Kill the State of Consent: Voting is Nonsense by Bill Buppert

Save pagePDF pageEmail pagePrint page

“Abraham Lincoln did not cause the death of so many people from a mere love of slaughter, but only to bring about a state of consent that could not otherwise be secured for the government he had undertaken to administer. When a government has once reduced its people to a state of consent – that is, of submission to its will – it can put them to a much better use than to kill them; for it can then plunder them, enslave them, and use them as tools for plundering and enslaving others.”

– Lysander Spooner

There is no man on a white horse to ride into Washington DC and fix what is wrong. Every time you pull that lever in the voting booth surrounded by earnest old women in tennis shoes, you are perpetuating a lie; the myth that voting can create and nourish the garden of freedom and liberty is an oft-quoted and misleading deception. Sort of like pulling the trigger on a gun with an innocent man or woman in front of the muzzle and thinking no harm will come. The lever is a stamp of approval for the terrorism, initiated violence and horror show that all government beyond self-government is in fact and history.

Voting is violence because every time a human pulls that lever they are legitimizing a proxy to use force to exact tax tribute, regulatory compliance and the maintenance of a police state. The government quite literally goes into your neighbor’s house on a consistent basis and demands a portion of that person’s wealth at the end of a gun; they don’t knock, they stroll in and take what they wish under color of law. If you resist, you are rewarded with a boot on your neck and a gun screwed to your temple, they may even be kind enough to levy an extra surcharge or kidnap you and cage you for daring to question their system of criminality. Voting simply shuffles plantation owners on the veranda. Voting in a private venue is fine but the state notion of voting is an approval of the ownership of other human beings.

The staccato beat of voting as a talisman against the big government bogeyman has been drummed into our skulls since the first government obedience classes taught in state-run elementary schools. They quaintly call them civics but it is a terribly distorted picture of history and patchwork of shabby lies to make you think you can make a difference through government action. The socialist shamans from both the left and right beat the tattoo on the dead animal skins to lull the tax cattle into thinking they have a say in their manacles when the reality is simply a more nuanced plantation lifestyle.

The horrific Hamiltonian-Lincolnian project that took the wretched Constitution and gave its genetic expansion meme power was codified to instill perpetual life and a license to Sovietize the continent it lorded over. The police state has accelerated since 2001 well beyond even the fascist FDR’s wildest dreams to come to full flower under innumerable Congressional edicts and Executive orders; from torture as national policy to blanket eavesdropping to police forces drunk on bloodlust; the landscape is inescapably a collectivist fever dream rubber-stamped by the usual suspects in the three “separate” branches of the same government supremacist tree.

Voting for freedom is like fornicating for virginity and is as impossible as the imbecilic notion that limited government can exist when there is no historical precedent for it, East or West. Simply, the American project is Exhibit A in the impossibility of limited government as the Leviathan has increased in size enormously over time granting a legal imprimatur to the most outrageous slings and arrows of any civilizational benchmark.

America is not a free country and has not been for a very long time. The voters think their serial killer beauty contest allows them a voice in their incarceration but that may be the most dangerous illusion of all. Every candidate who runs for office is a just another prison warden.

It bears repeating that secession is the only answer and it is the historical rule and not the exception in the evolution of tax jurisdictions planet-wide.

Franklin’s notion of a Republic if you can keep it got it as backwards as Kennedy did with his famous “ask not” speech. Throw it back because if you keep it, you own it and your shiny manacles will rust over time and smother every ounce of freedom and self-governance you formerly possessed.

The parchment worshipers and Constitutional idolaters are nothing more than philosophical snake-oil salesman who want to put a happy face on tyranny and death cults. They insist that you abide by a contract you didn’t sign that led to unprecedented liberty-hunting and freedom-usurping in its first dozen years with the Whiskey Rebellion, 1798 Alien and Sedition Act and the insistence by the Supremes on declaring their formidable collectivist powers ex post facto, the rest is a gore-soaked history of continental bloodletting of American aboriginals and a global quest to seek more scalps once the domestic body-count started to diminish starting in 1893.

The true secret to self-government is being apolitical because political means merely encourages the psychopaths to insist that the worse people must be in charge of every aspect of your existence to protect you from a few bad actors in the private realm because the government criminality is built into the system. Legal permission to be free is impossible. As Larken tells us, laws are not laws but simply threats.

