughter, Rose Wilder Lane.)
@LarkenRose Yep... thats what they portray in the media so that people beg for their own enslavement. Its all part of the brainwashing... if people really understood what life was like in the past they would be disgraced with themselves.
@DrHeinersSanatorium What U miss by saying wild loners of the west can just exist without the Gov expecting some type of tax to be paid by them is that if they live inside the borders of the US then they fall under the umbrella of the US Gov protecting them from other countries/people killing them & taking their stuff. Someone has to pay for the US military keeping watch & reacting to defend the border. ALL who reside in the US should help pay for the common defense in TAXES
@DrHeinersSanatorium since you come from Germany (like me), the "great generous welfare state", you are probably know how these generous countries treat people they want to move outside: Keyword "Wegzugsbesteuerung", which means: You are free to go, but your stuff remains here. Basically from the principle the same method the former east german DDR treated there citizens.
AFAIK: The USA is even worse, having the principle: No matter where you go, you are still our slaves.
@DrHeinersSanatorium Having a coercive, parasitic ruling class which forcibly controls everyone else, is not "a social contract between free people." The fact that we were all taught otherwise doesn't make it any less insane. If you really can't tell the difference between actual voluntary cooperation, and what "government" does, I doubt this discussion is worth having.
Now instead of totally disagreeing I will say that our Gov currently has gone way beyond what our forefathers wanted in regards to force or rule. Most liberals (Dems & Rep) want more gov control and twist what our founders intended. This is why the Tea Party is pushing so hard to get conservative constitutionalists elected to Gov. If we do not get good people elected this time then maybe we all should be looking for an island. LOL
@LarkenRose I didn't say how it should be abolished or that politicians had to do it. I agree that all of us ignoring it would be more effective in abolishing it if you could get people to. I'm still getting through TMDS, I'm about 40 pages in, I still don't see how a voluntary society's committees wouldn't be called government. Thanks for responding though. Most authors aren't so accessible and I enjoy the discussion. Once I've finished, I'll see if I have anymore questions.
Despite my disagreement on what constitutes a government. I think we can both agree on that the IRS must be abolished. Imprisoning people for not paying the federal income tax is absurd. Besides the immorality of imprisoning the Browns, we all have to pay now for them to be in jail. Since they weren't hurting anyone, it would be cheaper to just let them be free and better for society because you would have one more dentist providing needed healthcare in society to a rural community
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Actually, no. My goal is not to have the IRS "abolished." Because that implies the politicians giving their legislative PERMISSION for us to keep what we earn. I want the IRS ignored and resisted, because the people wake up and realize they DON'T NEED any "law" to give them permission to own themselves.
Even if you have a completely voluntary society, your voluntary committees that build roads or deal with murderers are still government. You would have to deal with the fact that if someone kills your neighbor, they must be stopped. Until you can give me an example of how you would deal with this real scenario without enforcement, your society will still have a government.
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Sorry if this sounds like a cop-out, but I did take 15 years to write a book about this, so I'm not very eager to type it all again, 300 characters at a time, in YouTube comment boxes. You are still falling for utter garbage you've been taught about "government" and "law" and "authority." You're still trying to reconcile the most dangerous superstition with freedom, when the two are absolutely incompatible.
@LarkenRose LOL. Writing a book doesn't mean you got it right! You can only have your 'perfect freedom' when your dead: there is no such place on earth. All societies are going to force people to do things they don't want. The US under Constitutional control is the least forceful of all gov systems. (Help get gov back under the Const) You avoid my statement: Leave US if you don't like our system of gov. Renounce Ur citizenship & live on some island: see how long till someone takes Ur stuff.
@heisest You don't get that YOU are the one enabling the extortion and subjugation. You are the one condoning it, saying it's inevitable and necessary. As a result of your indoctrination into the cult of statist (and yes, the Constitution is a piece of the statist, authoritarian BS), you are advocating that everyone you know be robbed and forcibly dominated. Meanwhile, you insist that reality cannot be any other way. You think our only choice is WHICH ruling class will own us. You're wrong.
@LarkenRose Show me ANY place in time or history (or now) where people were not to one degree or more 'ruled' by others: you can't. Any group of people who did not provide for a means of cultural self defense were soon killed &/or robbed of their wealth. To provide for these means they either paid for it by money (tax) OR their time (which is the same thing). Our founders via the Constitution provided for the least 'rule' society needed to survive. U still refuse to leave the US or even answer
@heisest Up until a couple hundred years ago, I could have said, "Show me one country that doesn't have slavery." Is that supposed to be a valid argument? "Well, we've been doing things the destructive, immoral way for so long, it MUST be right!" The best thing the founders did--which was not their intention--was to demonstrated that "limited government" is a fairy tale. Why do you think trying the same thing again--as if there's any chance of that anyway--would turn out better this time?
@LarkenRose We still have slavery even in the US. (& no I don't mean tax payers!) You kick against human nature & tilt at windmills. What U want WILL NEVER come to pass in this life. It has never happened & will never happen. People form societies to protect themselves from others taking their stuff & someone has to pay for it: in TAXES. You refuse to leave the US because U KNOW our system provides the most free society on earth: By staying here U prove my position is correct.
@heisest I stay here because I was born here, and this is where I live. I don't intend to leave just because parasites and tyrants think they own me. You sure seem determined to resist the evolution of humanity to something other than stupid beast status. The delusion of "authority" is doomed to fall, sooner or later, despite the psychological kicking and screaming of the thoroughly indoctrinated. You might as well say, "We'll never have spherical earth! It will always be flat!"
@LarkenRose As already mentioned all born in the US fall under the social compact that our forefather set up: If you don't like this then leave. U are the one arguing the "flat earth" view. You cannot change the nature of people to want more stuff: even your stuff. We just need a Gov system in place that allows U to keep more of Ur stuff. You show no proof that "delusion of authority is doomed to fall": U are only hoping it will. U staying here proves US is best Gov system in world
I say this even though I was convicted of willful failure to file tax return years ago. Not because I believe in paying NO taxes... just paying an income tax that forces me to be a witness against myself. No society will survive without payment of some taxes to provide for the 'common defense'. We need to vote for people who will control the government and make it stop going beyond it’s constitution authority. What you advocate is anarchy.
Your logic is based on a false premise. You & others were born in the US or came here & enjoy benefits that have to be paid for. You skip over the “social compact” for just that reason. The formation of US created a system: it was lawfully voted & approved. All who are born after the formation inherited the system. Your views are contrary to the constitution & present social compact. Leave the US if you don’t like to pay any taxes. Without a Fed Gov w/army the US would be attacked & destroyed.
@heisest Imagining a "social compact," calling robbery "lawful," pretending that being born obligates someone to obey a ruling class, predicting the end of the world without a gang of parasites subjugating everyone--you parrot the indoctrination line well. But it's all utter BS. Yes, what I advocate is "anarchy," because that is what is. "Government" is a myth, a delusion, a superstition. The lie caged you, and you still don't see it.
@LarkenRose All civilizations to survive have to have a 'social compact' to pay for the military to stop other civilizations from killing U & taking your stuff. It’s a myth to think there will never be the rich who will use their wealth/power to get richer. Every place on the earth has these groups & you’re dreaming if you think you’ll ever be rid of them. The US is the freest country because of our social compact: The Constitution. Help make it the Law of the land again. Anarchy just destroys.
@heisest Civilizations require a "social compact" so "government" can STOP people from killing you and taking your stuff?? Would you like to compare the instances of murder and theft COMMITTED by "governments" against their own people, to similar evils committed "privately"? The dream is that a parasitic, coercive ruling class is ever going to DEFEND the subject class from the ruling class. Now THAT is insane. P.S. Which has done more harm: what the Constitution replaced, or what it created?
@LarkenRose I noticed you never answered the question about being born in the US under our 'social compact' now obligates you to adhere to this social compact. (The original one, not the view now that Gov is greater than it's citizens. You should be fighting to make the Gov obey the constitution). Taxes paid for the roads you use, even paid for parts of the Internet allow you to post your video’s. If all you want is your anarchy then renounce your US citizenship & go elsewhere.
@heisest Yes, I answered it. The notion of an implied "social compact" is absolute BS, start to finish--asinine cult mythology made up by control freaks in an attempt to pretend that they actually have the right to rule, and have the "consent of the governed." You're still stuck on constitutions and "citizenship," because you think those things actually mean something. They don't. They are just part of the statist doctrine that tries to legitimize the subjugation of mankind.
While I think that NOT paying the "income" tax is probably the best choice at stopping government, I'm not ready to do that yet. But Larken I will make you a promise: If I vote for anyone in a "public" election for "public" office, funded by taxes, even if it is Ron Paul, I will send you one gold French Franc. BTW I really liked, "The Most Dangerous Superstition" and "The Iron Web" CD. -Kurt
If nobody paid income tax, they could just borrow against your and your childrens, grandchildrens and so on, labor. Just like they do now, because all tax income is too low compared to expenditures. So this is not a solution. At some point in future, when structure of production and money collapses, causing mass poverty violent revolution seems unavoidable. Hopefully by then a lot of people will be educated enough in ideas of liberty so government monopoly will never happen again.
@zbigniewzapora Except that if nobody paid it would likely collapse tomorrow instead of in 3 - 5 years like it's going to now. In any case, I just want to opt out of the whole damn thing. Remember Matt Groening's "Life in Hell" with his monologue of" those that can, do"? If I was one of those that had enough salable skills and could start my own business under the table, I would. BTW government is in fact a monopoly on the use of aggressive force against peaceful people.
But there will always be people that will pay it. As long as threat of violence and associated losses are less than benefits of just STFU and paying to avoid trouble then people will pay. I'm paying because I don't want my life destroyed by the state. That could change when I will have nothing to lose though but at that point I will pay no taxes and ignore state completely and focus on my survival. It is unrealistic to expect that people will just stop paying taxes overnight
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Ahh yes well you see the free market will make everything magically better. There is no need for murderers in a completely free market society so there just simply wont be any and nobody will lie steal or cheat because that would harm their market value!
