Thursday, February 25, 2016

Dream On? -"Dreams [Anarchist Blues]"

Myself, solo, live, 020216, at an open mike event , singing my own composition, in the S.E. U.S:



Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoUtXrTU

Dream On?:

"Dreams, that governments will make you free,
Dreams, that they ain't just war and slavery,
Dreams, of your god democracy,
You keep dreamin', of more enforced equality,
Yes you're dreamin', dreamin' you are free
In your dreams"

"In your dream, Donald Trump is not a fraud,
In your dream, Sanders is not a fraud,
In your dream,all the rest are not frauds,
In your dream, Obama is not a fraud,
In your dream, Reagan was not a fraud,
In your dream, all the rest were not frauds,

In your dream, the constitution was not a scam,
In your dream, the Supreme court is not a scam,
In your dream, the CIA is not a scam,
Inyour dream the FBI is not a scam,
Inyour dream the Pentagon is not a scam,
In your dream, 9/11 was not a scam......."

Lyrics excerpted from:

 "Dreams [Anarchist Blues]":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMXtoUtXrTU

Regards, onebornfree.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom

Friday, August 28, 2015

You,Trump,Sanders Etc., Vs "Dictator Syndrome"

     
                         


[Who is "?" above?. Insert  any image you choose- Bernie Sanders, Obama, Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Reagan, your own, perhaps ?]

[Onebornfree commentary: as a personal freedom consultant  and problem solver , one of the biggest and most dangerous belief  hurdles/barriers that I frequently come across when talking with both clients, and others,  and one that I believe that any truly freedom-seeking individual has to eventually see through, {or somehow jump over}, is  the individuals almost unshakeable belief/assumptions for the necessity of, and the integrity of , the institution known as  government. 



In truth, their greatest enemy is, in fact, the government under which they live  , as is/are the  multitudes of paid for intellectual mouthpieces/sycophants who serve as its constant cheerleader within the almost entirely goverment-controlled and licensed media  outlets of every type, everywhere.  



Which brings me to the hilarious spectacle of the current 2016 US presidential election cycle.



 A major psychological reason as to why  individuals actually believe in any of the current crop of US presidential wannabe's, and indeed, the entire political process, year after year, after year, is something that the great Harry Browne has called "The Dictator Syndrome" , which basically boils down to a series of false assumptions about the way governments actually work in the real world. 

The sad fact is that each and every one of the candidates for the US presidency suffer from this syndrome, as do all of their millions and millions of   supporters/believers/sycophants.

I'll let Harry explain it, below.  

N.B. If you do not understand or believe his short, clear summary of how the real-world political process actually works as laid out below, perhaps we need to talk, for, make no mistake, this is a very important issue- you can never hope to be truly free until you remove this particularly delusional and self-damaging  belief from your personal belief system. I can be reached at : onebornfreeatyahoodotcom 

 Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom] 


If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)

"Government grows also because well-meaning people like you and me believe it should do certain things that seem beyond controversy -- find a cure for cancer, stop air pollution, keep violence off television, hold back an aggressor in the Middle East -- something that everyone seems to agree should be done. Whatever the goal, it's easy to imagine that a single-minded government could achieve it.

I call this The Dictator Syndrome. You see suffering or danger, and in your imagination you see a government program eliminating it. But in the real world the program would operate as you expect only if you were an absolute dictator -- having at your disposal all of government's power to compel everyone to do things your way."

Running the Gauntlet of Political Action

"Just for a moment, think about something you wish the government would do and that nearly everyone would like to see happen -- provide swifter and surer punishment for criminals, teach children right and wrong, furnish health care to those who don't have it, bring peace to Bosnia, or whatever. Imagine a goal so important that it seems to justify using government's power to coerce.

And now, consider what will actually happen to your program.

To get it enacted you'll need political allies, since alone you have only limited influence. But other people will support your plan and work for it only if you modify it in dozens of ways that further their goals and satisfy their opinions.