The creed of abolitionism is the opposition to all forms of slavery.

What forms of slavery do you support? If your answer is none and you vote, you are deluded.

Own yourself. Resist.

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Digg thisShare on YummlyShare on TumblrPrint this pageEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookFlattr the authorShare on Google+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on VKBuffer this page

42 thoughts on “Kill the State of Consent: Voting is Nonsense by Bill Buppert

  1. In your opinion, do you think incremental intervention in small government can slowly shutdown government rule?

    For instance, the slow infiltration of government by anarchists in New Hampshire.

  2. That about says it all Bill. Now everyone just has to figure out what they are going to do about that which you so eloquently stated.

    Like it or not, almost everyone is a part of what’s coming, no one gets a free ride on this deal. We are all in it together.

    In for what’s coming.

    • What SLAVFOR doesn’t understand is that once cornered and FREEFOR is forced to respond in kind, every effort after that is free.

      • We never required permission or blessing from government or a law or a piece of paper, or nothing at all, except to believe the truth it is our liberty before any of that and after any of that. And that is the biggest con of them all. That the constitution or any law determines my liberty.

        It is the epitome of slavery to the state that people think the constitution or any document, or any law provides one with or is a prerequisite for liberty.

        Liberty, my liberty, hours liberty, is preeminent. There is simply no law or paper or permission that is as powerful or profound as the primal liberty you are born with and is yours till you die. Nothing takes precedence over that. Nothing.

        To think or believe otherwise is a contradiction in terms of such magnitude that any serfdom or slavery pales in comparison to the self imposed submission to the state and those running it.

        You taught me that Bill.

        • Take some time to research the Whiskey Rebellion. What the colonies fought for against Mother England didn’t last long once they had their own government. The boot of fedgov came down on the neck of the citizens of the new United States harder than George III ever considered.

  3. Bill,
    I think TL Davis was on to something when he said:

    “It’s not ours to defend the constitution, it’s up to them to find refuge from us from the protections the constitution provides them”

    Or something to that effect. The implications and certain truths in TL’s statement of the facts is powerful medicine. Takes a leap of faith in ones inherent liberty to grasp the nature in that observation. A leap that changes everything.

    I see that leap in your essays. That’s what I like about them.

    Hey, reminds me of the movie Treasure of the Sierra Madre, that great line, ” Constitution!?… Constitution!!?… I got to show you no Constitution!

  4. “Liberty, my liberty, hours liberty, is preeminent. There is simply no law or paper or permission that is as powerful or profound as the primal liberty you are born with and is yours till you die. Nothing takes precedence over that. Nothing.”

    Yes, this is true …But, the Constitution lays out guidelines for an orderly freedom.

    “It’s not ours to defend the constitution, it’s up to them to find refuge from us from the protections the constitution provides them”

    This is also, so true, as well. We all know that when government fears the people, we have freedom. That’s why they’re so worried about our ability of self defense. We must resist ALL their attempts to lord over us.

    “It’s time for men of God to stop being afraid of offending weak minded people.
    It’s time for the men of God to stand for truth and righteousness.
    It’s time the passion for what’s right, and the rule of law, to come into view on the
    plane of truth and reason.”

    – Brooks M.Conner

    • I’m going to go bust your balls Paraclete. Please take it in the light given, you are missing something here, you almost have it, but your still putting the power of the state on a pedestal. You lend the state credence and legitimacy where there is none.

      Look, ask yourself the question, does government and those running create liberty? (does it really create anything other than more power?).

      If it doesn’t create liberty what is it good for?
      What is it good for as men in and of liberty can not do for themselves?

      And fear the people?
      Not for nothing my friend, I don’t want it anything. If I have to make my government fear me, it ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
      And if you haven’t reckoned with it yet, it does fear men like you and me, we are domestic terrorists and white right wing extremists. So what is government good for I ask again?

      We live in a time in which romantic notions that rule of law and the validity of the state is a legitimate thing gets you dead or indentured. And those romantic fantasies is something that gives the sonofabitches running things a fig leaf of legitimacy. It is just enough cover for the whole edifice of greed and hubris to exist. That kind of thing is consent, believing that is providing consent to the very thing you think and hope to be something it ain’t.
      It is as Bill laid out the biggest con of men imaginable.
      The whole thing was rigged from the moment the ink was dry. It is the ultimate sheepskin.
      We all been filled.
      It is time to look reality straight in both eyes and man up.