Obviously there needs to be system in place to prevent people and companies forming what are essentially governments so we propose a kind of "government" that forces people to not form governments because that is freedom.
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Sorry, I was trolling and paraphrasing where a lot of debates with zero-government/tax/regulation types goes. They usually end up saying that their libertarian utopia only works with a whole bunch of clauses and organisations that essentially amount to a government but with no consideration for things like workers rights and fraud prevention.
I agree that the current notion of government that people have in their minds is detrimental to a free society. The idea that we need a necessary force is wrong. I don't think people who run for office freely though and are working to change the meaning of government from authoritarianism to voluntarism by repealing oppressive legislation are supporting an authoritarian system; no more than someone who picks up the trash in a park supports the person who did it.
This is why I believe government is a double edge sword. Depending on the context and understanding, people could use it for good (voluntary cooperation), neutral, or evil (authoritarianism). If a local body of people voluntarily came together to build a road, they would still be a "government" managing a problem but not in an authoritarian sense. Noam Chomsky draws a good point about the meaning of political terms across cultures watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE&feature=related.
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Why do you want to hang onto "government," in the hopes that by some miracle, it will be something it has never been? Actually, it's something it CAN'T be. A voluntary organization wouldn't legislate, wouldn't tax, wouldn't have a monopoly on anything, and would have no reason to be called "government." So why won't you let it go? Why do you keep hoping for something that has never been: a just, voluntary, purely defensive "government"?
I don't see how your voluntary organization wouldn't legislate especially if it came to imprisoning people for crimes against others (back to the murder debate). By establishing, as a community, that murderers go to jail for killing someone would still be legislation. It would still be a law. How are you going to do it because whether you call it voluntary or authoritarian organization, it is still a government in the literal meaning of the word (gubernae=to manage/guide).
How you would deal with murderers without legislating? Why do you keep holding to the idea that we can exist without government in any form? Government has always existed whether it was a family hierarchy, tribal, communal, local, state, federal, communist etc. Government is just a loaded term referring to how people work together to manage issues, which can vary in degree from voluntary to authoritarian. Even a voluntary justice system that dealt with murder would legislate.
Voluntary organizations do have monopolies. What do you think Microsoft is? What about the Chiquita banana company or the private water monopoly in many s. american countries. I support my local public water department and the job they do because I am charged by my usage and I have a say and the law keeps it a public water supply so that Nestle can't come in and charge me double for something that wasn't inherently theirs in the first place. There are certain anti-aggressive forms of government
I wouldn't elect you to be my master. But if you wanted to abolish and make the IRS illegal, you'd have my vote and I would work with you to garner support. I think we differ on what constitutes a "government". I think the word is dependent upon time, place, and the cultural context. In this day in age in the US it means authoritarianism, but what's to prevent a voluntary society from using it to mean voluntary cooperation somewhere else or at some other time if it means "manage"
I agree that the problem is in people's heads. People are scared though to disobey especially in these difficult times when they have to prioritize and feed their families. I would prefer 10 million people just disobey but changing people's minds so quickly is not going to happen unless there is a system wide failure. It might be quicker to elect those whose records show a devotion to ending the IRS. Coalitions do work as Ron Paul showed when he cracked open the FED.
Sadly though, he's the only one whose record has been consistent with getting rid of these laws or voting against increasing them. I don't know anyone else.
I'm voting Ron Paul and only Ron Paul. He wants to get rid of government especially the IRS, the major aggressor. I'm not giving up voting because his record has shown to stop and reverse the growth of government. I want to vote for people who are going to get rid of these laws. I don't know how you are going to get rid of these laws without someone getting in there and repealing them. That's a difficult task. Ron Paul is the best bet at getting rid of the IRS at this moment in time.
@LiveFreeorDieGuy You wrote: "I don't know how you are going to get rid of these laws without someone getting in there and repealing them." Right there is the crux of the matter. This may sound like a silly question, but WHY do you want those "laws" repealed? Think carefully before you answer.
I should clarify that I don't want all laws repealed. If you use unwarranted force against another human being, like murder, you should go to prison. The same standards/rules of not using unwarranted force should apply to government decisions. Ie a body of people decide to imprison (use of force) a murderer (who has used unwarranted force against others). I want laws like forced taxation to be repealed so you don't have to go to prison, Mr. Rose.
@LiveFreeorDieGuy What if, instead of desperately trying to vote for freedom--which never works--ten million people who would have voted for Ron Paul just started DISOBEYING the stupid, bogus commands of politicians? What if people stopped imagining that they needed "legislative" permission to be free? Why bother begging the masters to change their "laws"? Why not just IGNORE them? Playing their game gives them the illusion of legitimacy. The problem is not in DC; it's in people's heads.
@LarkenRose But if you ignore the laws, you have consequences. You said that playing their game gives them legitimacy. You're correct that they have no moral legitimacy, but the do have legitimacy in that they will harm you if you don't follow their laws. This is the reason to try to repeal their laws, which are just opinions at the point of a gun.
@LarkenRose I don't agree with society's definition or view of government. Government will always exist in the sense of people coming together to manage issues (if you take it strictly from its latin word gubernare). Whether that is by force or by voluntary nature depends on society. Primarily it is by force, which I disagree with. When you get together with your neighbors voluntarily to build a road for your community, you are still a government in the "management" definition of it.
This may seem like a silly question too but what would you call your voluntary society's committee that deal's with unwarranted force (like murderers, thieves, rapists)?
2012 probably will be the last time I vote, and I'm only postponing my entry to the world of non-voting because I feel like voting for Ron Paul would be a justifiable act of self-defense, and an attempt to protect rather than endanger the lives and wealth of humankind. It's not that I really believe Ron Paul can hamstring the marching Leviathan state overnight, but I'm just so damn hopeless right now. I don't see any other alternative to bring about a voluntary society.
@RationalDischarge I would suggest that your feeling of hopelessness won't at all be helped by the ritual of voting, but may be helped by looking outside of politics. There are, for example, ideas and groups springing up all over the place, working to make it so that those who WANT freedom can achieve it, while the current version of the monstrous game of human farming (a.k.a. "government") comes crashing down. If your goal is to fix "government," you should feel hopeless. So try a new goal.
I do not believe our votes count anyway and are just a way to get us to except
our slavery. We just had over $25,000 stole from each of us around a lake. we tried to stop it and had over 50% of us sign a petition to stop it yet it passed with a 78% vote. How could that be?? They secretly changed it to a land mass vote and included an 800 acre farm near us. More than 30 homes were lost due to this bogus vote. We all learned voting is bogus and they will take what they want when they want.
I figured out all this stuff when I was about 12. It took me another 25 years to understand why these points are so beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of people.
OK, I guess we've forked the discussion. My last missive would have been a single one, if it were not for YouTube's limits. AAR...
You see it as me supporting the $100 theft, I see it as forestalling the $200 theft. Either way, you're gonna get robbed. This latter point is what I do not see as having been addressed by your arguments so far.
@joebeardotnet I'm not asking that you make sure I don't get robbed by anyone. I'm just asking that you not CONDONE it. The ultimate tyrant trick is to convince you that your only choice is WHICH gang of parasitic thugs will rule the world. Then, when you try to pick the slightly-less-evil gang, they say you AGREED to the oppression. Don't. If they still rob me WITHOUT your blessing, I won't blame you a bit. But when the people YOU voted for rob me and cage me (which they did), I'll complain.
Accordingly, the only thing I have in my power to do (at this point in human history) is to advocate for the somewhat less demanding aggressor. IOW, to vote for whom I believe will reduce the scope of aggression.
Sure, I can (and I do) advocate for the dismantling of the entire system. But I also work to reduce it as a possibly achievable interim step.
I do not concede that voting conveys any legitimate authority to 'the system'. I think this is central to your point? Convince me that it does?
@joebeardotnet You claim that if you don't vote, you're "doing nothing," and that the ONLY thing you can do is advocate the lesser of two control freaks. Really? Participating in the slave ritual known as "politics" IS doing nothing, even though we're all taught that whining to the master is the only "civilized" thing we can do. I'm not telling you to look the other way; I'm telling you to STOP GIVING IT YOUR BLESSING by voting. Again, trying to empower a smaller thief is still CONDONING THEFT.
Hmm. I usually follow your arguments. I'm not yet getting this one.
If I don't vote, I am doing nothing. I could argue that looking the other way while someone is getting robbed with threat of violence is similarly immoral.
You could respond that by voting, I am merely replacing the first aggressor with a slightly less demanding aggressor. And I'd have to agree with this analysis.
I think the point left upon which we differ, is that no matter what I do or don't do, there will be an aggressor.
@joebeardotnet Let me put it this way: if two people showed up at your house, one asking for your support to steal $100 from me, and one asking for your support to steal $200 from me, do you really think you'd be doing me a FAVOR by supporting the first guy? How about, instead, if you oppose theft on principle? The fact that your thug of choice might not be as bad as another one doesn't make him good, and doesn't make your support of him noble or righteous.
Ouch. I'm not quite following your logic here. I get that advocating that we all be taxed for things that we do not all want is immoral. But I don't see how that leads to a conclusion that voting is evil.
On a purely pragmatic basis, _someone_ will be holding the reigns of power for the next cycle. On this basis, would it not be true that voting for someone who would actually reduce this theft (albeit not end it entirely, which would be the optimal and just outcome) be desired?
@joebeardotnet When you vote, you are trying to put people into power who will demand money from me, under threat of force. The fact that other people are trying to put someone ELSE into power, who might rob me even a little bit more, has no bearing on the immorality of you advocating theft. And saying that SOMEONE is going to rob me, even if it's true, doesn't make it okay for YOU to advocate it. That's why the point is whether YOU PERSONALLY advocate that I be robbed. If you vote, you do.
