Have heard lots of crickets on this (mostly BS) forum.
Are there any here that understand the requirements to achieve Freedom in this world of enslavement ?
Have seen plenty of distractions.
Not sure what use we have for those providing the distractions.
Samm
Samm, youâre like a skunk that goes around squirting anyone that comes within range and then wondering why no one wants to engage with you.
Perhaps you would have more efficacy examining your methodology first.
1 Like
Letâs try this,Codrus.
Letâs ask a question for anyone here on this forum to answer. An honest answer will help determine if the forum may be of use towards establishing real gains towards freedom. This answer provided should be supported by the fact that we realize we are unable to live a life of freedom due to enslavement tactics on all fronts by the state.
I would like to hear views on what you all think we should do to remove power from the state.
What should we do to remove ALL power from the state ?
Samm
1 Like
Meant to reply sooner, hard lately to find time.
First, you donât wake up in chains and your every moment isnât controlled by others, youâre already free, Samm. So put more accurately youâre unhappy with your restricted freedoms (but consider that youâd also have your freedoms ârestrictedâ in a âfree societyâ also.
Youâre currently unhappy with what you feel are your freedom of choices, but this is something within your control. You hold the power to define your reality, and so hold the power to define your freedom.
Change what you have defined and bring freedom to you.
Iâm sure not the reply you wanted, but it is the reply you need and you will think these things over and eventually see and understand the meaning (and power) of what I said.
Its always been in your power.
1 Like
Just because you canât see the chains does not mean they are not there. You think you are free because you are Allowed to be free? Well thank the master!
In a free society you at least get to be part of the decisions which govern your life, unlike the current system which gives you the illusion of making those decisions, i.e. voting. But what the hell you think you are free, so I guess you are, because you defined what freedom is for you, but there lies the crux, what you call freedom is not what I call freedom because I was not Allowed any choice in that decision!..
Then again if I look at my chains and believe they are not chains then they are not chains⌠Because if I believe hard enough I can change my reality, ya right⌠
Rodney
1 Like
This is what Freedom looks like?
1 Like
Just because you canât see the chains does not mean they are not there.
Actually, thatâs exactly what it means, youâre actually pretending you are in chains.
(BTW, voting isnât making decisions, it is passing that authority to someone else to make the decisions.)
Samm is deeply frustrated and unhappy because he has made his happiness dependent on others, and others will disappoint him. If your happiness hinges on what others do or donât do, then you are going to find yourself essentially always unhappy.
Eventually you decide to take back control of your happiness and keep it all within your power. You remove yourself as much as you are able from supporting or assisting those things that donât make you happy, and you change your definitions for things from what they were to things that make you happy.
Get on with perusing whatever you are passionate about, thatâs the whole point of life. If you are passionate about fighting statists then by all means go do it! But if it is making you unhappy and depressed, then youâll probably see its time to do something else to be happy.
1 Like
Codrus is wrong:
- Samm is not unhappy. Samm is also not depressed. Samm is angry and quite happy that the anger is there. It should be.
- If you think you are free, you must have a poor outlook on life and not much ambition. Youâre a caged animal for the most part. Many think that sitting in their easy chair in front of a stupid game of steroid junkies throwing a ball around is freedom. Especially if includes some processed shit to eat along with some alcohol. Wave a flag ! Yippie Iâm free ! Pathetic
- Godâs will is for us to live simply, and in tune with nature. People have drifted away from Godâs will and have fallen pray to dependence. Evil gets in to peopleâs lives by tricking and betraying. Evil has mostly removed INDEPENDENCE from humanity. Evil has manifested itself in the form of technologically dependent society. Those made dependent can be controlled. Being dependent, especially voluntarily dependent, which is 90% of america, is accepting control. Accepting control in this circumstance, is accepting evil.
. One of the problems lies in the fact that there are some that are still doing all they can to live in tune with Godâs will, yet the system is actually preventing (with force or death) some from accomplishing this. All this has amounted to a lot of anger. The system canât handle too much of this, and is working on ways to remove anger, or make it genetically impossibleâŚI for one think the controllers and their lazy satanic scum have dragged their feet too much on this and will be paying the price.
Samm
1 Like
Quote from the Rutherford article: " If we are to have any hope of dismantling the police state, change must start locally, community by community. Citizens will have to demand that police de-escalate and de-militarize. And if the police donât listen, contact your city councils and put the pressure on them."
I DO NOT, AND NEVER HAVE, AGREED TO THIS MENTALITY
John Whiteheads blog has been great at describing the mess weâre in. Heâs only presented 1/2 of it though. Not much mention of the damage to NATURE. The system has messed up much of our Mother. Whitehead is no good as far as âsolutionsâ. Because of this we should be skeptical of him. There is a solution out there. The system knows this and weâre in a race because of it. More to comeâŚ
Samm
Not all chains are physical.