Suppose you make the necessary compromises and amass enough support to pressure the politicians to vote for your revised program. Who will write the actual law? You? Of course not. It will be written by the same legislators and aides who created all the laws, programs, and problems you object to now. Each of them will compromise your program still further to satisfy his political supporters.

And if the law passes, who will administer it? You? Of course not. It will be implemented by bureaucrats -- many of whom will use it to pursue goals quite different from what you had in mind. They won't care what your purpose was. It's their law now, and they'll use it to suit their objectives.

And, lastly, the new law probably will generate many disputes -- cases that must be settled in a courtroom. Who will decide those cases? You? Of course not. It will be the same judges who today rule according to their own beliefs, rather than by reference to the written law. A judge may even rule that your law means exactly the opposite of what you had intended.
By the time your program has run this gauntlet, it will be far bigger and far more expensive (in money and disrupted lives) than you had imagined. And it will have been twisted to satisfy many factions. In fact, your program may end up being the opposite of what you had intended.

In any case, you will have provided a new tool by which others can use government for their own ends."

Excerpted form: Browne, Harry, Why Government Doesn't Work, Chapter 5, "If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome), St, Martin's Press, New York, NY, 1995, pp 20-21


Regards, onebornfree.

Related articles :

 "The Fiscal Fantasies of Stephen Zarlenga and Other Monetary Reformers"

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Government = The Most Dangerous Religion

[ Onebornfree's Freedom Network commentary: people who know me well - relatively few, I'll admit :-) - know that I have often stated that the state is nothing more than a religion; essentially no different, in the big picture, from any other religion. Now it seems that Mr Larken Rose, shares my opinion, which is a nice surprise indeed. I have to thank Mr Rose for taking the time to explain it all in this fairly short, and very to the point, video, something that I have no ability to do. Although this video is posted here for the possible benefit of all Freedom Network members near and far, as well as for non-members, it is  in particular aimed at the person who showed up at the Network's 11/09/14 meeting who rather indignantly proclaimed {paraphrased here} that they not only voted but "were proud to be allowed to vote" even though they understood that " their vote meant absolutely nothing"- or words to that effect :-) . I hope that that person in particular takes time to watch the video, and to think about the implications, and maybe others too.  Regards, onbornfree.]




Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0


More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Onebornfree  Blogs: 
                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]


The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]

Saturday, September 6, 2014

The "Social Contract" Scam and "The Matrix" Of Belief

[Onebornfree & Freedom Network  commentary: I believe that the primary assumption justifying the existence of all governments,  an assumption therefor made by all of its/their supporters, and therefor a very necessary ingredient in the "matrix" of myths surrounding all governments, is the unexamined assumption that governments actually work, and that they can therefor solve many, if not all, of our social problems. 

Because most people believe this unexamined assumption, we are subjected to a never-ending stream of would be, pie-eyed world improvers and do-gooders, all of whom believe that whatever problem[s] it is they see in this world, that it can be solved simply by more government rules and regulations. 

For example, I recently looked at this unexamined assumption with regard to the writings and proposals of monetary reformer Stephen Zarlenga, who mistakenly believes that even more centralization of the current monetary system  will miraculously improve/replace the current corrupt system. 

Moving on.... the "Social Contract" assumption.  

Another essential core "matrix" belief/assumption, and one that, similarly left unexamined, does a wonderful job of supporting the assumption that government actually works/solves social problems, is the "Social Contract" assumption. 

Summary: both the "government works" assumption, and the "social contract" assumption are very powerful core "matrix" assumptions that will keep you quite firmly locked "inside the matrix" as long as you believe in them. 

In this great article below by Paul Rosenberg, the "Social Contract" assumption is closely examined and exposed as a yet another "matrix" fraud,  just like our old friend, the "government works" assumption, . Enjoy, onebornfree.]

                        


When you hear the word “social,” it’s even money that you’re being snookered.