    • “But, the Constitution lays out guidelines for an orderly freedom.”

      Paraclete, you got more homework to do. THAT is an absurd statement. “Orderly” . . . just who the hell is ordering my liberty, when liberty lies outside any such constraints! These so-called “guidelines” are not very limiting . . . just look around at that “limited government” that now enables the most intrusive and murderously obnoxious government the world has ever had to tolerate.

      If Big Bro. can “order” my freedom, I have no freedom. Besides, that scrap of parchment does not order my freedom, but rather grants unconsented permission to Leviathan to order, and thus, define/limit my natural rights. And, since when is bloated, wasteful and uncontrollable State bureaucracy orderly . . . it epitomizes unaccountability and a total disregard for order. What’s more, actual victim-crimes against persons and property can be readily adjudicated without a Konstitutional parchment scrap “ordering freedom”.

      • Amen on that brother…

        Man it gives me hope and reinforces my faith that liberty is alive and well in the hearts of my fellow men.

  5. Even though Brandon Smith writes some really good stuff, he hasn’t quite figured out his constitutionalist ideology blinds him to the true path to liberty.
    Some worthy observations in this piece, I hope one day Brandon sees the light, as he is very much capable of helping the movement towards Zero government. I think he will, as he will soon discover the constitution never worked as sold, and the end game of its intended purpose is at hand, and those who hide behind it are the most vile and worst enemies of liberty.

    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2337-syria-neo-cons-and-the-attempted-infiltration-of-the-liberty-movement

  6. Bill,
    I read Brandon’s essay above again, and was compelled to give him a piece of my mind.
    Brandon is pretty smart, I think we all need every ally, every mind and every heart possible in order to come out of this terrible situation with our liberty and the makings of civility and moral culture that is the seed of something better than just ourselves.

    As in Jim Klien’s so sublime comment over to WRSA, “it begins with each of us”, Indeed.

    My comment to Brandon Smith warts and all, I hope I got it right, Zero Gov that is:

    “Mr Smith, you write some really good stuff, many things you have written about have inspired me to the truth of us.
    Having said that, I want to write something for you to consider. I hope it is taken in the light it is given.
    You have not quite figured out his constitutionalist ideology blinds you to the true path to liberty.

    Your latest observations in this piece are most worthy of every freeman reading. With the exception the constitution never worked as sold. It was a scam of the elites from the get go to do exactly the same thing the neocons commit to mollify and delude the people.

    You are almost there Mr. Smith, you almost get it. I hope one day you see the light, as you are very much capable of helping the movement towards zero government. I think you will, as you will soon discover the constitution never worked as sold, and the end game of its intended purpose is at hand, and those who hide behind it are the most vile and worst enemies of liberty. It is time to stop defending the constitution, time to point out those who use refuge behind it to create an appearance of legitimacy and gull us from the true nature of their agenda.

    To understand where I am coming from here Mr. Smith, I believe much as you do on many things, but where we diverge involves the nature of Liberty and law. I contend a freeman does not need laws, for liberty is the highest law, that no document or laws is as good or right or proper as a mans liberty, his natural primal born freedom and his liberty to determine his own life in its entirety. That no government, or bodies of laws, or screw sanction of those principles of freedom is necessary, and that we have been sold a false bill of goods and generations of Americans have been deluded and waylaid to the state being necessary to “protect” those natural laws and rights that always have been the domain of the sovereign individual, and only the individual. That abiding by the power of government to determine what is our liberty already we gave up our liberty.

    To any who doubt my words, let me ask you to ask yourself, how has things worked so far?

    To those who disdain or discount this truth of our liberty, the crux of which is we don’t need no steenkin’ government, we should determine our own lives in entirety, then and only then do you become truly free in liberty, let me ask you, how else do we make liberty work?

    Cause nothing in all of recorded human history, no entity or form of government, except the freeman himself has ever created liberty. Even the US Constitution. From the moment of its ratification our liberty has been eroded, cut down to a mere ghost of what it was before that document was signed.

    And to the point you so well stated about the false paradigm of the sonofabitches running things Mr. Smith, they would not exist if we ourselves determined what our liberty is, without that greatest con of men the elites of the time drew up and sold as a guarantee against the tyranny of despots and tyrants.