Ignorance is blissâŚif you are looking for happiness.
Donât take the red pill.
Freedom is when there are zillions of nations, with many competing for your investment and patronage. Some will be on land, some will be seasteads, and some will be space-stations (someday).
Some of course will be nations where I am not welcome: âWhites Onlyâ ethnostates, or just limited to Orthodox Jews, Zulus, Mormons, Uyghurs, Hungarians, lesbian furies, LSD fans, whatever. But there will be a zillion others where I would be free to join.
Some will be business-friendly ultra-modern megalopoleis, like Singapore. Some will be like Liechtenstein or San Marino. Some will be primitivist, like Tolkinâs Shire. Some would be monarchies or theocracies. Some would be communist communes (but we all know they wouldnât attract anyone but delusional fools and moochers, and so they will fail quickly, having no ability to impose their system on competent people by force). Experimentation and evolution will encourage better political ideas to proliferate.
Nations use force, what you listed are communities and organizations, which donât need force. But otherwise I agree.
1 Like
We need to make up our own perfectly rational language. (Lojban?) In the meantime we use English, and there are ambiguities. Word definitions change with popular usage, sometimes differently in different cultures and parts of the world. And people typically use words in haste hoping to be understood from context, where many words are needed to convey a clear meaning.
So we have good nationalism (like choosing to live in Sinapore, San Marino, Libmania, Keene Shire Society, Seastead #9872, Christopher Cantwellâs Dank Whites-Only Trailer Park, Voluntary Trontskyland, whatever).
And we have bad nationalism (like pretty much any large nation today).
And we have some gray area in between⌠If there are thousands (millions?) of new nations that you can freely migrate to, but millions of people remain loyal to Washington DC, Beijing, Delhi, Moscow, etc - do they become voluntary nations as well?
There is no gray area where the area of force exists. âIs it voluntary or not?â is clear cut.
âNationâ is an abstraction pointing to a geographical location of a specific jural area, since justice is necessary for an enduring civil society to prosper.
If there are âlawsââwhich are a state conceptâthen the jural local is force since laws are not voluntary. Whereas if itâs rules, customs, agreements and contracts, then it is not force and it is voluntary.
However the abstraction ânationâ has a strong statist connotation which makes it not so great a term. Blacks Law Dictionary, for example, goes into talking about nations having laws, by default.
For me at least, the connotation is too strongly statist to be used to refer to free societies.
1 Like
How about not dodging the question I asked above. I have yet to receive an answer.
The question was: What should we do to remove ALL power from the state ?
Samm
There is no gray area where the area of force exists. âIs it voluntary or not?â is clear cut.
Repeating a claim isnât same as defending it.
A statist will always claim that their governments are voluntary. Obviously this claim would be false about a place like North Korea, where everything is completely restricted, but what about places where people can travel relatively freely?
They would have a strong case when talking about a place like Singapore, which had almost zero population 200 years ago, and people moved there by choice. Singapore remains a most desirable migration destination, and anyone is free to leave at any time. Are you saying that people donât have a Right to voluntarily establish a place (doesnât matter if itâs an island, a seastead, a space station, etc) where they consent to certain laws, including mechanisms for passing new laws, etc?
Making the same claim about Iceland is more difficult, and about USA is more difficult still - but plenty of statists will try. It all depends on how easy it is to leave.
âNationâ is an abstraction pointing to a geographical location of a specific jural area, since justice is necessary for an enduring civil society to prosper.
I donât think thatâs a good definition, especially moving forward. If a nation sells all of its land and buys a spaceship, does it stop existing? Of course not. A nation, like a corporation, can own real estate assets in divergent places, or none at all.
A nation is a contractual agreement between people, which should be voluntary, but at present it is not (to varying degrees).
If there are âlawsââwhich are a state conceptâthen the jural local is force since laws are not voluntary. Whereas if itâs rules, customs, agreements and contracts, then it is not force and it is voluntary.
So how do you prove to a flag-waving âpatriotâ that he doesnât consent to the âlawsâ he claims he consents to?
Thatâs a fallacious endeavor. Our motto should be: âif you like your government, you can keep itâ (if it were possible to now say this without sarcasm).
The problem is that when the flag-waving patriots say âlove it or leave itâ, they fail to understand all the violence that their government uses to make it extremely difficult to leaveâŚ
However the abstraction ânationâ has a strong statist connotation which makes it not so great a term. Blacks Law Dictionary, for example, goes into talking about nations having laws, by default. For me at least, the connotation is too strongly statist to be used to refer to free societies.
