“My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave’s point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!”

-Frederick Douglass

I always hear folks saying, “if we could only get back to the Constitution”. Well, in the spirit of the 4th of July coming up in a couple of weeks, I would like to examine the founding documents of this country with the hopes of pinpointing just where we went off track. Did we actually get away from the Constitution?

I would like to start with the Declaration of Independence. In my opinion, the Declaration is pure American poetry, and the first couple of paragraphs are beautiful. It’s enough to make you proud to be an American again. Here we go-

The Declaration of Independence

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I would like to examine this sentence very closely-

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.

Do you see that word–Just–in there? I would like to define that word, as it was put there for a reason. It does not say “deriving their powers from the consent of the governed”.

Just – Honorable and fair in one’s dealings and actions: consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

Armed with the logic of the Declaration, let’s dive into the Constitution, and see if we really got away from this sacred piece of parchment. The Constitution claims The Congress has many powers, but the Constitution never really claims where The Congress got them from in the first place. Remember, the Declaration only claimed that Governments derive their “just” powers from the consent of the governed. I would like to dissect the Constitution here and see how just these powers the Constitution claims “The Congress” retains really are.

Article 1 Section 8

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is the power to tax a just power? I honestly do not believe it is. I think it is completely immoral, and I don’t believe any mere mortal has possession of the power to tax.  Well, they might believe they have that power, but if any individual tried to exercise that power, it might get them severely hurt, or killed. What I mean by that is if you claim you have the power to tax, you also claim you have the power to steal. Simply changing the name of the action does not relieve a person of the morality of it. If murder is called by a different name, is it still wrong?  You do not possess the “power” to go over to your neighbor’s house to lay and collect taxes on him; therefore you CANNOT give that power away. So, where does The Congress derive this power from? It’s is not from the people, it is impossible. I would really like to focus on the morality issue here for just a second. Without The Congress claiming this power, none, and I mean none of this tyranny we have now would be possible. I’m sure some of you might think it would be worse without this power to steal; it might be (gasp) Anarchy! Although that is a lovely conversation, I do not want to get into that in this essay. Besides, my colleagues here at zerogov.com have done a very good job slaying that dragon.

The Constitution specifically says The Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but it never says what the limit on this taxation is. I think I know the reason that no limit was put on taxation. It is impossible to put a limit on theft. Theft is either wrong, or it’s not. It’s an either/or proposition. Please, don’t think I’m pulling and intellectual slight-of-hand here, taxation is theft. Beneath all of the bureaucracy, tax bills, and paperwork, lies is a gun. I have had many conversations with people who say “it won’t come to violence if you just pay”, this is where I ask them to give me their wallet. Of course, it doesn’t have to come to violence if they just give it to me, they usually get the point, although I’m sure they got the point already, the red pill is a tough one to choke down. OK, back to taxation. How much would you, the “citizen”, or “the tax payer”, prefer is stolen from yourself? How much would you prefer is stolen from me? You see, if you do not stand on the principle that theft is morally wrong, then you have no principle to point to when the Government takes it all. You have nothing to point to in order to justify your outrage. Are you good with 10% theft? 20% theft? 50% theft!? If the issue of taxation always rests on a preference, it will ALWAYS differ between people. You either stand on principle, or you agree with theft. Period. People say, “But you are being provided a service!” I am an auto mechanic. I do not provide my services at the business end of my pistol, although it would be so much easier, but that is immoral, that is wrong. Wouldn’t it be wrong of me to come to your house, repair your car, and then stick you up to pay for it? Of course that would be wrong. The Government is no different than me, if it’s wrong for me, it’s wrong for them.

The problem here is when you consent to theft; you turn your neighbor into a slave. If you consent to governmental theft, you also consent to governmental slavery. I feel no moral obligation to pay taxes; I pay them so men with guns don’t come to my house. I pay them strictly out of self- preservation. Much the same way slaves kept working in order to avoid death. Since I have to pay taxes, I have to work longer to pay for the things that I need for my own life. This is slavery, and it is wrong on so many levels. Slaves work all day for someone else, only to have a couple of hours left in the day to try and take care of themselves and their families. Slave masters have always understood that you cannot work the slave and take it all, which would kill him. The only difference now, instead of having one slave master, we now have millions of slave masters, who, with a vote, can take more and more from us, making us work longer, and harder for our own needs. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, it does not matter if the money is being stolen to provide for the common defense, or the general welfare, or to feed starving puppies, it is still wrong. We are all on the plantation, and Democracy is the slave master. Of course, the intellectual elites of this world are all laughing at us, because we have bought into this huge scam hook, line, and sinker. It gives the quote, “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn’t exist”, a whole new ring doesn’t it? It takes a special kind of evil to make a man act immoral when he normally wouldn’t.

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

What does this even mean? To borrow money on the credit of the “United States”. I’m not the “United States”; you’re not the “United States”, so just who is borrowing this money? Why is the “United States” borrowing money? And the more important question, who is liable to pay it back? If the scumbags on Capitol Hill can borrow money on the credit of the United States, and pawn the debt off on me, I should be able to do it to them. I reckon it would go something like this, “I Chris Dates hereby borrow money on the credit on The Congress”. This should relieve me of all responsibility of having to repay money that was borrowed. Of course, I have now just made all of the members of The Congress my slaves. Borrowing money in someone else’s name and charging them to pay it back is so immoral it’s sick, but hey, it’s right there in this sacred document we love so much. We need to understand the severity of this line in the Constitution. This, in essence, is the power to not only enslave me, buy every generation of my family to come. There was no stipulation of when this money had to be paid back. There was no generational clause in there; it was left very bland for a purpose. This one line, along with the power to lay and collect taxes, gives The Congress the power to enslave every generation of Americans, perpetually. The Constitution is the blueprint for a perpetual slave machine. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it’s the truth. I do not possess the power to borrow money on the credit of my neighbor, so I could not possibly give this power to some entity calling itself “The Congress”. Do you have the power to enslave your neighbor? No? Then how in the hell did “The Congress” get that power?