“Social justice,” for example, is primarily a ruse for penalizing individuals without any finding of fact as to their individual guilt.

Whether you actually did anything deserving of penalty is irrelevant… it’s “social.” And if you question the deal, you’re a bad person.

The granddaddy of all the “social” scams, however, is the “social contract.” That’s what replaced the “divine right of kings” in the 17th and 18th centuries, when it was falling apart.

This is, in Wikipedia’s (slightly edited) words"

"a theory or model that addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual."

In other words, this was the new explanation of why it’s right for one group of men to rule over other men. Wikipedia continues:

"Arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler in exchange for protection of their remaining rights."

So, a group of rulers gets to ignore our rights, take away our money (continually), punish us when it wishes, and even send us off to war. And that’s all okay because we somehow agreed to the deal. It’s a “contract,” after all.

Except It’s Not

If an adult wants to sign away his rights and make himself a serf to politicians, that’s his choice, and I won’t take it from him. But for the deal to be legit, a clear agreement and authorizations on both sides are required.

A contract is (again per Wikipedia, with my emphasis):

"An agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are “offer” and “acceptance” by “competent persons” having legal capacity who exchange “consideration” to create “mutuality of obligation.”"


The social contract fails this standard in multiple ways. In fact, it is not a contract in any rational sense of the term. And if it’s not a contract, then the use of that word is fraudulent.

Fraud is a “false representation with the intent of persuading the victim to part with property,” and that is precisely what is being done with the social contract, and on a gigantic scale.

We have a supposed contract, and we have trillions of dollars changing hands, based upon its legitimacy. If, in fact, it is not a contract, then the entirety of the arrangement is a massive criminal fraud.

So, is this the “social contract” legitimate? Let’s examine some crucial aspects of contracts:

Competence

In order to agree to a contract, one must be competent. You cannot, for example, make a contract with a hungry five-year-old, trading a few candy bars for a third of the child’s lifetime earnings. The child is not competent and any such agreement is rightly considered invalid.

The social contract, however, is held to be binding upon us from birth. How is that possible? Can an infant do what a five-year-old or even a twelve-year-old cannot?

Verdict: The social contract fails.

Voluntary agreement

A contract must be agreed to. I was never given a choice to sign or reject such an agreement, and I doubt that you were either. There can be no contract at all without a voluntary agreement. (See the next point below for the standard objection.)

Verdict: The social contract fails.

Without duress

A contract must be agreed to “without duress.” That is, without a threat of harm.
The standard objection to my “agreement” point above is that people agree to the social contract by their actions: If you use anything provided by a government, you automatically agree to the entire social contract. That line of argument fails in several ways (entrapment for starters, followed by being informed), but the largest issue in my mind is that of duress.

To get out of the social contract, we are told, we must leave the ruler’s territory. That places the ruler’s rights above our own as a starting point, which voids any semblance of “equal justice.” But I’ll pass up that discussion for today.

Leaving the ruler’s territory means spending large amounts of money, a tremendous amount of time to make arrangements, leaving our jobs behind, leaving all our friends behind, and leaving our entire families behind.

In other words, we can only escape the social contract by undertaking difficult, expensive, and heartbreaking actions.

Imagine a Fuller Brush salesman coming to your door and offering you an assortment of brushes for thirty dollars. Then, when you politely decline, he pulls out a gun and says “No! If you don’t want the deal, you have to abandon your house. Either pay me or leave.”
Is this salesman’s demand criminal? If so, the social contract is criminal as well. Both seek to secure agreements by using duress.

Verdict: The social contract fails, both legally and on grounds of cruelty.

Undue influence

Undue influence involves “one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person.”

Clearly, this applies to the social contract. First, we are compelled to attend schools run by the “other party” to the contract. These institutions teach us that the social contract is the way of the world and that any competing ideas would be crazy. And we are held in their classrooms five or more hours per day, beginning at five-years-old and running until adulthood. (If nothing else, consider the daily “Pledge of Allegiance” and try to count the number of times you were made to recite it.)