I have a counter "offer": I'll not steal from you, nor advocate that others steal from you on my behalf, regardless of whether you reciprocate or not.
@kentmcmanigal Yeah, that's actually the "deal" I make too, except that it's really just a unilateral declaration. I only do it in "deal" format to try to guilt statists into questioning their assumptions and actions. Ironically, while 200,000,000 people are vehemently advocating that you and I be robbed, I'm vehemently advocating that they NOT be robbed (and I'm guessing you advocate that too). And twelve morons decided I should go to prison for that.
@LarkenRose I know where you stand. I was just making my stance clear, too. I had no doubt it was the same as yours, and I understood you were just trying to get the statists to examine their inconsistencies a little more thoroughly. If I had heroes, you'd probably be one of mine. Keep up the awesome work.
Use the annotations feature of YouTube to put a big link SMACK DAB at the end o the video and when your book is mentioned, to take the viewer directly into amazon. Make it easy for us to buy your stuff.
@RuddODragonFear Are you implying that I'm someone who actually knows what he's doing when it comes to YouTube? I resent that! Hmmm, yeah, let me see if I can figure out how to do the annotation, link thingy. Thanks for the suggestion.
@RuddODragonFear It doesn't look like annotation links can go to anything other than other YouTube stuff. I don't think I can link to Amazon. (I'm pretending I know what I'm talking about.)
@LarkenRose mmm, if that won't work, place a banner with the linky thingie beneath the image of your book in the video, reminding people that the amazon link to the book is below the video. then place the amazon link to the video in the description section of the video. That's I think the best you can do under the circumstances.
I agree with you that the Democrats as well as the Republicans are only working against our best interests, but I ask you this. Who would you have build public roads that you travel upon? Are you saying that there should be no government?
@fabianmockian There has never been, and will never be, legitimate "government." Making roads, or anything else, doesn't give anyone an exemption from morality. People who want something should find a way to do it without robbing people who don't want to be involved.
I have a similar offer for people. I volunteer to be a benevolent dictator of the world. They don't want me to rule them? That is how I feel about them.
Or can you give a little overview? I know you wrote some books and likely cover that in them. I like to write also, and am working that, yet, I am currently stuck in the j.o.b world and I am looking for suggestions.
Larken, this is a truly excellent video, expressing crucial truth & critical thinking people need to snap out of their conditioning and create a more peaceful and just world; I think the land issue needs to be emphasized as well, specifically the fact that all social-systems deny us our birthright, our fair share of the land, and that disallows us from becoming self/community-sufficient, which is the root of our monetary/corporate dependency. Tax/cost-free land needs to be a human right, agree?
I wanted to mention a book that few are probably aware of, its called "Hologram of Liberty" and it is a critical analysis of the Constitution. A person can do a search and find it. Larken, as you are most likely aware of, many people who are somewhat aware of the BS out there, many wonder how to go about fixing things, ie the country. I know the answer is one has to start with themselves. Yet, wanted your take on the steps a person can take, physically, to become free. How did you do it?
I have recently been listening to your podcasts and watching your videos. I respect what you have to say and greatly respect the courage you have in standing by your principles. I am moving toward the mind of an Anarchist/Voluntaryist. In response to your video, I am not advocating that you be forced to fund things you do not find moral. As a matter of fact, I see any tax as theft as well and have been arguing this as much as possible. Some agree with me, but do not see any recourse.
@4Freedomrider I didn't say do nothing. I said stop advocating robbery. People have been trained to think that playing the game of politics is "doing something," and that "your vote is your voice." As the bumper-sticker says, if voting made a difference, it would be illegal. Voting IS doing nothing--nothing useful, anyway. It legitimizes the parasitic monster, and the robbery it commits, and reinforces the notion that we need the holy permission of politicians to keep what we produce.
@LarkenRose You may be right about voting. I personally will still vote for the man who has committed himself to chopping away at the roots of the monster.
@4Freedomrider No offense, but Ron Paul is NOT chopping away at the roots of tyranny. He is treating the symptom of the disease, because he still doesn't recognize what the real cause is. Don't get me wrong; I think he's more honest and principled than just about anyone else who has ever set foot in Washington. But a "political" solution is no solution at all, because the problem is "politics" itself, and the notion that it is legitimate.
@LarkenRose Someone in my family said they did not think Ron Paul was seriour about getting elected President otherwise he would not make such blanket statement answers such as, "I would get rid of the student loan program." I tend to agree with Alex Jones-It does not matter if the man wins or not, the point is to get him into the public eye and argue these points. It is his message that is important. I tend to think that Paul is more in line with your philosophy Larken.
@Kitk32 I can't remember where I first heard this, but I think it's hilarious: Ron Paul is a gate-way drug. I think it's outstanding that he's at least getting people to start thinking about underlying philosophical principles. But you still can't fix the cult faith in "politics" by participating in the cult rituals. I'm glad that Ron Paul is making people think (which is why the establishment hates him). But if and when they think enough, they'll fall off the statist bandwagon entirely.
@LarkenRose Oh yeah! I agree because I am one of those. Yet, it actually was not Ron Paul who got me to think, it was my father and mother. I kind of forgot many things I was coming to realize because I decided to join the Marine Corps @ 17 yrs old.( young and naive) I would do it again nonetheless because I have developed my own mind from lessons and experience. I intend to send you an e-mail so I can express more than I can here in short space. Also I intend to order your book "TMDS"
@LarkenRose He is working his way from the inside of the system. If he was nominated by some miracle, I would vote for him to say, "here is your chance to put your money where your mouth is." Meaning, after all these years, he gets in and he could still be a wolf in sheeps clothing. If that happened your message would likely explode so quickly, the numbers joining the ranks would increase 100 times what you saw in the time you mentioned about the amount of people truly waking.
@Kitk32 Paul's too old to change now. What he's preaching on the campaign trail is exactly what he's been saying for decades. After literally a lifetime of tireless effort, he's finally being taken at least somewhat seriously. Meanwhile he raised a son, now a US Senator, Rand Paul, to believe in and fight for the same principals he believes in. That pretty well states beyond question Paul truly means what he's saying and lives what he's saying.
@pax1sw Yes, and that can be the best proof or the best disguise. This is not an attack on Ron Paul. I support and agree with him most times. I have his most recent book and I wrote him in when voting in 2008, regardless of what many were telling me that I was voting for Obama in some way. I looked at it as neutralizing my vote. They could not count it for the two establishment puppets. I think if all the people voted write in it would expose the scam, or no one votes at all.
@Kitk32 Who you are in private is who you really are. Your kids see *you*, the real you, and they know what you really believe, without your ever actually sitting down and having a talk with them. The children of hypocrits usually rebel against their parents' public persona, because they see their parents with their guards down and, if they're hypocrits, know they aren't walking the talk. Rand Paul is proof Ron Paul is for real.
@pax1sw Actually he does not know anything about my "beliefs" yet because I have not taught himthat kind of thing as he is three yrs old and would not yet understand. I did not know my own father's until he explained in further detail when I was a young adult. You seem to be pointing these things out as if I think Ron Paul is some sort of devil in disguise. I DO NOT think such a thing. He is probably the most genuine person in congress right now.
@Kitk32 I didn't know you had a boy, congrats. :) What I meant was that, as he grows, he'll watch you, he'll really *hear* you and *see* you, and he'll remember the real you. "Do as I say, not as I do," doesn't cut it with kids. Preaching to them just ticks them off. LOL What they hear and see... and repeat... are usually the very things you wish they hadn't. When he gets older, if you want to know who you really are, ask him.
@pax1sw I was simply pointing out such a trick has been used and is still used to this day. You cannot underestimate the type of person that would willingly involve themselves in acts that are evil and destructive to humanity. I do not have alot of background on Rand Paul, other than he is Ron Paul's son and they have very similar philosophies. But you yourself mentioned earlier that Ron Paul is old. Well he does seem like he is tired and ready to step down. He is an inspiration to me.
@Kitk32 Very true, we should always be on our guard. He's an inspiration to all true Patriots, I think. Sorry if it seemed I thought you were down on Paul, even if you had been, I'm not campaigning for him anyway. But I do consider him to be a very honorable man whose gotten stooped and determined fighting a long battle to win back our freedoms. I was just addressing what seemed to be your uncertainty as to Paul's genuineness. Peace. :)
@LarkenRose The first step in ending the system is crippling it, and that's what Paul aims to do. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
"a 'political' solution is no solution at all"? Reread your book, The Iron Web, and listen to what you wrote in it. What you're saying now is *not* what you said in that book. Something in you while you were writing that book realized some monsters can only be defeated by striking the killing blow from *inside* their belly.
@pax1sw Wait, did you just tell me to read my own book, because you understand what it means and I don't? I don't want to give away any of the story, but what I am saying now is EXACTLY what the book is saying. I wrote it, remember? Try page 309, if you think the book is pushing for a political solution.
@LarkenRose Who was Grant? What did he do? What gave him the power to accomplish his ultimate goal? He was the catalyst that made all the rest of it viable. Do you really not see that? Perhaps you should write him out, but then how will you resolve it?
As we have seen in referendums as in California, even such obvious issues as the repeal of Marijauna are overpowered by the current fascist either through vote tampering or ignorance. Politics doesn't really every accomplish much. A big waste of time.
@ENDLESSSOLUTIONS I forget what state it was, but in some state, on some referendum, the people voted down some new tax, and then a bunch of god-complex, black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding looneys OVERRODE it, and imposed the tax anyway. (For those into statist mythology, wondering how a court can impose a tax, good question.) If, by some fluke, voting actually might achieve a bit of freedom, it will be scrapped. And if Ron Paul were to win, I think he'd soon be dead.