    Just look what that parchment got us, Mr. Smith.

    We were sold out, and continue to be sold a bag of feces’ by liars thugs and thieves dressed up as a wedding cake.
    Like you said, there really is no voting our way out of this.

    Not with a ballot. And certainly not without our liberty as it truly is, understood in no uncertain terms.

    That we are all free, that we are The sovereign, that it is ours to determine, that no state or its actors have any power greater or better our wiser than that which is ours and only ours and always has been and always will be. And the sooner we grok that truth of us, the sooner we are free and have our liberty.

    It all starts there Mr. Smith, it all begins with each of us. There is no other way out. Only more of the same if we ignore the truth of us and our liberty

    • Boon,

      You nailed it and until the FREEFOR realize that SLAVFOR will continue to do harm until every vestige of liberty is extinguished, the plantaion will simply expand.

      Bill

      • Bill,
        We all got to figure it out somehow, in our own ways. It ain’t easy, it ain’t easy to accept you been gulled by a cunning con and fed a false bill of goods your entire life. But you got to if you will be free. Just as it begins with each of us it begins with each of us accepting the truth we have really been fooled.
        I think it all starts there. You have to hit the bottom before you can go up. But that is the beauty of it, Bill. Once you cast off the delusions, shed the notions of the construct of totalitarian rule over every facet in the spheres of our lives, disguised as the savoir of Liberty, a contradiction in terms so outrageous it beggars reason, a con only a statist state can fabricate, once you rid yourself of these false paradigms, you are truly free, you thought truly for yourself, and once done, liberty as it truly is is your oyster.

        How can it be otherwise?
        How else are you truly free?

        Sure, the leviathan still exists, sure they got guns and the very real appearance of legitimacy to use force and coerce men as it suits its needs, but, and this is a fucking huge but, it cannot make you consent, it can not make you be a vassal, it can not make you not free in your heart and mind.

        That is where it all begins from, liberty, in your heart and mind.

        I am a plurality, Bill, that is the greatest threat to the bastards. For if I am a plurality, so can others be one, and then we become a greater force, until nothing can stand in that pluralities’ way, it can not be denied, it can not be astro-turfed or co-opted by ulterior means or motives. It is nebulous in its grand form and undeniable in its core.

        And that it right there.
        Once it begins it can not be denied.
        It is the ultimate of legitimacy.

    • “…for liberty is the highest law, that no document or laws is as good or right or proper as a mans liberty, his natural primal born freedom and his liberty to determine his own life in its entirety.”

      That’s quite a line, a great example of hierarchy. Rule of Law is an admirable concept maybe, but not if it requires the sacrifice of the facts of self-ownership and consent. I mean damn, the Founders said it explicitly—it is self-evident that a government derives any “just power” from the consent of the governed. I see nothing ambiguous there.

      I never figured Brandon as quite the Constitutionalist, so I found this essay a bit surprising. Aside from gung-ho “Patriots,” that meme is largely attributable to Rand and her fallacious argument concerning the necessity of the State. To me, it was just an error…I say it falls on Peikoff and the rest of Churchgoers (Lenny and the Raptures!) for raising it to the level of unchallengeable dogma. It set mankind back half a century at least IMO.

      Still, Brandon offers a serious warning. What’s likely to happen is that the pendulum swings back to the “hard right,” owing to their largely sensible economic arguments. That’s when outright fascism figures to come out from under the covers. My guess is that few sensible people will notice or care, being so happy to be rid of the commie-libs. That’s when the serious trouble will start IMO. As I like to say…Democrats may talk a good game, but Republicans get things done.

      • Well, you said it right there Jim. You’re awesome. Law is control.

        If I am a freeman, a man of self determination, laws are useless, because the entire scope of my life is for me to determine. What need of laws then?

        Look around, the proof of how laws work is plain as day. Law never relinquishes its powers, it only takes. It takes everything from everybody. It even self-perpetuates that taking on an almost exponential rate. No laws free a man from anything. They only free those who construct them and hide behind them from responsibility of the force and theft they gain from imposing them on us. There is no profit of liberty or freedom or self determination in that.

        Laws are bereft of honor and dignity.
        Law is force.
        Laws are control.
        What freemen need of control?

        And liberty is anathema to control by ulterior means.