I could go on and on here, but I think I have laid out a pretty good case.  The Constitution is an immoral document, and, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, it is unfit to exist. If it is to exist, a Government should never be based on it. It is a maker of tyrants, and a maker of slaves. If it is to exist, it should be held up for all generations to come as what not to do when deciding on government. It should be left in its pretty guarded glass case only as a reminder that it is wrong to enslave our neighbors, even if we use nice phrases and words like We the People, liberty, and security. The Constitution cannot change what is right and wrong. There is no getting back to the Constitution, we are here folks, and this is it. Nothing right could ever come from a wrong. Immorality only begets more immorality. The reason the government is wrong now, is because it was wrong at its inception. If men of virtue are only allowed to play by immoral rules, it is irrational to expect moral results. Which begs the question as to why men of virtue would play such a game? They wouldn’t.

Happy 4th of July, slaves.

“No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle — but only in degree — between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.”

-Lysander Spooner


Publisher’s Note: Sometimes someone comes along who simply explains a complex phenomenon in such clear and unguarded terms that you stand up and take notice.  I find Marxism to be a vapid and ultimately, infantile, view of the world that has one sole interest – to invest a self-selected nomeklatura with the means to ideologically and morally justify the creation of a prison state.  To stamp out  individual volition and embrace the culture of the ant and the bee.  To ensure that harmony is struck no matter what the human cost.  Absent violence and mass privation, Marxism in the world of humanity simply does not ring true to both its ambitions and the fruit of its practice.  Marxism is, at bottom, a death cult. -BB

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

– George Orwell, 1984


There is a three stage answer to that. My interpretation of Obama, which I believe is correct beyond a reasonable doubt, is based in what Stanely Kurtz uncovered about him (augmented by some other background on him) while researching Radical-in-Chief. That said, my conclusions begin where Kurtz stops. I don’t think that he would necessarily disagree with me, but to say what I do about this would mark him as a “right-wing extremist.” There are certain places one must not go.

First, there’s no question that Obama is, as you say, a “political animal,” but that’s a secondary characteristic. He is not simply another Bill Clinton. Far from it. He does not exist just to get elected. He expects to get elected. And he expects to be elected to fulfill a purpose, not simply to be re-elected.

Second, as Kurtz demonstrates beyond any doubt, Obama is a born and bred to be radical socialist. Only a few times does Kurtz let slip the ‘M’ word, but I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that not only is Obama a studied Marxist, but that he is in almost every respect an orthodox Marxist. This might confuse some because he took on the “community organizer” guise at an early age, but the theory behind that modality, as Kurtz shows, is to move Marxist concepts stealthily through grassroots organizing which eschews the use of Marxist language and to create a broad-based revolution from below, rather than from the top down. But of course that phase is ipso facto over with when Obama becomes president. It’s no more bottom up; he is at the top. But, as to community organizing, he still does that, but he’s doing it from the top (that’s another discussion, how he does that).

The Marxist-socialist theory behind community organizing is to break the system by overloading it (exactly as happened in the housing crisis) and use that crisis as an opportunity to build more socialist infrastructure. So, people who understand ObamaCare know that it is just a first step on the path to a single-payer fully nationalized health care system. Unless it’s repealed, and perhaps even if it is repealed at this point, that is its inexorable goal. Break down the existing medical industry infrastructure, half-done already, and revolutionize it with a state-run single payer system.

Read the rest here:  https://newpaltzjournal.com/?p=2370

Read his book – Corpse in Armor: https://www.amazon.com/Corpse-Armor-Martin-McPhillips/dp/1449541887/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1308254906&sr=8-1

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery”

-Thomas Jefferson

A majority of people seem to believe I must have had a “conversion experience”, a traumatic encounter with some agent of The State, such as an arrest for violating some governmental rule, to have become as skeptical and outright opposed as I am of the legitimacy of all forms of The State.

This belief seems strange to me.  Must you see your best friend murdered before you hate murder?  How hard must you contemplate rape before realizing it is wrong?

Probably some people came to libertarianism in its most radical form because of an event of this nature.  More people undoubtedly will in the future, while some will always feel they deserve anything done to them by The State and will never lose their patriotic [sic] fervor no matter how much it harms them and their loved ones.

In my case, however, there was no horrible event to make me dislike the externally-imposed form of coercion commonly known as “government”. It was simply a lifetime of observation and an inner need for peeling away the inconsistencies I discover. The more I saw and the more I learned the less I bought into the lie that government was “necessary” or “good”.

I began to see that every excuse for having “government” was based upon a trained helplessness, and every justification for The State necessarily ignored both solutions that were known and within reach, and the demonstrable harm that comes from relying upon coercion to get your way, rather than working toward unanimous consent.  I also saw the damage done to individuals on the basis of a majority vote, or society’s wishes.

Yes, there were influential people who taught me to think for myself, and one of them was probably, secretly, similar in his outlook to my current view.  For example, he once mentioned, in passing, that no one should ever accept a plea bargain (which are not Constitutional to begin with- for those concerned over such trivialities) since this would bring the courts to a stand-still and encourage The State to stop enforcing laws against things that are not government’s business in the first place, those “mala prohibitum” acts, and focus on the real “mala in se” crimes.  You know- the real laws which are based upon the recognition that it is wrong to initiate force, to damage other people’s property, or to steal.

My anarchist outlook was a slow and steady progression from being a child who knew wrong when he saw it, to being an adult who recognizes that there can be no double standards where behavior is concerned.  That isn’t to say that a future traumatic encounter couldn’t make me feel my convictions in a deeper and even more personal way.  Let’s hope to never find out.