Plenty of people seem to like that term, and will continue to use it to describe the voluntary sovereign entities they wish to establish. For example, the âLet A Thousand Nations Bloomâ blog. Cantwell uses the term âwhite nationalismâ to describe his secessionist ambitions in Northern NH. Etc.
What should we do to remove ALL power from the state ?
We shouldnât.
The libertarian idea of freedom only appeals to a small minority, at least at first. The vast majority of people, rich and poor, are brainwashed and addicted to the state. They will claim that the state is their beloved mommy and has their full consent, and billions of them will gladly take a bullet to protect it.
Killing billions of people, needless to say, would do a lot more harm to the human economy than good. I am not interested in killing anyone. I need those otherwise-sane government-loving tools waking up and going to work, making better laptops and curing cancerâŚ
So the real question we should be asking is: âHow do we secede from the state, even though we are a small minority?â
And this is what Iâve been writing about extensively for years. I advocate a multi-pronged approach, a âdiversity of tacticsâ, so to speak. Useful tactics include: libertarian education, âpeaceful parentingâ (for those who are able), the right kind of technological innovation (ex. open source hardware and software, decentralized censorship-proof telecommunications, 3D printing, seasteading, etc), civil disobedience and tax resistance (definitely not for everyone), and, yes, even electoral politics as well.
Inside-the-system political efforts (like Harry Browne, Ron Paul, and even Gary Johnson) help get attention, and spark the curiosity for a small minority of people. This results in more readers for libertarian blogs, etc - and thus more participants for secession projects in the future.
My own civil disobedience and tent-in-the-woods tax resistance seem very much futile, but I stick to it for my own intangible reasons. It sends a message that I will never be their profitable slave, no matter what! My suffering are the birth-pains of new libertarian nations that are to come! Killing pacifist dissidents like me would make it ever-more difficult for them to justify the bloodshed to their sheep, because maintaining the delusion of benevolence is essential for governments to survive a while longer⌠Make them throw me in the brier-patch and say âgood riddanceâ!
Once it becomes easy, ever-more people will secede from their empires into more voluntary governance institutions, until remaining a part of an old nation like Russia, China, or USA (which by then would be toothless Swiss cheese) sorta becomes a voluntary choice as well.
A nation, like a corporation, can own real estate assets in divergent places, or none at all.
I donât think an abstraction can own anything. The notion is ridiculous, after all an abstraction has no brain, it cannot decide what to do with the property or how to use it.
So how do you prove to a flag-waving âpatriotâ that he doesnât consent to the âlawsâ he claims he consents to?
If heâs consented why would I care to do so? Itâs the people who havenât consented where the force lies. (You created a straw-man here.)
Also, whether you can leave or not is not the litmus test for whether it is a free society or not. Anything that is not voluntary is the litmus test.
Lastly, Cantwell is a mess and should not be someone to turn to wisdom for anything.
Stop using it. Stop turning to it.
Nothing will change until people see that it is not in their best interest to continue using a thing, and then it will happen naturally. States have impoverished everyone, not helped them, and the instant a person can no longer escape this truth their support ceases, of its own.
You seem to be having comprehension problemsâŚ
Youâve completely ignored my point about there being a spectrum of (un)informed consent, with the vast majority of people blindly consenting to whatever government that brainwashed them.
I donât think an abstraction can own anything.
Again, thereâs a spectrum. Examples of collective abstractions include a marriage, a family, a small business, a large corporation, a voluntary residential community, the future Libmania seastead, a nation like Liechtenstein, or a nation like the United States. Groups of people can own property in common.
The notion is ridiculous, after all an abstraction has no brain, it cannot decide what to do with the property or how to use it.
By that same logic you canât have a family or a business partnership.
If heâs consented why would I care to do so? Itâs the people who havenât consented where the force lies.
If someone comes to your house and says âI do not consent to being in your houseâ, are you violating their rights? They should simply leave. The fools who consent to the U.S. government (currently the vast majority) will tell you the same thing.
Also, whether you can leave or not is not the litmus test for whether it is a free society or not. Anything that is not voluntary is the litmus test.
Circular logic.
Lastly, Cantwell is a mess and should not be someone to turn to wisdom for anything.
Iâve been following FSP-related online communities for over 15 years now, and Cantwell is definitely in the top 1% of the people Iâve read there.
In any case: to reiterate my point in answer to this thread:
SECESSION! SECESSION! SECESSION!
Itâs useless to complain about the vast majority of people who consent to the state by default. We cannot change them from within. Trying to take away their Mommy Government is obviously futile. Only after we secede â thereby showing a better way, and starving their state of resources in the process â will freedom and progress spread onto them as well.
1 Like