You are right Larkin and I hate compromise but I advocate voting for people like Ron Paul for now as if freedom loving people do nothing we end up with the likes of the Illegal Kenyan Manchurian president. I am sure you have heard: What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? Answer: about 6 years. Give people time and they will come over to our side eventually. God Bless
@tittiger First of all, I would say that voting IS "doing nothing." In fact, it's worse than nothing, because it reinforces the slave mindset in the people who do it. While I'm giving people time to come around, I'm also bludgeoning them over the head with reality, in the hopes that it will speed up their deprogramming. In many cases, it seems to have helped.
@LarkenRose I respect your right to go down that road Larkin and if enough of the idiots wake up I will join you. As it stands most of the idiots can not even embrace libertarian principles of liberty.
@LarkenRose An observation I have made is that most Christians ( I am one) are the biggest enemies of having no state and the biggest supporters of what always end up as evil government. They reference Romans 13 and even those that understand Romans 13 such as Chuck Baldwin, still cling to God ordering us to have government. I get the opposite out of scripture - the Israelite's in scripture were warned about what would happen if they had a king. And it was not good.
@tittiger appeal to age? Nice try. But most anarchists are anarchists because they understand the principle. non-radical libertarians will never get this. No offense, I understand your thinking, even though I disagree. But don't try to push that childish appeal to the amount of years one have been a libertarian or anarchist.
@tittiger well, I've seen exact opposite. No sarcasm or irony. Quite many anarchists were libertarians once (those for limited government etc.) And after few years transitioned into principled anarchism. Personally I haven't experience such transition though. Don't know why, it just was too obvious (like it was too obvious that there can not be imaginary beings).
It is only a psychopath or fool who does not acknowledge that what is in reality legalized theft and coercion; what we call taxation in the realm of political correctness, is anything but unethical, requires me to ask my fascist adversaries, which one are you? Thinking that the institution of government, with its economic foundation based on such unethical behaviors as taxation and coersion, can foster a civil and just society, to me requires even less intellectual capacity.
@ENDLESSSOLUTIONS Hence the "Dumbing Down of America", better known as the "No Child Left Behind" mantra, was enacted by our beloved government, to ensure our kids were kept so ignorant of history and devoid of critical thinking skills (along with even math) they wouldn't know enough to recognize the injustices being forced on them by the ruling cabal. Kids are taught to "shut up, do as you're told, and stay in line." It's the perfect cattle yard, set up to spit out workers for the collective.
@LarkinRose I bought your book, The Iron Web, and I loved it, it's a great story. Do you remember how it ended? You pretty well realized you can't fix a system from the outside. Grant stayed in the system, and that's how that system was ultimately defeated.
Not voting just insures you automatically become a voiceless victim. If you don't like the system, work within it to change it and ultimately end it, if that's your goal. Freedom isn't free, everything worthwhile has a price.
Larken, thanks for your sanity. I am all warm and fuzzy inside thinking maybe the world can change because of videos like yours and the common sense you are spreading along your journey here on planet earth. Glad we have you! You have a wonderful talent of explaining things like you are showing people, not just telling them. Great analogies too. ツ
I have supported Ron Paul the last time - but I have not stopped learning since and I know that any support of the state, even a small one, is a step in the wrong direction and I have stopped any support and any voluntary compliance. I promise that I will put up as much resistance to any order as I can.
Hey Larken, really like your videos, keep up the good work man. I have a question. What about voting for something like marijuana legalization where you are voting to limit the govt's power in some way? I didn't vote in the last election, for more or less the same reasons you said in this video, however I will admit I've considered voting for that one single issue and leaving the rest of the ballet blank. Do you think this is also morally wrong, or perhaps a waste of time?
@AnarchoFuturist If you only vote on "proposition" type things, only voting AGAINST some stupid authoritarian act of violent aggression, I see nothing immoral about that. The main down side I see is that it still legitimizes the notion that we need "legislative" permission from the parasites in order to be free. Other than that, if it reduces state aggression WITHOUT advocating any other theft or coercion, I wouldn't complain too much about it.
Voting for Ron Paul is NOT advocating theft (forcing me to pay you for things you want and visaversa)....so I am going to vote as long as Dr. Paul is a choice.
@synot1 Look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. What does it say? It pretends to give Congress the right to steal. "Taxation" is FORCING people to pay for things, whether they want them or not. The fact that it was supposed to be very limited, usually avoidable theft, doesn't make it legitimate.
But Larkin, if taxes are avoidable then they would be legit... right? And according to art 1 section 8- all types of taxes listed are supposed to be avoidable.
Thats not how things get run, but on paper thats how its supposed to work- right?
@shadowcii Wrong on two counts: 1) "Direct," Constitutional head taxes are not avoidable, unless you remove your head. "Direct" property taxes are only slightly easier to avoid, by owning nothing. 2) The fact that robbery is avoidable doesn't make it legitimate. If I told you I'd steal $100 from you if you drank orange juice, I suspect you'd have a problem with that (as you should), even though such robbery would be "avoidable." Robbing people who do certain things (a la "excises") is immoral.
and we also need labor strikes ;>
AnimalFarmDance 6 days ago
this is the paradox of the modern society built upon the political setup of the "social contract" on the ideas of Roussaue, Locke, and the magna carta, the american constitution, etc.
so now we need to form our own local currencies, our own local farming, our own community networks, our own DIY lifestyles and ways of living together while living in this society :>
AnimalFarmDance 6 days ago
We need to opt out and make our own communities, our own local currencies, our own urban farms, our own local gardens, our own sharing of resources for CO OP health covrerage, etc etc/ DIY PUNK HIP HOP style
AnimalFarmDance 6 days ago
What about people voting for Ron Paul because they see him as a path to a voluntary society, in which you wouldn't have problems with the IRS? Paul is very familiar with anarcho-capitalism and voluntaryism, he was a good friend of Rothbard and is a declarded fan of Lysander Spooner...
ericpduarte 1 week ago
@ericpduarte Trouble is, Ron paul is NOT a step toward freedom, or on the path to a voluntary society. A slave being sold to a nicer, more permissive master is NOT a step closer to being free. He's still 100% a slave, even if his lifestyle is drastically improved. Begging a ruling class for legislative permission to be free--which is all "political action" amounts to--is the opposite of freedom. That's why the tiny authoritarian seed planted by the Constitution was doomed to lead here.
LarkenRose 1 week ago
I have an honest question for you. Who do you think would be the best president. NOT a good president (because you clearly don't want a president). However, you know someone will become president in 2013. Is there anyone that you would say "Oh. [Insert name here] got elected president. At least he will probably be somewhat better than all the other choices (although not very)"?
Tanglephish 1 month ago
Deal accepted. Nobody 2012.
gombagod 2 months ago
How do you feel about Ron Paul? He advocates getting rid of the IRS. I normally don't vote but when i see an opportunity to elect someone who might steal less from us is it not then prudent to vote for that person? Maybe the best idea is actually to vote for someone who wants to impose absolute tyranny. Maybe we have had it all wrong. Maybe the only way to get people in the streets shooting back is to force absolute tyranny on everyone.
USMCFISCELLA 2 months ago
Any way... I've said my peace and we will never agree. Best to you and yours during this Christmas season and hope you find true happiness. Out.
heisest 2 months ago
If I was on your jury my verdict would have been not guilty .But I would have recommended that the IRS give back any money that you gave them ,With interest ! And penalty's
kevlarunderware 2 months ago
@kevlarunderware Unfortunately, the chance of you--or anyone else with a brain--getting on a jury in a tax case is exceedingly low. Well, there have been occasional exceptions, which is why Joseph Banister, Woody Harrell, Tommy Cryer, Vernice Kuglin, and some others were acquitted. But prosecutors try hard not to have people with brains on juries in tax case--and they sure succeeded in mine! But thanks for the thought.
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose - Heard about a court case that involved a jury selection that couldn't be seated because the "defendant" didn't claim to be a citizen (he knew the jig) and all jurors said they WERE citizens so basically, they weren't a jury of his peers because they claimed to be citizens.
worldwidebum 1 month ago
@DrHeinersSanatorium Don't believe everything you see in the movies. The "wild west" ... well ... wasn't. A more accurate portrayal than shoot-em-up westerns was "Little House on the Prairie," based on the real life of Laura Ingalls Wilder, and her "Little House" books. And by the way, it was ANARCHY! The settlers spread faster than the control freaks could follow. (I suggest you read "Discovery of Freedom," by Laura's daughter, Rose Wilder Lane.)
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose Yep... thats what they portray in the media so that people beg for their own enslavement. Its all part of the brainwashing... if people really understood what life was like in the past they would be disgraced with themselves.
bryphi77 2 months ago
@DrHeinersSanatorium What U miss by saying wild loners of the west can just exist without the Gov expecting some type of tax to be paid by them is that if they live inside the borders of the US then they fall under the umbrella of the US Gov protecting them from other countries/people killing them & taking their stuff. Someone has to pay for the US military keeping watch & reacting to defend the border. ALL who reside in the US should help pay for the common defense in TAXES
heisest 2 months ago
@DrHeinersSanatorium since you come from Germany (like me), the "great generous welfare state", you are probably know how these generous countries treat people they want to move outside: Keyword "Wegzugsbesteuerung", which means: You are free to go, but your stuff remains here. Basically from the principle the same method the former east german DDR treated there citizens.
AFAIK: The USA is even worse, having the principle: No matter where you go, you are still our slaves.