        What is the state about, what is it for, what sustains it, what justifies its existence, what drives it, those who run it what do they impose, what do they desire, what do they demand, what do they create?

        Power.
        Control.
        The state, its actors, there is nothing else of them.

        Just ask yourself. In the scope of your life, in the sphere of of your life, in all your days, has the state ever provided you with freedom or liberty of any kind where you are free to determine something in your life? Has it ever relinquished its quota of tribute? Has it ever voluntarily given up any form of power over what you do, what you own, how you live your life, what you say, what you eat, what you drink, how you take a crap, what wealth you create is yours to keep?

        If that isn’t proof of the truth, I don’t know what is.

        • Boon,

          Let us engage in a thought experiment.

          Let’s suppose that the Total State has engaged us to create the perfect Total State Slave. (Calm down! This is only a Gedankenexperiment — not even a test tube will be broken.)

          We set to work and think: How much money shall our Slave be allowed to earn? Large earnings will create more wealth for the Total State to feed upon, yet will also leave a greater surplus by which he can protect himself against us (e.g., by buying a second passport, a bolt hole in Montana, etc.); on the other hand, small earnings will create a Slave always fearful that a mistake will crush him (e.g., we may threaten huge fines, we may confiscate all of his cash at a routine traffic stop, etc.). All in all, we probably want a fretful, trembling little pauper, huddling in rags with his miserable family and snotty kids.

          But what we really want, you would agree, is an obedient little insect, yes? Whenever he associates with one of our agents, we want him to do so in a polite manner. If he has the nerve to come up with one of his asinine dissenting opinions, we want him to watch his mouth and not be ostentatious about it. We don’t want him to violate regulations, and needless to say, we don’t want him to organize with any of his whining fellow Slaves.

          But let’s be creative in where we put the chains on our little beast. Rather than the ham-fisted methods of the past — clubs, chains, waterboarding, ugh! nasty stuff! — far better that we put the leash on his very consciousness. Let him enslave himself. Let him know the fear of ever evincing the ‘wrong’ attitude, of having a ‘bad’ attitude; let him guard his very smile for fear of telling the ‘wrong’ joke. Let him also teach these new virtues to his children, so that they never utter in school something so untoward as “my daddy owns guns.” Never mind about gun control — once we have their minds, the actual confiscation of their little pea shooters will be a snap.

          A final bit of polish on our Slave: Let him stay fit and healthy, and let him always chatter to himself that he doesn’t really fear the power of the state. Total self-delusion is the last click of our most subtle lock upon him.

          Now, Boon, take all of the above and compare it to the perfect Voluntaryist, as detailed by Wendy McElroy in the link already provided [http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.396]. You will find, if you are honest, not one iota of difference.

          Your Voluntaryist is our perfect Slave of the Total State.

        • Ok, I think I kind of get the gist of what your saying, if so, what are you attempting to justify here? That because culturally some people are brainwashed to serve the state there is no hope in changing ones world? That liberty is not possible? Nor self determination? Or secession? Your arguments if I do understand you have no substance beyond observation of why we are in the mess we are to begin with. That is weak to me. It is ignoring the truth. Your beating around the bushes for something I suspect is meaningless in the larger scope.

          If your premis is all hope is futile you are not unlike those you described above. Funny though, I think you are correct in one way, hope is a fools errand. Faith is what gets you there. Faith that you will prevail in the end. That you will prevail no matter what obstacles are there. That is what it is going to take to obtain freedom from the slavery of the state. Persevere, indomitable belief in something better, never say die.

          Hey, we all have to figure this out, and everyone gets there differently, if I may give you some advice, burrow down to the essential elements of our nature, the primal elements of why we all are freemen, like born that way, that no king or potentate, or law or power has jurisdiction over us, unless we allow it. And that’s the crux of it brother, allowing an artifact of men to rule over and above ones natural inherent sovereignty. Allowing other men to dictate the terms of our lives. No matter how you slice it you are a slave to the state. You is free or your not. You can’t argue it part way.
          Is a little bit of slavery ok? Is it? Is a little slavery somehow not slavery because it is gentle or accepted out of ignorance or coerced under the color of beneficial omnipotence of a self appointed ruling class and their ulterior motives?