You can reach Kent here:  https://blog.kentforliberty.com/



Publisher’s Note: All of you are aware I think voting is nonsensical and does nothing more than lend legitimacy to the statist quo.  Nonetheless, Jim March has produced an expose that I think is instructive to bolster my case.  Voter and voting fraud is epidemic in America and the world.  Yet, the state cannot even keep its grubby paws off THAT system without trying to game the power brokers and give advantage to the rulers every time.  If voting could change the system in a significant way, it would be illegal.

For a witty compendium on why non-voting is the only virtuous course of action: https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/non-vote-arch.html -BB


OK.  This is a weird situation.  I’m going to make some extraordinary claims here, and by law I’m unable to prove them.  That alone should tell you something has gone funky here.

In short, when I finally had a chance to compare a county’s list of registered voters (Apache County) against the Arizona Secretary of State’s database of who’s registered, I found no matches at all in the year of initial voter registration that we would expect the most support for: 2009.

In other words, the county thinks these people are registered, the state doesn’t.  Which should be impossible – because due to recent federal laws and statewide procedures changes, they claim to be operating out of the same database.

What’s going on here?  I have no idea.  But I can tell you this – it ain’t working the way they say it’s supposed to work.  It can’t be.  Something is broken or operating in full-on retard mode, or worse there’s fraud afoot.  I dunno, but I do know this needs looking into.

Welcome to the sausage factory.  Grab some nose plugs or a barf bag and do try and keep up.

The Process They Claim Is Going On

In most counties (Pima notably excepted), when you register to vote you fill out a paper form which gets it’s contents typed into a computer database.  That database doesn’t reside in your county (again: Pima excepted).  Instead, the election clerk in, say, Apache County uses a terminal application on a PC that talks to a database in Phoenix, at the AZ SecState’s office.  The application is provided by ES&S (Election Systems and Services), one of the major vendors of electronic voting systems – but unlike electronic voting machines, no outside auditing of the statewide voter registration database is mandated.

It damned well should be!

Once your voter reg data goes to the AZ SecState, they run it past motor vehicles and other vital records.  If you’ve moved from elsewhere, they check and make sure you were deleted as a voter wherever you came from – in-state or across states.  See, these centralized voter reg databases were mandated by a 2002 federal law, the Help America Vote Act that also pushed electronic voting.

OK.  So once the AZ SecState’s computers are convinced you are for real, they pass that back to Apache County or wherever, and you end up on their voter reg rolls.

If you fail to vote too often, you get “purged” – which is why, every election, the records of who voted (not what you voted for thank the deity of your choice) gets passed back to the SecState.

But the key thing is, the “master record” is in Phoenix, at the SecState (or maybe whoever they’re buying major web service space from…Amazon or who knows?).  The record in Apache County is a copy.  Remember that.

Other than tracking the election process, the voter reg databases are provided by the counties to political parties for two purposes:

1) Figure out who to target for campaign mailings.

2) Research the election process itself – because by AZ law the parties have certain oversight rights on election reliability issues.

On that second basis, I obtained copies of various county registration databases from the Libertarian Party’s state chair, attorney Michael Kielsky – who made me sign a gnarly non-disclosure on this stuff, because it would be his butt on the line if I let spammers get ahold of this stuff.  (He keeps the CDs in a fairly hefty safe…I keep the electronic copies I made on a couple of hard disks protected with whole-disk-encryption with nasty long passwords under the Linux DM-Crypt utility.  And if somebody thinks they want to try rubber-hose decryption, they’ll be met with Mr. Ruger 357 <grin>.  Welcome to Arizona, even the geeks are heavily armed…)

OK.  So I have these voter reg databases from various counties.  Problem: most of them don’t include the voter’s date of birth.  There’s an obscure state law I won’t go into that may give them cover on that, I dunno.

But of the ones I scored, Apache had full details including DOB.

I imported the data into a spreadsheet and sorted them by date of registration.  I focused on registrations that happened in 2009, because they’re established enough that their paperwork should have stabilized, but they can’t have fallen out yet due to non-voting.  I compared them to the official “check your voter reg status!” page at:

https://voter.azsos.gov – run by the AZ SecState of course.

And what do I get?  Zero matches.  Wait, what?  Seriously.  None.

OK…that ain’t supposed to be possible.  There’s a single master copy everybody is supposed to be working off of.

Now, I’m registered in Pima County.  I’m in there, no problem.  Note that I have to have all that info, not just parts – you can’t do a “query for near-miss matches” or anything.  I had a friend check his status, and he came up empty – which was impossible considering he was running for office at the time and had been scoped out six ways from Sunday.

Folks, even if this is accidental, it could lead to trouble if it’s messed up in some areas as opposed to others.  If it’s not accidental and there’s a built-in false reporting bias on the lines of geography, racial demographics or party affiliation, just telling voters (falsely) that they’re not registered a few days before the election could be enough to swing close races – esp. if the bias is across the state in a partisan fashion.

I’m not saying it is.  I am saying we damn well better find out!

HERE’S HOW YOU CAN HELP: open your wallet, find your voter registration card or driver’s license, go to the “check your status” page and look yourself up:


Report back in the comments here, all of the following: your county, whether or not your info is accurate or not (please, report either way!), your political party and the date of the last election you voted in.  Use a fake name if you want…that’s not important right now.  We need to get a handle on how widespread the problem is, and whether or not it’s happening along a “fault line” of any sort.

I’ll do a follow-up article summarizing the results and what they might mean.

Next step, once we have a bit more statistical data, is to file suit on behalf of the Libertarian Party and whichever others want to join in, to force an outside audit of the whole process – which has never been done before.  See, that’s the other nightmare: when this was de-centralized at each county, the county parties could keep a reasonable level of tracking on the voter reg process.  Now that it’s all moved to the SecState’s office, that tracking has been lost – since at least 2004 or 2005, when they set up the statewide database. Oops.