GermanInvestor 3 months ago
@DrHeinersSanatorium Having a coercive, parasitic ruling class which forcibly controls everyone else, is not "a social contract between free people." The fact that we were all taught otherwise doesn't make it any less insane. If you really can't tell the difference between actual voluntary cooperation, and what "government" does, I doubt this discussion is worth having.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
I never received the form that requests my consent to be governed, and my conscience has never allowed me to vote for ANY of those swine.
majorpainintheass 3 months ago
Now instead of totally disagreeing I will say that our Gov currently has gone way beyond what our forefathers wanted in regards to force or rule. Most liberals (Dems & Rep) want more gov control and twist what our founders intended. This is why the Tea Party is pushing so hard to get conservative constitutionalists elected to Gov. If we do not get good people elected this time then maybe we all should be looking for an island. LOL
heisest 3 months ago
2,412 views :-( We are doomed.
xorp61 3 months ago
ive never voted in my life and NEVER will
onlygodcanjudgemeok 3 months ago
@onlygodcanjudgemeok
Good for you. I'm the same :)
zbigniewzapora 3 months ago
@LarkenRose I didn't say how it should be abolished or that politicians had to do it. I agree that all of us ignoring it would be more effective in abolishing it if you could get people to. I'm still getting through TMDS, I'm about 40 pages in, I still don't see how a voluntary society's committees wouldn't be called government. Thanks for responding though. Most authors aren't so accessible and I enjoy the discussion. Once I've finished, I'll see if I have anymore questions.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
Despite my disagreement on what constitutes a government. I think we can both agree on that the IRS must be abolished. Imprisoning people for not paying the federal income tax is absurd. Besides the immorality of imprisoning the Browns, we all have to pay now for them to be in jail. Since they weren't hurting anyone, it would be cheaper to just let them be free and better for society because you would have one more dentist providing needed healthcare in society to a rural community
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Actually, no. My goal is not to have the IRS "abolished." Because that implies the politicians giving their legislative PERMISSION for us to keep what we earn. I want the IRS ignored and resisted, because the people wake up and realize they DON'T NEED any "law" to give them permission to own themselves.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
Even if you have a completely voluntary society, your voluntary committees that build roads or deal with murderers are still government. You would have to deal with the fact that if someone kills your neighbor, they must be stopped. Until you can give me an example of how you would deal with this real scenario without enforcement, your society will still have a government.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Sorry if this sounds like a cop-out, but I did take 15 years to write a book about this, so I'm not very eager to type it all again, 300 characters at a time, in YouTube comment boxes. You are still falling for utter garbage you've been taught about "government" and "law" and "authority." You're still trying to reconcile the most dangerous superstition with freedom, when the two are absolutely incompatible.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 2
@LarkenRose LOL. Writing a book doesn't mean you got it right! You can only have your 'perfect freedom' when your dead: there is no such place on earth. All societies are going to force people to do things they don't want. The US under Constitutional control is the least forceful of all gov systems. (Help get gov back under the Const) You avoid my statement: Leave US if you don't like our system of gov. Renounce Ur citizenship & live on some island: see how long till someone takes Ur stuff.
heisest 3 months ago
@heisest You don't get that YOU are the one enabling the extortion and subjugation. You are the one condoning it, saying it's inevitable and necessary. As a result of your indoctrination into the cult of statist (and yes, the Constitution is a piece of the statist, authoritarian BS), you are advocating that everyone you know be robbed and forcibly dominated. Meanwhile, you insist that reality cannot be any other way. You think our only choice is WHICH ruling class will own us. You're wrong.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose Show me ANY place in time or history (or now) where people were not to one degree or more 'ruled' by others: you can't. Any group of people who did not provide for a means of cultural self defense were soon killed &/or robbed of their wealth. To provide for these means they either paid for it by money (tax) OR their time (which is the same thing). Our founders via the Constitution provided for the least 'rule' society needed to survive. U still refuse to leave the US or even answer
heisest 3 months ago
@heisest Up until a couple hundred years ago, I could have said, "Show me one country that doesn't have slavery." Is that supposed to be a valid argument? "Well, we've been doing things the destructive, immoral way for so long, it MUST be right!" The best thing the founders did--which was not their intention--was to demonstrated that "limited government" is a fairy tale. Why do you think trying the same thing again--as if there's any chance of that anyway--would turn out better this time?
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose We still have slavery even in the US. (& no I don't mean tax payers!) You kick against human nature & tilt at windmills. What U want WILL NEVER come to pass in this life. It has never happened & will never happen. People form societies to protect themselves from others taking their stuff & someone has to pay for it: in TAXES. You refuse to leave the US because U KNOW our system provides the most free society on earth: By staying here U prove my position is correct.
heisest 2 months ago
@heisest I stay here because I was born here, and this is where I live. I don't intend to leave just because parasites and tyrants think they own me. You sure seem determined to resist the evolution of humanity to something other than stupid beast status. The delusion of "authority" is doomed to fall, sooner or later, despite the psychological kicking and screaming of the thoroughly indoctrinated. You might as well say, "We'll never have spherical earth! It will always be flat!"
LarkenRose 2 months ago
@LarkenRose As already mentioned all born in the US fall under the social compact that our forefather set up: If you don't like this then leave. U are the one arguing the "flat earth" view. You cannot change the nature of people to want more stuff: even your stuff. We just need a Gov system in place that allows U to keep more of Ur stuff. You show no proof that "delusion of authority is doomed to fall": U are only hoping it will. U staying here proves US is best Gov system in world
heisest 2 months ago
I say this even though I was convicted of willful failure to file tax return years ago. Not because I believe in paying NO taxes... just paying an income tax that forces me to be a witness against myself. No society will survive without payment of some taxes to provide for the 'common defense'. We need to vote for people who will control the government and make it stop going beyond it’s constitution authority. What you advocate is anarchy.
heisest 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LarkenRose
Your logic is based on a false premise. You & others were born in the US or came here & enjoy benefits that have to be paid for. You skip over the “social compact” for just that reason. The formation of US created a system: it was lawfully voted & approved. All who are born after the formation inherited the system. Your views are contrary to the constitution & present social compact. Leave the US if you don’t like to pay any taxes. Without a Fed Gov w/army the US would be attacked & destroyed.
heisest 3 months ago in playlist More videos from LarkenRose
@heisest Imagining a "social compact," calling robbery "lawful," pretending that being born obligates someone to obey a ruling class, predicting the end of the world without a gang of parasites subjugating everyone--you parrot the indoctrination line well. But it's all utter BS. Yes, what I advocate is "anarchy," because that is what is. "Government" is a myth, a delusion, a superstition. The lie caged you, and you still don't see it.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 2
@LarkenRose All civilizations to survive have to have a 'social compact' to pay for the military to stop other civilizations from killing U & taking your stuff. It’s a myth to think there will never be the rich who will use their wealth/power to get richer. Every place on the earth has these groups & you’re dreaming if you think you’ll ever be rid of them. The US is the freest country because of our social compact: The Constitution. Help make it the Law of the land again. Anarchy just destroys.
heisest 3 months ago
@heisest Civilizations require a "social compact" so "government" can STOP people from killing you and taking your stuff?? Would you like to compare the instances of murder and theft COMMITTED by "governments" against their own people, to similar evils committed "privately"? The dream is that a parasitic, coercive ruling class is ever going to DEFEND the subject class from the ruling class. Now THAT is insane. P.S. Which has done more harm: what the Constitution replaced, or what it created?
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose I noticed you never answered the question about being born in the US under our 'social compact' now obligates you to adhere to this social compact. (The original one, not the view now that Gov is greater than it's citizens. You should be fighting to make the Gov obey the constitution). Taxes paid for the roads you use, even paid for parts of the Internet allow you to post your video’s. If all you want is your anarchy then renounce your US citizenship & go elsewhere.
heisest 3 months ago
@heisest Yes, I answered it. The notion of an implied "social compact" is absolute BS, start to finish--asinine cult mythology made up by control freaks in an attempt to pretend that they actually have the right to rule, and have the "consent of the governed." You're still stuck on constitutions and "citizenship," because you think those things actually mean something. They don't. They are just part of the statist doctrine that tries to legitimize the subjugation of mankind.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose I wonder who the Frederick Douglas of state oppression will be.
Xtro2005 3 months ago
@heisest Hitler was also lawfully voted for and approved by a nice majority.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@heisest Apologies for stooping to Godwin's law, but yeah you should get the point...
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
We are huge fans, Larkin. Thank you. This was really good and thought provoking.
Sally0h 3 months ago
While I think that NOT paying the "income" tax is probably the best choice at stopping government, I'm not ready to do that yet. But Larken I will make you a promise: If I vote for anyone in a "public" election for "public" office, funded by taxes, even if it is Ron Paul, I will send you one gold French Franc. BTW I really liked, "The Most Dangerous Superstition" and "The Iron Web" CD. -Kurt
krickerd 3 months ago
@krickerd
If nobody paid income tax, they could just borrow against your and your childrens, grandchildrens and so on, labor. Just like they do now, because all tax income is too low compared to expenditures. So this is not a solution. At some point in future, when structure of production and money collapses, causing mass poverty violent revolution seems unavoidable. Hopefully by then a lot of people will be educated enough in ideas of liberty so government monopoly will never happen again.
zbigniewzapora 3 months ago
@zbigniewzapora Except that if nobody paid it would likely collapse tomorrow instead of in 3 - 5 years like it's going to now. In any case, I just want to opt out of the whole damn thing. Remember Matt Groening's "Life in Hell" with his monologue of" those that can, do"? If I was one of those that had enough salable skills and could start my own business under the table, I would. BTW government is in fact a monopoly on the use of aggressive force against peaceful people.
krickerd 3 months ago
@krickerd
But there will always be people that will pay it. As long as threat of violence and associated losses are less than benefits of just STFU and paying to avoid trouble then people will pay. I'm paying because I don't want my life destroyed by the state. That could change when I will have nothing to lose though but at that point I will pay no taxes and ignore state completely and focus on my survival. It is unrealistic to expect that people will just stop paying taxes overnight
zbigniewzapora 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Ahh yes well you see the free market will make everything magically better. There is no need for murderers in a completely free market society so there just simply wont be any and nobody will lie steal or cheat because that would harm their market value!
Obviously there needs to be system in place to prevent people and companies forming what are essentially governments so we propose a kind of "government" that forces people to not form governments because that is freedom.