          Look everywhere. Every conceivable aspect of our society is dictated to by the power a few men have because we have allowed them to rule over us.
          Power granted through tacit consent and threat of use of force or violence.
          Because what those in power use is the ultimate constant threat of escalation of use of force up to killing you if you refuse to comply with that power. Try refusing directly with the state. If you refuse to back down those in power will not cease the escalation of force untill you are dead if that is what it takes to make you comply. Because the state, those running it understand like no one else, refusing its coercion is the existential threat to their power. One person withdrawing consent is dangerous, many people refusing disastrous. A movement, threatens their very existence, which is the power to make you and I do whatever they want.

          So Terry, no matter how you argue it, it ain’t working. It ain’t liberty to me. It ain’t freedom to me. It certainly ain’t self determination.

          The state ain’t failed, its working just how those running it want. But it is a precarious system. Its foundation is decayed and ripe for undermining by liberty and people who choose liberty. Just that choice is an enormous danger to the state. Just the thought something like secession is not only a good idea, but it is possible, threatens the very foundation of the state. That’s a wonderful thing.
          Where the state goes wrong is with people who become manifest in their liberty. Their dignity of determining what is for them. A radical concept in an age of universal bullshit and slavery to the state and its actors.
          If people want to be wards or indentured vassals of that leviathan, that is their choice.

          Choice, it is what it is really all about.

          I’m free because I choose to be.

          And no argument exists that changes that fundamental truth of me and my unalienable freedom to do so. And I might add dignity and the courage of my convictions and principles there of.

          The buck starts and stops there.
          If your gonna be free, that is where its at. You choose to be. That’s the truth. That is where it begins.

        • Boon,

          You say that “no king or potentate, or law or power has jurisdiction over us, unless we allow it.”

          With that we are 100% in agreement. So is Epictetus [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epictetus], who constructed a stoic wall around his (inwardly) totally free self, using the concept of prohairesis.

          You say that “we all have to figure this out, and everyone gets there differently.” I suppose we can all agree on that. But the whole point of my thought experiment is to show that Voluntaryism is definitely NOT one of those ways. All of the “voluntaryists” vaguely recommend that we should “withdraw from the state” but whenever they provide specifics, as in the link for the “Liberty Prepper,” it is clearly evident that their “solution” results in behavior in no way different from abject obedience. Reluctantly, they may admit that in effect, yes, their behavior is identical to slavery, but inwardly they remain free. This completely muddles the ethical and the political, by misapplying prohairesis (an ethical concept) to the political.

          But there is no need to get too arcane to understand this. Epictetus was a slave. He claimed to be free of anything outside his moral assent. The story goes that Epictetus warned his master that he was about to break his leg. He did so anyway. To this Epictetus indifferently replied, “There. I said you would break it.” He gave no moral assent to the evil of breaking the leg, and no assent to the pain. By that he claimed he was free. Do you think he was free? The “voluntaryists” would have to say that, yes, he was.

        • Terry,

          I am no stranger to the Stoics if you have read my stuff and think there is a discrete linkage between abolitionist thinking and that ancient philosophical school.

          I do make a distinction between the obedience I choose, I object to the state with every ounce of vigor but my marriage and responsibility to my family forces some functions where I do things I would rather not do to provide security and sustenance for my family. Even in LibPar I would have these restraints, part of the code of being a gentleman is just that. Epictetus was a slave but he never took the next step: refusal and withdrawal of obedience. That may be the rub.

          You will have to be clear in how a voluntaryist who wishes to form society on a non-violent ethos (Z/NAP) is the same as a statist.

          Bill

        • There is no way to be any clearer.

          I have described a Slave of the Total State. I have compare this Slave to a (very rare) detailed description of how the “voluntaryist” should live. You offer no difference between the two. Therefore, the “voluntaryist” life is behaviorially no different from that of the Slave.

        • I certainly can’t be McElroy’s ventriloquist dummy and I simply remain perplexed but there it is.

        • I’m just as confused as you are, Bill.

          Why don’t you make your argument as streamlined as possible here, Terry. Put it into a syllogism or something, because it’s just not adding up to me.

          What’s the alternative here? What should the perfect non-slave do, or be in your opinion?

  7. You boldly state, “Own yourself. Resist.”

    And yet the chief proponent of this “voluntaryist” position tries to offer a concrete plan of action [“Liberty Prepper” http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.396%5D and produces one that is indistinguishable from abject obedience to the state.