On top of that, the “other party” employs legions of armed men and authorizes them to violently subdue those who oppose them and their rules.

If these things are not undue influence, then nothing is. You can’t indoctrinate the other party, hold a sword to his throat, force him to sign, and still call it a contract.

Verdict: The social contract fails.

Mutuality of obligation

With no “mutuality of obligation,” there can be no contract. If the other side of the contract is not meeting their obligations, there must be recourse.

After the US government failed to protect New Yorkers on 9/11, all eight million of them should have been entitled to a refund. Clearly the other side of the deal failed to meet their obligations. (That, of course, didn’t happen: the loss of their rights only got worse.)

And then we have the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which removes all the most serious consequences from the other side of the deal.

There is no mutuality of obligation in the social contract. Therefore, it’s not a contract.
Verdict: The social contract fails.

I could go on, but I think my point is made. I have cited five clear violations of contract law and alluded to several others. If even one of these is valid, the “social contract” is invalid.

If the terms of a contract are uncertain or incomplete, it’s no contract at all. And for one party to continue to seize the goods of the other, claiming a contractual right to do so, is criminal fraud.

The Real Purpose of the “Contract”

As with the divine right of kings that preceded it, the hidden and essential aspect of the social contract is to give subjects a reason to submit.

The obvious reason for the subject to submit is that rulers employ thousands of armed men, who are authorized and prepared to punish disobedience. This, however, isn’t really enough for effective rulership. Policemen and jails are expensive, and many, many more than our current number would be required, if fear was the sole reason for obedience.

For governance to work, the subjects must believe that obeying is the right thing to do, and that’s where the social contract comes in: It gives people a reason to obey, beyond a mere threat. It saves them from having to face fear or even to consciously submit.

Strange as it may sound, an effective ruler must equip his or her subjects to obey. It’s a fundamental factor in rulership. And that’s the true purpose of the “social contract.”

So…

By any legal standard, the “social contract” fails. That won’t cause any rulers to change, of course, but truth still matters to some of us.
Original article source
 Paul Rosenberg.
September 5, 2014


More About "Onebornfree":

"Onebornfree" is a personal freedom consultant and a musician. He can be reached at: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom  .

Onebornfree  Blogs: 
                                                                                         
 Onebornfree's Financial Safety blog[ Investment philosophy blog]

Onebornfree's 9/11Research Review blog[ A personal review of the state of 9/11 research]


The Freedom Network [ home page for the Freedom Network]

The Problem-Solver [Personal Freedom consulting]

Music Info: 

Onebornfree's [aka Fake-Eye D"] Music channel [Studio mixes + live solo recordings]

Fake Eye D's soundCloud channel [ no videos, so faster download]





Saturday, August 23, 2014

From Conservative To Anarchist


[Comment from Onebornfree and The Freedom Network: if you like this article, please take a look at the related article by the late Joe Sobran linked to at the bottom of the page.]