Errors could be introduced from several possible points of attack: the database vendor could be monkeying with it, the SecState’s staff could, or for that matter the vital records at motor vehicles and the like that the SecState’s database talk to could be rigged to allow fraudulent paper applications.  Or just the web-reporting system is rigged or in error.  Or there could be multiple attacks going on.  Who knows.  What we know now is that something is wrong.  We need to scope out the extent in rough terms, scrape together some cash, figure this bad boy out.  Telling people they can’t vote when they can…um…yeah, that’s actually a classic problem, isn’t it?  This may be just a high-tech version of an old-school scam.

That old Ben Franklin gent was right: we have a Republic, if we can keep it.  Sigh.  Grab your voter reg cards, dig in, because this is (in part) what “keeping it” looks like.


Jim March is a member of the Board of Directors at https://blackboxvoting.org and is nationally known in election reform issues.  He is also the 2nd Vice Chair at the Pima County Libertarian Party, and sits on the Pima County Election Integrity Commission as the LP’s representative as they advise the Pima County Board of Supervisors…and per that commission’s draft bylaws, he’s NOT speaking on behalf of the commission here.  He was also the tech support behind the Pima Democratic Party’s lawsuit over election public records, from 2006 to…gawd, parts of it are still going on.  If you can stand almost two hours of tragicomic documentary video on that mess, see also: https://www.fatallyflawedthemovie.com and scroll to “Free showing of revised cut”.  If you see a big guy in Tucson or nearby rockin’ a single action wheelgun in a custom leather holster with a yin-yang symbol on it so he doesn’t get mixed up with the common AZ “heavily armed Christian Conservative” meme, you probably found him…

I don’t hate cops.

Wait, let me clarify. I don’t hate cops, and neither should you.

Let me clarify further. It’s become a theme in libertarian, anarchist, gun-rights and drug-rights communities to bash police officers. I’ve seen the sentiment “The only good pig…” expressed five times in the past week. I see “armed tax feeder” and “government thug” and other similar euphemisms, and I see outright name-calling.

I don’t hate politicians, either, and neither should you.

Recent events have shown many examples of moral failures by men in power. History, in fact, bears out the stereotype that politicians are unfaithful to their wives and have generally low character. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner are simply the latest singers in a chorus which stretches back to prehistory. There is, it seems, none righteous.

I don’t hate teachers, union workers, government employees, soldiers, welfare recipients or mortgage officers, and neither should you.

There are men who are drawn to be soldiers because of the chance to do violence, who are drawn to the police force because they want authority, or who are drawn to politics because of an addiction to the spotlight. Government employees may not represent the best and brightest members of society, and individual welfare recipients may be lazy rather than in need of any real help. ‘Private-sector’ businesses are frequently guilty of lobbying the government for their own benefit, in direct opposition to the betterment of humanity at large.

But attacking these folk for their shortcomings on a personal basis is supremely non-helpful. The policies in place guarantee that these roles will always be filled by the same sorts of people, and name-calling or even direct persuasion on an individual level won’t produce results. Angering a single educator or convincing a single cop to change his behavior isn’t going to do anything to change the government’s way of doing business, or bring us any closer to complete freedom. What it will do is reduce the credibility of our ideological fellows and weaken our overall argument.

So don’t hate the player – the cop, the soldier, the TSA screener. Hate the game of government, the set of social ‘contracts’ which bind us to servitude and limit our lives. Attempt to change policies, rather than attacking individuals. Make sure that the truth reaches as many ears as possible: keep on filming the police and recording the TSA. But realize that the human beings on tape aren’t the enemy. The enemy is the Leviathan State.

Available here: https://www.gunlaws.com/WGOG.htm

I had the pleasure to pick up Larry’s book and I was surprised at the number of revelations in store.  I consider myself a senior member of the gun community in both the use of firearms and contending with the constant government depredations and threats visited on the gun community yet I had no idea the breadth and depth of gun cultures and ownership off our shores.  I have often thought that if these united States are the freest country in the world for guns, the planet must be a hoplophobe’s paradise.  Not so.  We are considering a move overseas and Larry’s book was most instructive.  He was most kind to answer the ten questions I sent him.  I am certain that if anyone has any further questions I may not have entertained, we will post them to the ZeroGov Forum and discuss them there.  BTW, the US is number nine of the list meaning that eight nations are freer than America with respect to gun rights. -BB

1. What motivated you to write the book?

I was motivated to write my book on gun laws in numerous other countries around the world when I realized that U.S. anti-gunners were either misinformed or untruthful when they claim the U.S. is the only country in the world with free and easy gun ownership rights and the only country with a gun culture.

It seemed important to me to get accurate, usable information into the hands of our own defenders of the right to own and use firearms.

2. I was very surprised at the results in the book because we are propagandized to think that we are the only country on earth that protects private firearms ownership.

Private ownership of firearms is seen by a significant number of people around the world as a deterrent to crime, civil unrest and tyranny, as evidenced by how quickly guns and ammunition are spirited away from battle sites or places where police confrontations have occurred and hidden.  Also some—but not all—nations that have been cruelly overrun by neighboring aggressors subsequently tend to allow relatively free and easy private gun ownership.  Finland, Switzerland and San Marino are examples.  Government officials in Israel, Belgium and Thailand have forgotten their lessons, but still allow some gun ownership.

3. Any updates or addition or deletions since you published the book?

Gun laws on an international basis are a sometimes fast-moving target.  Change seems to be common.  This change, however, has—of late—been relatively modest.  Gun owners and citizens in general seem to have united within their various countries to minimize and deflect any significant tightening of rules and regulations.  This has been demonstrably true in England, Brazil, France and Switzerland.

4. Where are the most optimal places outside of the US that allow the legal ownership of suppressors and/or machine guns?
If ownership of guns is absolutely the only issue, it is probably the Khyber Pass area of Pakistan.  However, there is little rule of law or property rights in those places to attract most westerners.  Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Argentina, Crete, San Marino and Oman have very agreeable gun rights.  But each of these places has its own limitations ranging from poor climate to very expensive costs of living to poor to no religious freedom.