    The fact of the matter is this: In a society dominated by the state, every word out of your mouth, every scrawl of your pen, every stroke on your keyboard is political. “Voluntarism” is a home for that peculiar ethical narcissist who wants a moral halo placed on his complete, inert laziness.

    Would you be so kind as to offer a few specifics of action if you’re able, particularly showing how you differ from the suggestions in the “Liberty Prepper” article?

    And please note, I am no friend of voting. My own approach at undermining the legitimacy conferred upon the state by voting is to institute sortition [detailed here http://tinyurl.com/kxnh3xh%5D, and note that, despite its advantages, it is only a half-measure, a stepping stone. But it’s one that I find better than abject obedience to the state.

    • “‘Voluntarism’ is a home for that peculiar ethical narcissist who wants a moral halo placed on his complete, inert laziness.”

      Where did that come from? Do you mean it to be serious? Seems to me any self-owner or voluntarist who is “inert,” is going to die. What am I missing?

      Also, I didn’t know there was a “chief proponent” of voluntarism. Self-ownership is not an opinion; it’s a fact. The opinion is only about who is willing to admit it. Just out of curiosity, are you?

    • Terry,

      I like your writing and don’t necessarily share all your prognostications. But I assume goals, allergy to debt and preparation in concert with goal-setting is bad? You will have to deal with Wendy directly, she does not retain me as her ventriloquist.

      If narcissism and self-ownership are one and the same, sign me up if the latter informs the former. So should I then assume that since self-ownership is jaded and silly, that slavery is the place where my halo will be burnished and shine brighter? There are no half measures on owning yourself, either you are fer urself or agin’ ‘im.

      And, again, sortition is a lottery run by statists, no thanks.

      Bill

    • I think you’re beating around the bush, Terry. Dissimulating is akin to fear of the truth in your case. You have to come around to the reality of the leviathan and the absolute tyranny of it or you always be a slave to it. Splitting hairs about the political nature of it all is akin to self delusion there is an easy way out of this slavery to the state.

      I’m not writing this to be hateful towards you or your beliefs, quite the contrary. I’m your fellow American, I’m a regular working stiff, I’m telling you to wake up to the cold hard truth and get on with your liberty, or suffer the fate of hundreds of millions of us who can’t wrap their heads around the fact liberty true liberty is out there, you got to throw off the shackles of thought there is a political way out.

      This is the thing, Terry, culture is upstream of politics, it is upstream of the state. Liberty, total freedom is upstream of it all. Until we grab liberty by the balls, grab it with all our might, with all our heart and give the sonofabitches the finger, we will never have a brotherhood, a plurality in freedom, in liberty. It’s consent brother, consent to withdraw thought of legitimacy given to the state on any terms. That is where liberty begins and the state ends. You can’t compromise on this.

      You can’t compromise on your liberty or you don’t have your liberty.

    • You said it yourself Terry, don’t you get it?:

      ‘ You boldly state, “Own yourself. Resist.” ‘

  8. Bill Buppert,

    The key points of your article (Spoonerism, voting as violence) identify you as a “voluntaryist,” a position which seems to me annoyingly nonsensical. However, after reading more of your previous articles, which are well-written and informed, and in spite of your articles http://zerogov.com/?p=3083 /?p=1694 /?paged=11 /?p=1622 /?p=2955 which tend to support this evaluation, I have to conclude that I have inferred too much from too little evidence. Your views seem to be much broader than this narrow designation. I have been intemperate.

    • Terry,

      You are very kind but we all learn from each other, I welcome any criticism that is not ad hominem. And I appreciate you taking a deeper draught of my essays for perspective.

      My primary view at its distillate is that the ownership of any human being other than yourself is immoral and from there, the worldview.

      Bill

  9. Bill,
    Came across this very well said quote from a book posted over at Sipsey Street Irregulars. In it is something that pertains to secession by way of one’s property and its connection to liberty. Now the epiphany I had reading it, secession is very much connected to property as in to secede from the state that movement requires land to secede on or to. Indeed. Furthermore in our case that requires a large land mass, which happens to be land comprised of one or more or parts of an existing state. Like NH for example. As government functions, the land comprising the state of NH is property of the state. As a NH citizen, you are forced to pay tribute, a”tax” as rent for what have you own to the state of NH to live on a piece of land the state of NH grants you a “title” to occupy, as long as you continue to pay what is nothing but an extortion fee. Yet, you have to actually buy this land to begin with, and yet again, you have to continue to pay to continue to pen your property. That is not property, it is indenture.