LudicrousBarchart 3 months ago
@LudicrousBarchart
What? Can you clarify? I have no idea what you mean by your second paragraph.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Sorry, I was trolling and paraphrasing where a lot of debates with zero-government/tax/regulation types goes. They usually end up saying that their libertarian utopia only works with a whole bunch of clauses and organisations that essentially amount to a government but with no consideration for things like workers rights and fraud prevention.
LudicrousBarchart 3 months ago
I agree that the current notion of government that people have in their minds is detrimental to a free society. The idea that we need a necessary force is wrong. I don't think people who run for office freely though and are working to change the meaning of government from authoritarianism to voluntarism by repealing oppressive legislation are supporting an authoritarian system; no more than someone who picks up the trash in a park supports the person who did it.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
This is why I believe government is a double edge sword. Depending on the context and understanding, people could use it for good (voluntary cooperation), neutral, or evil (authoritarianism). If a local body of people voluntarily came together to build a road, they would still be a "government" managing a problem but not in an authoritarian sense. Noam Chomsky draws a good point about the meaning of political terms across cultures watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE&feature=related.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy Why do you want to hang onto "government," in the hopes that by some miracle, it will be something it has never been? Actually, it's something it CAN'T be. A voluntary organization wouldn't legislate, wouldn't tax, wouldn't have a monopoly on anything, and would have no reason to be called "government." So why won't you let it go? Why do you keep hoping for something that has never been: a just, voluntary, purely defensive "government"?
LarkenRose 3 months ago 4
@LarkenRose
I don't see how your voluntary organization wouldn't legislate especially if it came to imprisoning people for crimes against others (back to the murder debate). By establishing, as a community, that murderers go to jail for killing someone would still be legislation. It would still be a law. How are you going to do it because whether you call it voluntary or authoritarian organization, it is still a government in the literal meaning of the word (gubernae=to manage/guide).
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
How you would deal with murderers without legislating? Why do you keep holding to the idea that we can exist without government in any form? Government has always existed whether it was a family hierarchy, tribal, communal, local, state, federal, communist etc. Government is just a loaded term referring to how people work together to manage issues, which can vary in degree from voluntary to authoritarian. Even a voluntary justice system that dealt with murder would legislate.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
Voluntary organizations do have monopolies. What do you think Microsoft is? What about the Chiquita banana company or the private water monopoly in many s. american countries. I support my local public water department and the job they do because I am charged by my usage and I have a say and the law keeps it a public water supply so that Nestle can't come in and charge me double for something that wasn't inherently theirs in the first place. There are certain anti-aggressive forms of government
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
I wouldn't elect you to be my master. But if you wanted to abolish and make the IRS illegal, you'd have my vote and I would work with you to garner support. I think we differ on what constitutes a "government". I think the word is dependent upon time, place, and the cultural context. In this day in age in the US it means authoritarianism, but what's to prevent a voluntary society from using it to mean voluntary cooperation somewhere else or at some other time if it means "manage"
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
Comment removed
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
I agree that the problem is in people's heads. People are scared though to disobey especially in these difficult times when they have to prioritize and feed their families. I would prefer 10 million people just disobey but changing people's minds so quickly is not going to happen unless there is a system wide failure. It might be quicker to elect those whose records show a devotion to ending the IRS. Coalitions do work as Ron Paul showed when he cracked open the FED.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
I ADVOCATE THAT YOU BE FORCED TO FUN THINGS THAT ARE IMMORAL.
LudicrousBarchart 3 months ago
Sadly though, he's the only one whose record has been consistent with getting rid of these laws or voting against increasing them. I don't know anyone else.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
I'm voting Ron Paul and only Ron Paul. He wants to get rid of government especially the IRS, the major aggressor. I'm not giving up voting because his record has shown to stop and reverse the growth of government. I want to vote for people who are going to get rid of these laws. I don't know how you are going to get rid of these laws without someone getting in there and repealing them. That's a difficult task. Ron Paul is the best bet at getting rid of the IRS at this moment in time.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy You wrote: "I don't know how you are going to get rid of these laws without someone getting in there and repealing them." Right there is the crux of the matter. This may sound like a silly question, but WHY do you want those "laws" repealed? Think carefully before you answer.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
I should clarify that I don't want all laws repealed. If you use unwarranted force against another human being, like murder, you should go to prison. The same standards/rules of not using unwarranted force should apply to government decisions. Ie a body of people decide to imprison (use of force) a murderer (who has used unwarranted force against others). I want laws like forced taxation to be repealed so you don't have to go to prison, Mr. Rose.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LiveFreeorDieGuy What if, instead of desperately trying to vote for freedom--which never works--ten million people who would have voted for Ron Paul just started DISOBEYING the stupid, bogus commands of politicians? What if people stopped imagining that they needed "legislative" permission to be free? Why bother begging the masters to change their "laws"? Why not just IGNORE them? Playing their game gives them the illusion of legitimacy. The problem is not in DC; it's in people's heads.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 4
@LarkenRose But if you ignore the laws, you have consequences. You said that playing their game gives them legitimacy. You're correct that they have no moral legitimacy, but the do have legitimacy in that they will harm you if you don't follow their laws. This is the reason to try to repeal their laws, which are just opinions at the point of a gun.
starsassy 3 months ago
@LarkenRose I don't agree with society's definition or view of government. Government will always exist in the sense of people coming together to manage issues (if you take it strictly from its latin word gubernare). Whether that is by force or by voluntary nature depends on society. Primarily it is by force, which I disagree with. When you get together with your neighbors voluntarily to build a road for your community, you are still a government in the "management" definition of it.
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
This may seem like a silly question too but what would you call your voluntary society's committee that deal's with unwarranted force (like murderers, thieves, rapists)?
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
Comment removed
LiveFreeorDieGuy 3 months ago
2012 probably will be the last time I vote, and I'm only postponing my entry to the world of non-voting because I feel like voting for Ron Paul would be a justifiable act of self-defense, and an attempt to protect rather than endanger the lives and wealth of humankind. It's not that I really believe Ron Paul can hamstring the marching Leviathan state overnight, but I'm just so damn hopeless right now. I don't see any other alternative to bring about a voluntary society.
RationalDischarge 3 months ago
@RationalDischarge I would suggest that your feeling of hopelessness won't at all be helped by the ritual of voting, but may be helped by looking outside of politics. There are, for example, ideas and groups springing up all over the place, working to make it so that those who WANT freedom can achieve it, while the current version of the monstrous game of human farming (a.k.a. "government") comes crashing down. If your goal is to fix "government," you should feel hopeless. So try a new goal.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose - best freedom material on the planet!
furyofbongos 3 months ago
You, my friend, have a deal! I do not vote, and I have forsaken politics completely.
QuentinQuark 3 months ago
I do not believe our votes count anyway and are just a way to get us to except
our slavery. We just had over $25,000 stole from each of us around a lake. we tried to stop it and had over 50% of us sign a petition to stop it yet it passed with a 78% vote. How could that be?? They secretly changed it to a land mass vote and included an 800 acre farm near us. More than 30 homes were lost due to this bogus vote. We all learned voting is bogus and they will take what they want when they want.
carbogger 3 months ago
Great Vid!
I figured out all this stuff when I was about 12. It took me another 25 years to understand why these points are so beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of people.
OneCerebralSamurai 3 months ago
OK, I guess we've forked the discussion. My last missive would have been a single one, if it were not for YouTube's limits. AAR...
You see it as me supporting the $100 theft, I see it as forestalling the $200 theft. Either way, you're gonna get robbed. This latter point is what I do not see as having been addressed by your arguments so far.
joebeardotnet 3 months ago
@joebeardotnet I'm not asking that you make sure I don't get robbed by anyone. I'm just asking that you not CONDONE it. The ultimate tyrant trick is to convince you that your only choice is WHICH gang of parasitic thugs will rule the world. Then, when you try to pick the slightly-less-evil gang, they say you AGREED to the oppression. Don't. If they still rob me WITHOUT your blessing, I won't blame you a bit. But when the people YOU voted for rob me and cage me (which they did), I'll complain.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 9
Accordingly, the only thing I have in my power to do (at this point in human history) is to advocate for the somewhat less demanding aggressor. IOW, to vote for whom I believe will reduce the scope of aggression.
Sure, I can (and I do) advocate for the dismantling of the entire system. But I also work to reduce it as a possibly achievable interim step.
I do not concede that voting conveys any legitimate authority to 'the system'. I think this is central to your point? Convince me that it does?
joebeardotnet 3 months ago
@joebeardotnet You claim that if you don't vote, you're "doing nothing," and that the ONLY thing you can do is advocate the lesser of two control freaks. Really? Participating in the slave ritual known as "politics" IS doing nothing, even though we're all taught that whining to the master is the only "civilized" thing we can do. I'm not telling you to look the other way; I'm telling you to STOP GIVING IT YOUR BLESSING by voting. Again, trying to empower a smaller thief is still CONDONING THEFT.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
Hmm. I usually follow your arguments. I'm not yet getting this one.
If I don't vote, I am doing nothing. I could argue that looking the other way while someone is getting robbed with threat of violence is similarly immoral.
You could respond that by voting, I am merely replacing the first aggressor with a slightly less demanding aggressor. And I'd have to agree with this analysis.
I think the point left upon which we differ, is that no matter what I do or don't do, there will be an aggressor.
joebeardotnet 3 months ago
@joebeardotnet Let me put it this way: if two people showed up at your house, one asking for your support to steal $100 from me, and one asking for your support to steal $200 from me, do you really think you'd be doing me a FAVOR by supporting the first guy? How about, instead, if you oppose theft on principle? The fact that your thug of choice might not be as bad as another one doesn't make him good, and doesn't make your support of him noble or righteous.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 9
Ouch. I'm not quite following your logic here. I get that advocating that we all be taxed for things that we do not all want is immoral. But I don't see how that leads to a conclusion that voting is evil.
