State = Parasite

January 20, 2012 by DerrickJ
Filed under: Data, Issues, Living Free, Noncooperation, Outreach, Video

“Word for word and character for character, it’s tough to beat Ryan Maddox.” – Super-activist Pete Eyre

This is the first episode in what will become a weekly series highlighting a range of pro-freedom topics. This one focuses on establishing the parasitic nature of the state. Others soon to follow will cover topics such as Mesh Networks, DarkNets, and open-source ecology. New episodes will be featured on my YouTube channel each Friday. The goal of this series is to bring newcomers to the ideas of liberty and to equip the liberty community with the technical aspects of maintaining strong virtual and real-life networks. One such real-life network is The Corner News, my favorite store. Check them out below:

matt

Get used to it. You are not going to change it. It sounds like the USA just might not be the place for you to live and be free.
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

The state is a parasite, but that doesn't change the fact that capitalist bosses, landlords, usurers, corporations, and other recipients of non-labor income are also parasites.

And by the way, the "voluntary" argument isn't going to work. Go around Keene/Manchester/wherever and ask people why they pay their taxes. Chances are, the majority of those people will not say, "It's because the state is putting a gun to my head!" but rather something like, "Because I want roads, schools, infrastructure, etc. etc.". Then ask them if they would continue paying their taxes if all taxation became voluntary. I'd guess that most of them would say yes, for the reasons I mentioned before (that being, they love state-subsidized roads and schools).

Once again, I hate to break it to you but there's no way the state will ever dissolve unless the ruling class is also fought. For one thing, businesses want the state to provide them with protection of private property, IP, and a slew of other things. They can't "let the market decide" because such an action is way too risky and could mean a huge loss of profits.

Source:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2010/09/20/…

Also, take Somalia into consideration. Guess who is lobbying the rest of the world to bring back a centralized government in the territory? That's right: the Somali business community. And why would they want the state back if the state is supposedly so anti-business? Well, because they're sick and tired of having to pay for "defense" (police) and other goodies out-of-pocket and feel that the instability in the territory scares away other international businesspeople from wanting to invest there. In other words, having a centralized government in Somalia will *bring* in business for the obvious reasons.

Source:

http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=4396…

I just don't see a stateless society coming about if social classes remain. There's way too many people who have every incentive to keep the state, even in NH.
Walter T. Patt

Derrick, was going to comment under ‘Man vs. State’, maybe more appropriate here.

All information contain here is for educational and informational use. Nothing within, is not to be construe as legal advice, not on my participation.. Knowledge will make you free. Follow the link enclosed. A person can spend months following links within the links. I will advise you, there are videos/information within, that deals with extreme violence. You will also find repeat information. Hopefully people studying all the links will be more inform, realize the corrupt system, that controls their live from the cradle to the grave. These links will explain how people have been enslaved through ignorance. Everyone must listen to G. Edward Griffin oration of Frederick Bastiat. After the residents of Keene are educated here, FreeKeene will be their hero’s

Man vs. State

Derrick, What type of court were you in? I say Admiralty/Commercial Court? Admiralty Courts do not recognize the Constitution. Admiralty courts consider you guilty. Notice the Admiralty flag in the courtroom? This is all done to trick you. Every person(s) against you, are they employees of a corporation? Subsidiary corporations? Employees of a corporation cannot arrest anyone.

Study the Bankruptcy of 1933, US Inc. is in bankruptcy and held in trust. All employees of the corporation are trustees, you are the beneficiary Judge Burke is obligated to dismiss the charges. File a motion to dismiss the charges, but study the above and information within the link. No doubt you were in a ‘creditors-debtors court. Ask Burke to produce the Creditor? Attorneys are under secret oath not to reveal the true creditors of the bankruptcy. After some intensive reading decide who is guilty of violation of Constitutional oath. There are no statute of limitations on Civil Rights Violations. There is not protection from immunity for criminal acts.

Search attorney’s and Lawyer’s secret oath. Search Ben Freeman UCC.

http://home1.gte.net/carriet/SecrecyOfTheUS_CORPO… Copy and paste the link if it doesn’t work

If anything sets us free, will be information through the internet.
matt

STFU Walter, that bullshit has been floating around forever. The minute you even open your mouth in a district criminal court and utter the word "Admiralty" – you are automatically pegged an internet NUTJOB. As if you found the golden keys to the golden crapper. That shit doesn't work – and it's bad advice to give to anyone. In the case of Derrick it doesn't matter of course, because he has already established himself that he is a nutjob and anything coming out of his mouth is usually disregarded and dismissed.
SMASH CAPITALISM

Business=parasite

Admirality courts?
MaineShark

Julia, you can't ask someone who's under duress, and get an honest answer. Remove the duress, /then/ ask if they still want to pay taxes.

Any voluntary interaction is legitimate, whether or not it meets with your personal aesthetic approval.
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

MaineShark, so you would agree that taxation is legit if people *voluntarily* chose to pay it?

Like I said, I would think that people's willingness to pay taxes to the state stems not from the threat of violence but from their impression that the benefits (i.e. infrastructure, a fire department, schools, health care, welfare, all sorts of other public goods, and goodies for business) outweigh the costs. I'm not trying to justify taxation; I'm just showing you that shit is a lot more complex.
theKINGofKEENE

I didn't take the time to read the WHOLE thing linked to here, but, there is SOME truth

in all those "Admiralty Courts" screeds…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree, Julia…If ALL taxes suddenly became "voluntary", most people would still readily pay most taxes, for the very reasons you stated…

Most folks WANT what infrastructure gov't uses tax money to build, and are OK

with cops, firefighters, etc….