5. If there was one country you could move to as a gun owner, where would that be?

I have seriously considered moving to New Zealand.  They speak a kind of intelligible English, have a nice standard of living, modest cost of living, good property rights and some workable gun rights.  New Zealand is a complete anomaly on a world-wide basis.  Citizens there tend to trust their government—a characteristic we gun-owning Americans cannot comprehend.

6. I think folks will be surprised at the status of Luxembourg and Suisse, can you explain how you think they have managed to retain the rights they do in spite of the hoplophobic EU?

Explaining how these little countries such a Luxembourg and Switzerland, managed to retain their gun rights is a tough, mostly theoretical, philosophical question.

I believe they have their gun rights for four principal but certainly debatable reasons:

(1)  They were once overrun by a neighboring aggressor.
(2)  They have a culture of independence rather than dependence, and are—or were—a Christian nation.
(3)  They are relatively wealthy.
(4)  They are compact and homogeneous societies wherein citizens frequently communicate with each other.

7. Looking around the globe, is there anything we as Americans can learn from other countries to either retain or improve our gun ownership?

Yes, many of the rules and regulations promulgated by the anti’s have their origin in other countries.  For instance, regulations prohibiting private ownership of pistols may have started in the U.K. or Russia.  Ballistic tracking and registration may have its origin in Ecuador; limitations on numbers of guns one may hold in Colombia; limitations on silencers and full auto guns in the U.S.; sporting purposes in Germany, and so on.

8. What are the prospects of rolling back the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA and other obnoxious restrictions on gun ownership in the US?  Again, any strategies we can learn from other countries?

Canada and New Zealand both to a limited extent rolled back or ignored some parts of their gun laws, but I am not optimistic for the U.S.

Politicians, especially controlling, autocratic ones, fully realize that they are in mortal danger if they start allowing citizens to own common military weapons.

9. Is it easy to legally ship guns out of the US to a destination country if one decides to expatriate?

This mostly depends on the country.  Diligent inquiry in specific countries must be undertaken before any shipments are made.  Also, keep in mind that shipping guns is becoming very, very difficult.  I recently worked with a fellow who wanted to ship three antique (pre-1898) guns out of Sweden and could not find a carrier to take them back to the U.S. for him.

10.        Do you suspect that things in America will get worse in the future for gun owners here?

If I could accurately predict the future, I would soon grow wealthy in our stock market.  Yet, I do believe American gun owners are sufficiently alerted that their vigilance will preclude many major changes in our gun laws.

Most encouraging, it would seem, is the imminent financial collapse of our government.  They may not have sufficient funds to send out agents to harass us.

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t.  You cannot shirk this and be a man.  To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and excusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.” ~Mark Twain


“What signify a few lives in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

– Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Col. William S. Smith (November 13, 1787)

The quote above is employed by members of the Patriot and Sovereign movements all the time to provide the basis for what ails them.  These movements tend to be comprised of a startling number of professionals (dentists, doctors, etc) and, as expected, a fair number of them are in the courts and prison system maintained by our rulers in DC and their satraps in the states.

I rarely, if ever, accept speaking invitations from Patriot or Sovereign groups whether clothed as militia or religionists.  I made that error early in my career but started to notice a disturbing trend of state idolatry, as long as it was their construct.

These are the same folk who divine guidance from touchstones as various as the Illuminati to the New World Order to issues of Constitutional steerage.  On occasion, they think we share common cause and in that they are mistaken.  When I lived in north Idaho, some people in the community became Sovereigns as a convenient means to avoid fulfilling contracts they had entered in to and discovered they could not fulfill such as payments on loans.  They would talk about the evils of the Uniform Commercial Code and the strawman government, debt elimination and “rescinding” your Socialist Security Number.  I find no profit or merit in any of these contentions but they may believe what they wish.  The worst mistake these adherents make is thinking that they can prevail in a judicial system formed, maintained and staffed by the State.  Somehow, their amazing and passionate legalistic formulations are going to convince the robed government employee on the dais and his minions that the powers invested in the State must be reduced or eliminated.  Good luck with that.  As a matter of fact, there is no precedent or antecedent for that historically in America.  The history of America has been one long march toward greater and more expansive collectivism.

We see the influence of Dominionism and its subsets in Christian Reconstructionism animating large swaths of the Patriot movement with some rather nasty offshoots like Christian IdentityGeorge Grant goes so far as to:

“Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less… Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land — of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.”

World domination issues indeed and a unique vision of the efficacy of Romans 13.  This is simply a sampling of the religious aspects of this collectivist ideology.  Yes, you heard that right.  I submit that the Patriot Movement, with very few exceptions, is peopled by folks who don’t want to be free of the state but simply wish to transform it into an instrument and hammer of force to compel others to submit to their ideology of how a government should be run.  I have written before of the infantile and asinine notions of some of the usual suspects mewling about returning to the “real Constitution”. There is no such animal.  What was birthed in 1791 is the reason we suffer under Leviathan government today.  That document is a blueprint for big government and the Federalists (they prevailed) were quite candid in the Federalist papers about that very thing.  Hamilton did not even need the king he longed for because his rabid collectivist vision came to pass…in spades.

I get the desire to be a sovereign citizen but the notion of going to the court system to plead for interpretations of ownership the State will never recognize and bait cops with supercilious and fruitless notions of independence is barking up the wrong tree.

This not about building a better government, a more just state and “getting the right people in office”, this is bigger than that that.  Much bigger.

This is about changing the paradigm to embrace one simple nostrum:  the violation of a man’s self-ownership who does not harm others is always wrong.  Period.  Not only is his consent inviolate but the initiation of aggression through force or fraud is always morally wrong.

The Patriot and Sovereignty movements embrace violence at the more extreme fringes of behavior and uniformly engage in what is arguably a greater sin:  the intellectual and spiritual justification of the initiation of force against others to form their version of governance which in the end will be just as bad as the worst variants we have seen on the North American continent.