    Ok, sorry again for another long-winded comment, the point I want to make is the act of secession is an incredibly profound and liberating event. It encompasses every aspect of freedom, most essential of which is property, ownership of property free of restraints, with no conditions. That’s liberty, man! Like guns. My gun belongs to me, it ain’t just a device for protection or gathering food, or pleasure, it is mine, it represents my sovereign being, it is my symbol of resistance to tyranny. So is my land. Because it is mine. Land is a sovereign thing. My land, that I own, and land of others, is the only sovereign state I recognize as legitimate.

    Do you see where I’m going with this Bill?

    Stupid question to ask of all people.

    But this is such a great thinking piece I had to share it. It says a lot. It is copied verbatim from Mike V:

    Wednesday, October 1, 2014

    “Government must act by law or terror or some combination of them.” Clarence B. Carson on the inextricable links between property, liberty and the law.

    Clarence B. Carson, historian. 1925 – 2003.

    In my stroll through the thrift store last week, I encountered a remarkable book by Clarence B. Carson, entitled Basic Communism: Its Rise, Spread and Debacle in the 20th Century.

    Carson is writing here about the Soviet system (the book was self-published in 1990) but his observations are universal to all systems, especially our own these days.

    One of the major conclusions to be drawn from the Soviet experience in this regard is that law is not essential to the exercise of the power of the state. Since governments have commonly used law in the exercise of their power, it might be supposed that law is necessary to that end. On the contrary, law is frequently and in certain ways essentially an impediment to the exercise of governmental power. Government operates essentially by the use of force, and by its nature tends to monopolize the use of force in its jurisdiction. Law regularizes and LIMITS the use of force by government. It limits it by prescribing how force shall be used, to what extent, and under what conditions. In this sense, law is no more necessary to governments than handcuffs to a boxer.

    There is an intricate connection between law and property. Probably, private property is essential to the existence of law. In the light of what has happened it does appear that when private property is largely abolished that law does indeed wither away. Certainly, much of it withers away, for law no longer has its main object to deal with. Most important, all rights and liberties wither away in the absence of private property. All rights tend to be more or less extensions of property rights, though they are often not thought of in that light. Freedom of speech, of press, and of religion, for example, are much more dependent upon property than we might casually conclude. Freedom of the press is most meaningful only when one has access to a press, by way either of ownership or consent to its use by some owner. If government owns all the presses, there might conceivably be a government privilege to use the press under certain conditions, but freedom of the press would have no content. Freedom of speech depends upon a place (property) from which to speak, and, for its defense, the means (property) by which to enter into an adversary relationship with those (including government) who might deny it. By extension, freedom of speech is a property right to one’s utterances. As for religion, its public practice depends upon the ownership or control over houses of worship and all the physical paraphernalia (musical instruments, song books, prayer nooks, surplices, and so on). The Soviet Union has amply demonstrated the dependence of freedom of religion upon private property. Abolish private property and you undermine law as well. Law can no more survive without private rights in property than can a building be suspended from sky hooks. Neither has any foundation.

    Government requires neither private property nor law in order to function. They are both inhibitors of its use of force. There is an alternative to law for government; it is terror. Government must act by law or terror or some combination of them. In the absence of private property and its corollary, law, government must act by terror, when the chips are down. The exercise of force without the restraint of law is terror. No better definition can be given, and none is needed. It does not become terror because of the especially horrible character of the acts. Rather it is terroristic because it is arbitrary, unpredictable, and has no certain cause or explanation. None may know when force will be applied or when it will be halted, for there are no enforceable restraints.

    “Government must act by law or terror or some combination of them.”

    Posted by Dutchman6 at 5:25 AM

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2014/10/government-must-act-by-law-or-terror-or.html

  10. It is my belief that only another rebellion, the use of hemp and lead against those who enslave us now. Against those who enforce that enslavement. Will correct the tyranny. The problem is, as I see it, that the new “leaders” of the emancipated citizenry, will slowly become as tyrannical as those who were ousted.

    Truly, what is the answer ?

  11. Pingback: Voting for Vandals: The Tyrant and the Ballot | Josey's Libertarian Page

Let us know what you think...