On a purely pragmatic basis, _someone_ will be holding the reigns of power for the next cycle. On this basis, would it not be true that voting for someone who would actually reduce this theft (albeit not end it entirely, which would be the optimal and just outcome) be desired?
Response?
joebeardotnet 3 months ago
@joebeardotnet When you vote, you are trying to put people into power who will demand money from me, under threat of force. The fact that other people are trying to put someone ELSE into power, who might rob me even a little bit more, has no bearing on the immorality of you advocating theft. And saying that SOMEONE is going to rob me, even if it's true, doesn't make it okay for YOU to advocate it. That's why the point is whether YOU PERSONALLY advocate that I be robbed. If you vote, you do.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
I have a counter "offer": I'll not steal from you, nor advocate that others steal from you on my behalf, regardless of whether you reciprocate or not.
kentmcmanigal 3 months ago
@kentmcmanigal Yeah, that's actually the "deal" I make too, except that it's really just a unilateral declaration. I only do it in "deal" format to try to guilt statists into questioning their assumptions and actions. Ironically, while 200,000,000 people are vehemently advocating that you and I be robbed, I'm vehemently advocating that they NOT be robbed (and I'm guessing you advocate that too). And twelve morons decided I should go to prison for that.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose I know where you stand. I was just making my stance clear, too. I had no doubt it was the same as yours, and I understood you were just trying to get the statists to examine their inconsistencies a little more thoroughly. If I had heroes, you'd probably be one of mine. Keep up the awesome work.
kentmcmanigal 3 months ago
Larken,
Use the annotations feature of YouTube to put a big link SMACK DAB at the end o the video and when your book is mentioned, to take the viewer directly into amazon. Make it easy for us to buy your stuff.
(I got the paperback editions of all your books.)
RuddODragonFear 3 months ago
@RuddODragonFear Are you implying that I'm someone who actually knows what he's doing when it comes to YouTube? I resent that! Hmmm, yeah, let me see if I can figure out how to do the annotation, link thingy. Thanks for the suggestion.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@RuddODragonFear It doesn't look like annotation links can go to anything other than other YouTube stuff. I don't think I can link to Amazon. (I'm pretending I know what I'm talking about.)
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose mmm, if that won't work, place a banner with the linky thingie beneath the image of your book in the video, reminding people that the amazon link to the book is below the video. then place the amazon link to the video in the description section of the video. That's I think the best you can do under the circumstances.
RuddODragonFear 3 months ago
I agree with you that the Democrats as well as the Republicans are only working against our best interests, but I ask you this. Who would you have build public roads that you travel upon? Are you saying that there should be no government?
fabianmockian 3 months ago
@fabianmockian There has never been, and will never be, legitimate "government." Making roads, or anything else, doesn't give anyone an exemption from morality. People who want something should find a way to do it without robbing people who don't want to be involved.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
I have a similar offer for people. I volunteer to be a benevolent dictator of the world. They don't want me to rule them? That is how I feel about them.
amommamust 3 months ago
It's a deal
qstendious 3 months ago
Or can you give a little overview? I know you wrote some books and likely cover that in them. I like to write also, and am working that, yet, I am currently stuck in the j.o.b world and I am looking for suggestions.
Kitk32 3 months ago
Larken, this is a truly excellent video, expressing crucial truth & critical thinking people need to snap out of their conditioning and create a more peaceful and just world; I think the land issue needs to be emphasized as well, specifically the fact that all social-systems deny us our birthright, our fair share of the land, and that disallows us from becoming self/community-sufficient, which is the root of our monetary/corporate dependency. Tax/cost-free land needs to be a human right, agree?
8foldpath4peace 3 months ago
I wanted to mention a book that few are probably aware of, its called "Hologram of Liberty" and it is a critical analysis of the Constitution. A person can do a search and find it. Larken, as you are most likely aware of, many people who are somewhat aware of the BS out there, many wonder how to go about fixing things, ie the country. I know the answer is one has to start with themselves. Yet, wanted your take on the steps a person can take, physically, to become free. How did you do it?
Kitk32 3 months ago
I have that deal with you Larken.
MoneyIsSilver 3 months ago
I will never vote again.
I'm embarrassed I fell for it as long as I did.
ashane77 3 months ago
No robbing?!
That's INSANE!
How would society work w/o legalized theft?!
You're a nut Larkin... ; )
ashane77 3 months ago 3
I have recently been listening to your podcasts and watching your videos. I respect what you have to say and greatly respect the courage you have in standing by your principles. I am moving toward the mind of an Anarchist/Voluntaryist. In response to your video, I am not advocating that you be forced to fund things you do not find moral. As a matter of fact, I see any tax as theft as well and have been arguing this as much as possible. Some agree with me, but do not see any recourse.
Kitk32 3 months ago
I advocate voting for Ron Paul because weather we like it or not the force is already in use. I believe if good men do nothing then the bad guys win.
4Freedomrider 3 months ago 2
@4Freedomrider I didn't say do nothing. I said stop advocating robbery. People have been trained to think that playing the game of politics is "doing something," and that "your vote is your voice." As the bumper-sticker says, if voting made a difference, it would be illegal. Voting IS doing nothing--nothing useful, anyway. It legitimizes the parasitic monster, and the robbery it commits, and reinforces the notion that we need the holy permission of politicians to keep what we produce.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose You may be right about voting. I personally will still vote for the man who has committed himself to chopping away at the roots of the monster.
Keep up the good work :)
4Freedomrider 3 months ago
@4Freedomrider No offense, but Ron Paul is NOT chopping away at the roots of tyranny. He is treating the symptom of the disease, because he still doesn't recognize what the real cause is. Don't get me wrong; I think he's more honest and principled than just about anyone else who has ever set foot in Washington. But a "political" solution is no solution at all, because the problem is "politics" itself, and the notion that it is legitimate.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose Someone in my family said they did not think Ron Paul was seriour about getting elected President otherwise he would not make such blanket statement answers such as, "I would get rid of the student loan program." I tend to agree with Alex Jones-It does not matter if the man wins or not, the point is to get him into the public eye and argue these points. It is his message that is important. I tend to think that Paul is more in line with your philosophy Larken.
Kitk32 3 months ago
@Kitk32 I can't remember where I first heard this, but I think it's hilarious: Ron Paul is a gate-way drug. I think it's outstanding that he's at least getting people to start thinking about underlying philosophical principles. But you still can't fix the cult faith in "politics" by participating in the cult rituals. I'm glad that Ron Paul is making people think (which is why the establishment hates him). But if and when they think enough, they'll fall off the statist bandwagon entirely.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 2
@LarkenRose Oh yeah! I agree because I am one of those. Yet, it actually was not Ron Paul who got me to think, it was my father and mother. I kind of forgot many things I was coming to realize because I decided to join the Marine Corps @ 17 yrs old.( young and naive) I would do it again nonetheless because I have developed my own mind from lessons and experience. I intend to send you an e-mail so I can express more than I can here in short space. Also I intend to order your book "TMDS"
Kitk32 3 months ago
@LarkenRose He is working his way from the inside of the system. If he was nominated by some miracle, I would vote for him to say, "here is your chance to put your money where your mouth is." Meaning, after all these years, he gets in and he could still be a wolf in sheeps clothing. If that happened your message would likely explode so quickly, the numbers joining the ranks would increase 100 times what you saw in the time you mentioned about the amount of people truly waking.
Kitk32 3 months ago
@Kitk32 Paul's too old to change now. What he's preaching on the campaign trail is exactly what he's been saying for decades. After literally a lifetime of tireless effort, he's finally being taken at least somewhat seriously. Meanwhile he raised a son, now a US Senator, Rand Paul, to believe in and fight for the same principals he believes in. That pretty well states beyond question Paul truly means what he's saying and lives what he's saying.
pax1sw 3 months ago
@pax1sw Yes, and that can be the best proof or the best disguise. This is not an attack on Ron Paul. I support and agree with him most times. I have his most recent book and I wrote him in when voting in 2008, regardless of what many were telling me that I was voting for Obama in some way. I looked at it as neutralizing my vote. They could not count it for the two establishment puppets. I think if all the people voted write in it would expose the scam, or no one votes at all.
Kitk32 3 months ago
@Kitk32 Who you are in private is who you really are. Your kids see *you*, the real you, and they know what you really believe, without your ever actually sitting down and having a talk with them. The children of hypocrits usually rebel against their parents' public persona, because they see their parents with their guards down and, if they're hypocrits, know they aren't walking the talk. Rand Paul is proof Ron Paul is for real.
pax1sw 3 months ago
@pax1sw Actually he does not know anything about my "beliefs" yet because I have not taught himthat kind of thing as he is three yrs old and would not yet understand. I did not know my own father's until he explained in further detail when I was a young adult. You seem to be pointing these things out as if I think Ron Paul is some sort of devil in disguise. I DO NOT think such a thing. He is probably the most genuine person in congress right now.
Kitk32 3 months ago
@Kitk32 I didn't know you had a boy, congrats. :) What I meant was that, as he grows, he'll watch you, he'll really *hear* you and *see* you, and he'll remember the real you. "Do as I say, not as I do," doesn't cut it with kids. Preaching to them just ticks them off. LOL What they hear and see... and repeat... are usually the very things you wish they hadn't. When he gets older, if you want to know who you really are, ask him.
pax1sw 3 months ago
@pax1sw I was simply pointing out such a trick has been used and is still used to this day. You cannot underestimate the type of person that would willingly involve themselves in acts that are evil and destructive to humanity. I do not have alot of background on Rand Paul, other than he is Ron Paul's son and they have very similar philosophies. But you yourself mentioned earlier that Ron Paul is old. Well he does seem like he is tired and ready to step down. He is an inspiration to me.