And by the way, I despise the collectivist apologists and state fetishists at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).  That particular entity has been the driving force magically transforming citizens who are fed up and subscribers to different ideologies in the same camp as domestic terrorists.  A pathetic and intellectually bankrupt organization whose closest analog in our history is the thugs Woodrow Wilson subsidized during WWI.

Civil disobedience begins most elementally in the conviction that your self-ownership is yours to dispose of as you wish and your greatest weapon is your refusal.

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”  ~Voltaire

Copyright © 2011 by zerogov.com


Notes in the Margin: Ernie Hancock just published his new e-zine and I am featured on page 44.  See: https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Magazine/Magazine-List.htm?MagNo=00001

Publisher’s Note: This a first guest post by Kent and while it may appear vitriolic in tone on occasion, he strikes at the heart of an important truth.  Cops are not here to defend the citizenry.  Their first job is the defense of the statist quo and the maintenance of power for the ruling elite and the bureaucratic satraps scattered through the land whose first loyalty is not to the local citizenry but to the body and corpus of laws endlessly vomited out by the Federal government and all its political subsidiaries in the complex tax jurisdiction known as these united States.  This is not Mayberry RFD, this is Vichy France in WWII.

Here is some the finest on film for 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVf-iintxio


Recently, I have gotten very angry over cops. Very! Not just the cops themselves, but those who support (or even worship) cops. L. Neil Smith calls these starry-eyes fans “copsuckers”.

My first reaction to my own anger is “Why should I get mad? It’s a waste of energy to get mad over stupid people.” But then I remind myself that there are times when anger is the only reasonable response. Of course, I get mad. This is an outrage! Unconditional cop-loving is similar to saying it is OK to rape babies. Any decent person should get mad over such nonsense.

I understand why cop-lovers focus on individual cops when they try to make the case that cops are “regular people” who have families to support, and are nice neighbors and good relatives. It deflects attention from the real problem.

I am sure individual cops can be very nice to those they like. It is just the nature of the vast majority of humans. Pick any human monster or tyrant from history and I’d bet there were those who knew him personally and who would say he was a kind and loving person who was just misunderstood.

It isn’t how the cop treats people he knows in family situations or normal social situations that shows his character, but how he behaves when he is taking part in a check point, or when he sees a person with a gun on his hip walking down the street, or any time when he sees himself as the “authority”. That is when the true character shines through.

An individual mobster might never steal or murder- perhaps his mafia “job” is completely unrelated to those mob functions, maybe he’s just the accountant, but he is tainted simply by belonging to that organization. The same goes for a cop. He might never steal, kidnap, or murder, but by choosing to belong to the police department he is choosing to belong to a group that does all those things as a fundamental part of its daily existence. And no cop, not one, would keep his job more than a day if he refused to take part in, or was open with his opposition to stealing (“fines”), kidnapping (“arrest” for violating counterfeit “laws”), and often, murder (killing for reasons of “officer safety”) committed by his brother officers. A person who makes the choice to remain a part of such an organization is choosing to be a bad person by association even if he stays otherwise “clean”.
I can more easily forgive the old guys. They grew up in an era where the harm of The State was slightly better balanced by some good; good that would have been better provided by a voluntary system rather than a coercive system based upon theft, but still some little good. That is no longer the reality. But they are set in their ways and probably see things as they used to be rather than as they are. Those days are gone and will never return. The State can never again be excused, and young people just starting out and who choose to join this corrupt organization, are making the wrong choice. They are much harder to forgive.

I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would continue to support cops today. But then I remind myself that there is a characteristic that I don’t share with the cop-lovers: Cops are popular only because people have generally been trained to be helpless. A helpless adult is a pitiable thing.

But do even the helpless, pitiable citizens “need” cops? What happens if there are no cops to enforce “laws”? Do “laws” even need to be enforced?

The laws of the Universe- laws of physics- cannot be violated. (Unless you believe in the supernatural, in which case believing in The State is understandable.) These real laws need no enforcement or enforcers, and there ARE no enforcers, other than the laws themselves, to prevent you from going faster than light, or to prevent you from violating gravity for example. The laws of the Universe are self-enforcing.

Laws of ethics are almost self-enforcing, although they can be violated. Remove the blinders that make exceptions for acts of government agents and you know an act that is wrong when you see it. People usually act to stop an act that is wrong if they see it happen, unless they have been brainwashed into believing that is someone else’s responsibility. Few people would excuse me if they saw me beating a child in the street. Put a uniform on me and some people would assume the kid deserved it. That’s insane.
Then there are the false “laws” imposed by The State. “Laws” of The State utterly fail to be self-enforcing and so hordes of enforcers are sent forth to spend their time trying to catch and punish those who violate these nonsensical “laws” which are based upon nothing but the whims of The State.

This is what leads to all the abuses and tyranny. What gets me is that these verminous parasites operate openly all around us without shame and in safety.

Even these obvious things listed above aren’t what trigger my anger, though. No, it is the personal insults and lies.

Of all the verbal flatulence that rips from the mouths of cops and those who worship cops, the worst is that lie that they do what they do “for [my] own good”.

Don’t write tickets against other drivers for me, because it doesn’t help me; I don’t ask you to do it, and I know that traffic cops are the greatest danger to driver safety there is. People, including cops, can either drive well, or they can drive “legally”, but not both. Worrying about silly things like speed limits is a worse distraction than cell phones could ever be.

You do not enforce any “laws” for my own good. I can take care of myself and my family- at least from depredations of the freelance thieves and attackers. People will band together voluntarily and deal with those who commit actual wrongs. Enforcers are a greater danger to most people than freelance aggressors and thieves could ever be. Shooting freelance bad guys in self-defense is still generally acceptable; shooting midnight murder squad goons who happen to wear badges only brings an unending horde of their gang to finish the job of murdering you for daring to defend yourself or kidnapping you if you manage, against all odds, to survive the attack.