We want fair representation, fair taxation, and to have our tax money wisely spent…

…if only it was like that…

~tKoK.
Bob Constantine

Julia,

Just because some people may perceive a benefit from shopping at Walmart, should all people be forced to only shop at Walmart under the pain of a violent threat? (note – Walmart is an example, you could substitute any other provider of services if you like)

There is no denying that the present system relies on an involuntary interaction. As Maine Shark pointed out "under duress" would have to be absent. It is not absent, it is very present. There is no way of getting around that. Government interactions for many people are not a willful interaction.

The fact that SOME people may like all of the "services" or some of the "services" that they receive does not mean that ALL people do.

The solution seems that those who want a particular service should pay for it. Those that do not want a particular "service" should be able to seek services elsewhere or opt out without being threatened or harmed. When a central authority has the monopoly over what you will pay for and how much, that sounds an awful lot like extortion…so much so I'd say it is.
Bob Constantine

oh forgot to say….great logical points in the interview.

Thanks Guys!
http://propagandalalaland.blogspot.com/ Julia

Bob, the issue I'm trying to present here is, what's "voluntary" is highly subjective. When you use phrases like "no one is forcing you to ______" you conveniently leave out any context. For example, let's say my plane crashes in the middle of a desert leaving me stranded without food or water, all of a sudden a man comes riding along in his jeep, he agrees to help me out only on the condition that I promise to be his sex slave for the next 30 days. Obviously, the situation here is extremely coercive, but to anyone who believes "voluntary = ethical" his demands are perfectly fine.

The other day I was watching a video on youtube about female genital mutilation. It was so horrendous I couldn't finish it. In the video, a teenage girl in an African village was preparing to be mutilated (it's a rite-of-passage in her culture) by having a party and celebrating. She was not only voluntarily agreeing to go through with it, but she was looking forward to it. Does this make FGM an ethical practice? Hell no. Okay, this is an extreme example, but I think it gets my point across. I'm sure I can find millions of examples of cultures which practice equally inhumane things which are accepted by *everyone* in the culture and are seen as not being coercive.

I would argue that markets in general are extremely involuntary, at least they would be in the kind of society dreamed up by "an"-caps. If, as Rothbard said, "no land is to remain public", then if I want to build a market-less commune with some comrades, we're out of luck unless we pay a landLORD for cheap land. Hell, landlords are basically monarchs in this society. Oh sure, no one would be *forcing* you to live under a certain monarch, but where else could you go if every square inch of land is owned by one? Likewise, no one *forces* you to live in NH. If you don't like property taxes, well, there's always seasteading or living in the woods. Heck, no one is forcing you to remain in civilization either. If taxes are a pain, why not live with some uncontacted peoples in the Amazon rainforest?

And once again, no one is addressing anything I posted about Somalia and how the business community (as in, capitalists) is pressuring the rest of the world to bring statism back to their country. This is more reason why I doubt an "an"-cap system would have a very long lifespan: there's too much of an incentive by businesspeople and landlords to bring a centralized violent monopoly back.
Bob Constantine

to bring a centralized violent monopoly back? When did it ever go away?
david

thats why i dont dabble in theoretical abstract abstractions,julia……I just help get liberties by degrees…um…. And I'm glad that didn't happen to you julia

If people just go on the road to were they want to be…ie stateless anacho-whateverism….. The you can just be glad w the degrees that you get….people can individually live free w out having a whole state
david
name

Bob Constantine on Mon, 23rd Jan 2012 5:06 pm

The solution seems that those who want a particular service should pay for it. Those that do not want a particular “service” should be able to seek services elsewhere or opt out without being threatened or harmed.

That's great bob. Which public roads and infrastructure do you plan to use? Everyone else pays for them. You don't want to, but something tells me you'll still use them.

And david, I think we're all glad you don't dabble in theoretical abstract abstractions.
name
MaineShark

Julia, if it's voluntary, it's not a tax. Taxes are, by definition, involuntary.

And no, libertarians don't believe that "voluntary = ethical." Libertarianism states that "involuntary = unethical." Just because someone makes a statement, does not mean they are also making the converse of that statement. I realize that socialists don't understand logic (or math, for that matter), but perhaps you could at least /try/ not to make the most ridiculous sorts of fallacious claims?

Regarding land for you commune… you buy the land, and then you are your own landlord. Problem solved.

And no, just because socialist businesses are trying to enlarge the State in Somalia, does not mean that capitalist businesses would try to do the same. And even if some socialists came along and tried it, why would the people, once empowered, ever allow such a thing?
Bob Constantine

name,

You portray my wishes in the way that you can defeat them or slide the discussion sideways. I never said I don't want to pay for services that I use such as roads.

I want to eliminate extortion which entails being made to pay for "services" that I don't use and don't want. I also want an an option of more service providers, rather than a monopoly that relies on violence.

I want a society where people are free to live there lives in ways that they chose as long as there actions don't harm others….apparently you do not.
theKINGofKEENE

Bob C., "name" is mostly a troll…

You can TRY to have some sensible conversation, but, but, but,

Like "david", he mostly deals in theoretical abstract abstractions…

…as opposed to theoretical abstract concretions…

sum-thin' like dat…

~tKoK.