Kitk32 3 months ago
@Kitk32 Very true, we should always be on our guard. He's an inspiration to all true Patriots, I think. Sorry if it seemed I thought you were down on Paul, even if you had been, I'm not campaigning for him anyway. But I do consider him to be a very honorable man whose gotten stooped and determined fighting a long battle to win back our freedoms. I was just addressing what seemed to be your uncertainty as to Paul's genuineness. Peace. :)
pax1sw 3 months ago
@LarkenRose The first step in ending the system is crippling it, and that's what Paul aims to do. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.
"a 'political' solution is no solution at all"? Reread your book, The Iron Web, and listen to what you wrote in it. What you're saying now is *not* what you said in that book. Something in you while you were writing that book realized some monsters can only be defeated by striking the killing blow from *inside* their belly.
pax1sw 3 months ago
@pax1sw Wait, did you just tell me to read my own book, because you understand what it means and I don't? I don't want to give away any of the story, but what I am saying now is EXACTLY what the book is saying. I wrote it, remember? Try page 309, if you think the book is pushing for a political solution.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose Who was Grant? What did he do? What gave him the power to accomplish his ultimate goal? He was the catalyst that made all the rest of it viable. Do you really not see that? Perhaps you should write him out, but then how will you resolve it?
pax1sw 3 months ago
As we have seen in referendums as in California, even such obvious issues as the repeal of Marijauna are overpowered by the current fascist either through vote tampering or ignorance. Politics doesn't really every accomplish much. A big waste of time.
ENDLESSSOLUTIONS 3 months ago
@ENDLESSSOLUTIONS I forget what state it was, but in some state, on some referendum, the people voted down some new tax, and then a bunch of god-complex, black-dress-wearing, wooden-hammer-wielding looneys OVERRODE it, and imposed the tax anyway. (For those into statist mythology, wondering how a court can impose a tax, good question.) If, by some fluke, voting actually might achieve a bit of freedom, it will be scrapped. And if Ron Paul were to win, I think he'd soon be dead.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
You are right Larkin and I hate compromise but I advocate voting for people like Ron Paul for now as if freedom loving people do nothing we end up with the likes of the Illegal Kenyan Manchurian president. I am sure you have heard: What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist? Answer: about 6 years. Give people time and they will come over to our side eventually. God Bless
tittiger 3 months ago
@tittiger First of all, I would say that voting IS "doing nothing." In fact, it's worse than nothing, because it reinforces the slave mindset in the people who do it. While I'm giving people time to come around, I'm also bludgeoning them over the head with reality, in the hopes that it will speed up their deprogramming. In many cases, it seems to have helped.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose I respect your right to go down that road Larkin and if enough of the idiots wake up I will join you. As it stands most of the idiots can not even embrace libertarian principles of liberty.
tittiger 3 months ago
@LarkenRose An observation I have made is that most Christians ( I am one) are the biggest enemies of having no state and the biggest supporters of what always end up as evil government. They reference Romans 13 and even those that understand Romans 13 such as Chuck Baldwin, still cling to God ordering us to have government. I get the opposite out of scripture - the Israelite's in scripture were warned about what would happen if they had a king. And it was not good.
tittiger 3 months ago
@tittiger appeal to age? Nice try. But most anarchists are anarchists because they understand the principle. non-radical libertarians will never get this. No offense, I understand your thinking, even though I disagree. But don't try to push that childish appeal to the amount of years one have been a libertarian or anarchist.
MaikUniversum 3 months ago
@MaikUniversum Sorry but I have seen it work quite a few time my friend. I have no statistics but I have seen it work. It worked with me. :-)
tittiger 3 months ago
@tittiger well, I've seen exact opposite. No sarcasm or irony. Quite many anarchists were libertarians once (those for limited government etc.) And after few years transitioned into principled anarchism. Personally I haven't experience such transition though. Don't know why, it just was too obvious (like it was too obvious that there can not be imaginary beings).
MaikUniversum 3 months ago
@MaikUniversum Are we not saying the exact same thing or am I having a Rick Perry moment?
tittiger 3 months ago
@tittiger now you got me wondering too. Ah whatever, dude :D
MaikUniversum 3 months ago
@MaikUniversum
This interface really suks. I have no context as to what you are commenting on. :-)
tittiger 3 months ago
Right On Larken
It is only a psychopath or fool who does not acknowledge that what is in reality legalized theft and coercion; what we call taxation in the realm of political correctness, is anything but unethical, requires me to ask my fascist adversaries, which one are you? Thinking that the institution of government, with its economic foundation based on such unethical behaviors as taxation and coersion, can foster a civil and just society, to me requires even less intellectual capacity.
ENDLESSSOLUTIONS 3 months ago
@ENDLESSSOLUTIONS Hence the "Dumbing Down of America", better known as the "No Child Left Behind" mantra, was enacted by our beloved government, to ensure our kids were kept so ignorant of history and devoid of critical thinking skills (along with even math) they wouldn't know enough to recognize the injustices being forced on them by the ruling cabal. Kids are taught to "shut up, do as you're told, and stay in line." It's the perfect cattle yard, set up to spit out workers for the collective.
pax1sw 3 months ago
I really like using "advocating that we be robbed is bad". Thanks for the perspective Larken.
AngryHateMusic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i'm in.
Ron Paul 2012
MedicalMarijuanaMini 3 months ago
@LarkinRose I bought your book, The Iron Web, and I loved it, it's a great story. Do you remember how it ended? You pretty well realized you can't fix a system from the outside. Grant stayed in the system, and that's how that system was ultimately defeated.
Not voting just insures you automatically become a voiceless victim. If you don't like the system, work within it to change it and ultimately end it, if that's your goal. Freedom isn't free, everything worthwhile has a price.
pax1sw 3 months ago
I advocate anarchocapitalism, a completely voluntary society, freedom, and liberty. I stand with you Larken.
chuska8383 3 months ago
Larken, thanks for your sanity. I am all warm and fuzzy inside thinking maybe the world can change because of videos like yours and the common sense you are spreading along your journey here on planet earth. Glad we have you! You have a wonderful talent of explaining things like you are showing people, not just telling them. Great analogies too. ツ
webmiss61 3 months ago
Hi Larken - I am taking your deal!
I have supported Ron Paul the last time - but I have not stopped learning since and I know that any support of the state, even a small one, is a step in the wrong direction and I have stopped any support and any voluntary compliance. I promise that I will put up as much resistance to any order as I can.
MerlinSilk42 3 months ago
I ripped up and throw out my mail in ballot in my recent local elections. I am on the way to recovery!
4xtech 3 months ago
Terrific presentation, well said. Kudos.
"no man or group holds a blank check on power over others" - Ayn Rand
RebelRadius 3 months ago
Wouldn't it be nice if nobody voted and they all just went away.
supersam527 3 months ago
I do not nor will I vote. I am not a United States citizen, I am not a resident, nor am I not a "person" in the legal sense.
About time we got another sense filled video Larken
walkertonkidd 3 months ago
Hey Larken, really like your videos, keep up the good work man. I have a question. What about voting for something like marijuana legalization where you are voting to limit the govt's power in some way? I didn't vote in the last election, for more or less the same reasons you said in this video, however I will admit I've considered voting for that one single issue and leaving the rest of the ballet blank. Do you think this is also morally wrong, or perhaps a waste of time?
AnarchoFuturist 3 months ago
@AnarchoFuturist If you only vote on "proposition" type things, only voting AGAINST some stupid authoritarian act of violent aggression, I see nothing immoral about that. The main down side I see is that it still legitimizes the notion that we need "legislative" permission from the parasites in order to be free. Other than that, if it reduces state aggression WITHOUT advocating any other theft or coercion, I wouldn't complain too much about it.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
Just recently turned 18 and I will never vote. Politics is a scam. Another excellent video, Larken! Thank you!
ArsenalReady 3 months ago
one of my happiest days! logging in to find there's a new video from Larken! *pushing play now
LotharioRowe 3 months ago
What if I vote AGAINST new projects, taxes and regulations?
rosaryshop 3 months ago
Voting for Ron Paul is NOT advocating theft (forcing me to pay you for things you want and visaversa)....so I am going to vote as long as Dr. Paul is a choice.
synot1 3 months ago
@synot1 Look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. What does it say? It pretends to give Congress the right to steal. "Taxation" is FORCING people to pay for things, whether they want them or not. The fact that it was supposed to be very limited, usually avoidable theft, doesn't make it legitimate.
LarkenRose 3 months ago 4
@LarkenRose
But Larkin, if taxes are avoidable then they would be legit... right? And according to art 1 section 8- all types of taxes listed are supposed to be avoidable.
Thats not how things get run, but on paper thats how its supposed to work- right?
shadowcii 3 months ago
@shadowcii Wrong on two counts: 1) "Direct," Constitutional head taxes are not avoidable, unless you remove your head. "Direct" property taxes are only slightly easier to avoid, by owning nothing. 2) The fact that robbery is avoidable doesn't make it legitimate. If I told you I'd steal $100 from you if you drank orange juice, I suspect you'd have a problem with that (as you should), even though such robbery would be "avoidable." Robbing people who do certain things (a la "excises") is immoral.
LarkenRose 3 months ago
@LarkenRose
good points-you win again!
Don't you get tired of beating me on every different website?
GREAT BOOK. I'll be buying some more copyies shortly.
shadowcii 3 months ago
Whatever Larken says i do. Speak Mr. Larken and i shall do thy bidding.
sonofagunM357 3 months ago
@sonofagunM357 I command thee to think for thyself, and not blindly obey anyone, including me. I command it!
LarkenRose 3 months ago 14
@LarkenRose See: Monty Pythons The Life of Brian starting at 01:03:30 (Brian's 1 minute speech)
Killedkennyagain 3 months ago
@LarkenRose Oh for all the! its Larken himself he answers, He Answers!
sonofagunM357 3 months ago
What? Dr. wants to abolish the income tax ... completely! Whats wrong with that?
synot1 3 months ago