Then the cops try to create shame on my part by claiming to “put our life on the line for YOU.” What a filthy lie. If you are doing that, you are doing it without my permission. You need to immediately stop it and go away. You are not wanted and you are not needed. You don’t have my permission to do anything on my behalf. I did not ask for this “favor”.  The price is too high.

The final insult is when they whine “Don’t you think that [sacrifice] would deem some type of respect?” of course not is my response, especially when I have asked you to go away.

If an intruder in your house is cleaning your toilet and you ask them to leave but they refuse, are they worthy of respect? If you try to kick them out and they (or their gang) kill you for rejecting their “help” are they heroes?  Hardly.  They are invaders and trespassers and thieves and murderers. Cops today are the worst threat to liberty; much more dangerous than any “terrorist”. They need to either change what they do and the way they do it, or they need to go away. If they don’t go away peacefully, they need to be eliminated forcefully, without initiating force, of course.

In this town, it may be dangerous to speak the truth about cops. The majority of people here are very “law and order”, even though they excuse their own illegal activities. I expect it is very possible that I will be targeted by the cops for speaking out against them.  I may even be “set up”.  It will only prove my point if that happens.

Editor’s note: This is the first guest post from Jim March, who may be reached for comment at 1.jim.march@gmail.com in addition to the comments section here. – KL
Further Information: The Arizona Daily Star has released a PDF of the affidavit in support of the search warrant which led to the shooting. And Will Grigg chimes in: https://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w217.html

These and other photographs © 2011 by Jim March. The “for sale” sign is on a neighbor’s house.

Executive Summary:

On Memorial Day, May 30th 2011, I attended a rally and set of speeches surrounding the shooting of recent Iraq-war returnee Jose Guerena, USMC. The Oath Keepers were the primary sponsors but to their credit didn’t try and dominate the proceedings, which included everything from a Code Pink contingent to Guerena family members and supporters and generally interested members of the community. What I learned there and in study of the available data suggests serious problems at all levels: horrible policy decisions beforehand, a grossly mis-managed raid and an appearance of a cover-up after the fact. Throughout this article, I will try and portray the facts available in the best possible light for the law enforcement officers and managers involved.

As we’ll see, even when we try and do that, the resulting implications vary from disgusting to terrifying.

First, before reading this, I urge you to study the available video footage of the shooting scene at least twice:


Preliminary conclusions:

  • In my study of the actual shooting location and the video footage Pima County has made available to date, I have reason to think that the footage is incomplete. At a minimum, one of the deputies who was actually shooting had a helmet cam as one of two visible “dongles” on his helmet. Below is a still image from the video, at 30 seconds in – where is that video?

  • Deputies knew that Mr. Guerena was a recent combat veteran of two tours in Iraq, that he legally owned guns, and that the raid was taking place just over two hours after he did a 12hr shift at a mine. Combined with the very brief warning period before battering his door in and the use of a “siren” that sounded more like a car alarm, they knew or should have known that Mr. Guerena wasn’t going to survive this encounter.
  • Because nothing whatsoever was found in Mr. Guerena’s home, we can be certain that if given the opportunity, Mr. Guerena would have consented to the search. He didn’t have to die.
  • Close-range photography of Mr. Guerena’s front door shows that “suppressive fire” was being sprayed in. This was closer to a “drive by” than anything resembling modern police work – and it happened in a home where they knew a woman and child were present.
  • Worse, the photographs of the front door show sprays of “misses” to either side that, at least at first glance, don’t appear to have been made during the period where most of the shots were made as per the video released by Pima County to date. If video is being withheld that shows additional firing, criminal misconduct may have happened that the Pima County sheriff’s office is attempting to suppress knowledge of. Again: I don’t know this for sure – the various “doorframe hits” may indeed have happened within the 54 seconds of video from a single, distant camera released so far. But, I don’t see those hits happen or anybody in position to make all of those exact hits.
  • If it is now policy to lethally eliminate anybody who attempts to defend their home when it is impossible to distinguish between home invaders and law enforcement because they behave in exactly the same fashion, then it is finally time to question the “war on drugs”. Ending it is now a simple survival measure for gun owners. To his credit, former “drug warrior” and former Sheriff Richard Mack is now admitting this, publicly. To their discredit, the “Oath Keepers” aren’t quite ready yet. Individual members clearly “got it” but the official policy isn’t there yet.

Direct Evidence – The Front Door

  • Round marked “one” hit the end of the door with it swung open, so the entry point isn’t visible with it closed. What you see here is the exit.
  • As best I can tell, entry holes two and three match door exit holes four and five – in other words, like hole number one they entered the door’s “end” with it swung open, but they also passed through the doorframe and made initial entry holes at two and three. If so, this indicates a fairly extreme downward angle, as if Mr. Guerena was already on the ground?
  • In general, what we see here is at best evidence of “spray and pray” fire. At worst, if these were made after the initial burst of fire, they were part of an attempt to “make sure he’s dead”.
  • This door proves that a fully military operating using distinctly military tactics1 have now been applied to somebody with no criminal record, with a recent distinguished combat record in the service of this country, in a densely populated suburban area against a home that contained a child that “law enforcement” knew was present.

Direct Evidence – Rear Of Home

This isn’t quite as bad as it appears to be. What looks like “horizontal stringing” (a tendency for the group of shots to land in an up-and-down pattern) may not be, because we don’t know what the pattern looked like coming through the glass. And as rounds struck within the home, they would likely be deflected “at random”…in other words, bullets entering anything (flesh, walls, furniture, etc.) can pop out at odd angles, and do so at near-random angles in a sort of “cone shaped” area of probability on the other side of whatever they hit.

Parting Commentary

  • If answering home invaders with a gun in hand will always get you killed if it happens to be law enforcement acting like home invaders, then the 2nd Amendment has been essentially nullified.
  • A search warrant carried out under circumstances that will predictably lead to the death of the person being searched is, by definition, an unreasonable search. Therefore both the 2nd and 4th Amendments were severely disrespected in this instance and in far too many others related to the “war on drugs”.
  • For this reason, it is now far past time for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, CalGuns Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the Arizona Citizen’s Defense League and the like to figure out that “the war on drugs” is now a “war” on every American, especially gun owners. I for one don’t believe law enforcement should decide to kill me at the merest suggestion that I’m harboring contraband, and I for one will fight such policies at every possible level.
  • Taking this stance would put them in alignment with the ACLU on this issue, and would possibly conflict with some elements of their “conservative base”. Said elements however need to learn from this incident and decide which is more worthy of preservation: the US constitution, or high prices for various mind-altering substances? That is really the choice we’re down to, and I believe most are ready to support the former over the latter once it’s presented that way.

1. Not performed very well mind you! See also the video – they bust the door down, then stroll away, then casually wander in while others “hang out” in the area where bullets could fly past if there really was a murderer present. They were very, very lucky they were NOT up against a determined killer. Five rounds from a 50cal Barrett would have turned them all into hamburger. Then again, so would a Civil War era front-stuffer cannon – or similar improvised out of plumbing supplies…


“When there’s a single thief, it’s robbery.  When there are a thousand thieves, it’s taxation.”

-Vanya Cohen

I know, it’s a bold claim. I could make the same old worn out claim that taxation is theft, which it is, but I believe I could take it a little further. I believe the failure to pay taxes will lead to your death, and paying your taxes will also lead to your death. Either the death of your freedom or your physical death.

I hate paying my property taxes. I believe it is completely immoral to perpetually tax me on my property. I remember the first time I paid property taxes. I was 18, and still living at home. My father handed me a bill for the property tax on my car. I remember saying, “what’s this?” He said “it’s the tax bill for your car”, I said “what?!? I already paid the taxes on my car!” He said “well, it is what it is”. So after that little dialogue, he gave me a rundown on how the perpetual scam known as property tax works. I knew in my heart that this was wrong, but I paid it anyway. To this day, I refuse to pay my property taxes. The tax jurisdiction (county) I live in will tack on penalties and interest to the taxes they claim I owe. So they tax me on the annual tax bill they send me. I eventually drive down to the county office, and offer to pay the tax, but I always refuse to pay the penalties and interest. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. However, I only stroke the check for the amount of the tax they claim I owe. Let them continue to charge me a tax on a tax, so be it. That they can garnish my paycheck for, I refuse to pay it, at least face to face.

Back in 2005 I tried to refuse to pay the IRS, and that went over like a lead balloon. My paychecks were eventually garnished. To make a long story very short, I claimed more dependents than I actually had, and they audited me. They claimed I committed “fraud” and I was lucky I wasn’t going to jail. They took every paycheck from me for five weeks, I forgot exactly how much they stole from me, but I recall it was around 90% of my paycheck. I’m sure I could have called and begged them to be merciful, but that’s just not my style. I am thankful I work with my hands, someone’s car is always broken, and that is money they will never get from me. So apparently it’s “fraud” if you try to keep property that is rightfully yours. It’s hard to try and take a principled stand on taxes, and have a young family at home. I applaud those that do. For now, I’ll continue to tuck my tail, and pay up, therefore funding my own death.  I will do what I can without getting thrown in a cage. We do most of our shopping at places where no sales tax is charged, or at places where I can talk them out of charging me tax. Seeing as how everything is taxed, it’s tough to avoid.

I would like to examine both of these situations and see what would have happened to me if I absolutely refused to pay. I’m sure my mailbox would have been flooded with tax bills they claim I owed with astronomical “penalties” tacked on. After that, maybe some threatening letters. In the end, taxes are always backed up by the gun. It will always come down to heavily armed men paying me a visit. If I chose to resist the theft of my property, I will be killed. If I do not resist my arrest, and get thrown in a cage, my freedom that was already on life support would be dealt the final death blow. Either way, death will come from resistance or non-resistance, the death of me, or my freedom.

Even if taxes are paid in full on time, every time, I still run the risk of State caused death. In this country, there are almost five armed police raids every hour! I would be very naive to think these armed tax-eaters are after the very worst among us. I highly doubt the majority of these raids are targeting murderers, and rapists. I’m willing to bet most of them are militarized fishing expeditions. The taxes we pay go to fund all of it. Do you think it can only happen to drug dealers? I’ll bet most of you reading this are breaking some kind of law, code, or statute, and you don’t even know it. Your tax money is being used to fund the very thing that will eventually turn all of you into criminals. Don’t believe me? Study history.  When this happens, pay up or get thrown in a cage, criminal. Resist and die.

I wrote this story-  https://zerogov.com/?p=1681
In it, I talked about how the county I live in made a criminal out of me for not covering my truck with a vehicle cover, outrageous. Now the same bureaucrat (whose paycheck I help fund!) that accused me of the heinous crime of not covering my truck now has now taken to the skies. The county (which is totally broke) bought an airplane (with tax money) to try and rob the good rural folk around here of more money. My buddy has a 170 acre farm, and he has quite a few old vehicles out back by the barn. He was informed by the county that he was only “allowed” to have two unregistered vehicles “visible” on the property, if he did not remedy this situation he would have to pay. We pushed the vehicles in the barn and told them to go to hell. The tax jurisdiction I reside in is now airborne, and spying on the cattle. My buddy does not think the way I do (although I’m trying!) and he pays his taxes. His resistance to the violation of the ordinance would have eventually led to his death, or the death of his freedom. It won’t be long now until we are all criminals, and this will mean fines, jail, and even death.

If you choose not to fund the State, and you resist paying taxes, your death, either in terms of the death of your freedom or your physical death will be quicker than choosing to fund the State. However, if you choose to fund the State you choose to fund the death of your freedom, and maybe you will end up funding your own death. I liken it to this analogy; pick up a candle hold it horizontally and light both ends. Sure, one end might get there first, but the end results are the same, you will get burned.

Taxation is immoral. Taxation is theft. Taxation is death.

“To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury.”
-Benjamin Tucker