Four years ago, I became an anarchist, and I’ve never looked back. My political philosophy now runs through my veins. But this wasn’t always the case. I used to be a young, apathetic conservative. Then, I was introduced to libertarianism, which slowly turned me into an anarchist. This might sound crazy, but I assure you, it’s quite reasonable, and many people share my same story.
It all started in 2007. I was casually aware of politics at the time. My parents were conservative, so I was conservative. Youtube was still relatively new, and I remember one day stumbling across a video of Ron Paul. I was immediately intrigued. Here was this funny old man saying the opposite of his fellow Republicans on stage, and he called himself a “Constitutional conservative”. This sounded appealing. He would say all these fascinating things I’d never heard before, and the more videos I watched, the more excited I became. After only a few weeks, I was fully on-board with the platform of this Ron Paul guy. Little did I know this resonance with a political philosophy would change my life.
If you know anything about Ron Paul, you know he’s an exception to the rule. He was a politician, yes, but only in title. Politicians are (rightly) known as slimy, spineless, unprincipled folk whose political ambition overrules any shred of integrity they possess. Ron is the opposite. He defies the oxymoron “principled politician”. He’s been called the one exception to the gang of 535. And it shows when he talks. He doesn’t appeal to rhetorical flourishes or woo the crowd with empty platitudes. He really believes what he says and speaks out of conviction, something nonexistent among politicians.
But to me, ultimately, Ron Paul is a charming, principled nerd. He’s an extremely well-educated man in every area of political thought, especially Economics. He puts philosophic ideas above politics or elections. In fact, he used his presidential campaigns as educational platforms. Ron didn’t think he could win, but he knew more people would discover the power of free-market ideas if he ran for president.
But as he would tell you, Ron Paul’s ideas are more important than his person. Millions of people were swayed by the philosophy of freedom, not just his charming personality. The core principles of limited government resonated through all political upbringings, whether you identified as a liberal, conservative, or were apathetic.
Given my conservative ideology, I knew that lots of people gave lip service to the Constitution, but rarely did they defend it consistently. They supported military intervention overseas, but balked at the idea of requiring Congress to formally declare war. They complained about the Department of Education, but would only support gentle budget cuts, at most. Ron said what conservatives were too afraid to say: get the government out of education altogether. We don’t need a 10% budget reduction; we need to abolish the whole department! Conservatives say they support individual responsibility and don’t want a nanny-state. Then how can they support the War on Drugs? If an adult decides to peacefully smoke pot in his basement, and not hurt anybody, we don’t need a nanny-state micro-manage his life and throw him in jail. Conservatives supposedly want you to be free to make bad decisions, as long as you pay the consequences for them.
Probably the most controversial position Ron held was on the US military. He thought, as old-school conservatives did, that we should be extremely cautious before intervening in foreign affairs. He also thought the Pentagon wasn’t infallible; they are prone to the same egregious waste and mismanagement as the Department of Education. This ruffled a lot of feathers. It shouldn’t have. Ron simply applied the same principles across the whole spectrum of government.
He was consistent, and he kept coming back to the following principle: what is the proper role of government? Before we argue about cutting 10% of the Department of Education’s budget, shouldn’t we discuss whether or not it should exist in the first place? Is it appropriate, or even Constitutional, for the Executive Branch to send troops into foreign counties for an extended amount of time without Congressional declaration? Before we nibble around the edges of government spending, we need to talk about what government should do in the first place.
To me, he was precisely correct, but it revealed an unsavory truth: Republicans and Democrats aren’t so different from each other. One party might want to raise spending 5%; the other might want to cut spending 5%, but both favor the status quo and support big government in their respective areas. Liberals and conservatives are like two sides of the same coin. Constitutional conservatism, I thought, represented a real alternative.
But my journey didn’t stop there, because Ron implanted a little seed in my head. When he spoke, he often mentioned the “Austrian School of Economics”. I never heard of it, but eventually, I decided to Google around. What I discovered changed my life. I came across the Mises Institute, which had a number of free books and lectures online about Austrian Economics. I was immediately enamored. The explanatory power of Economics was breathtaking. After diving into the literature, I didn’t simply believe government was inefficient, I understood why. This had an enormous impact on my political philosophy, and it started my transition to radical libertarianism.
I now believe it’s impossible to have a clear understanding about how the world works without Economics. The coordination of prices, profits, and losses in a market is awe-inspiring. No exaggeration – it is almost miraculous. I will write extensively about this at a later time. But suffice to say, Economics became a pillar around which I would develop my other political beliefs.
The further I learned – the further I went down the rabbit hole of Austrian Economics – the more “radical” I became. Not only was government inefficient at delivering mail, but they were inefficient everywhere they intervened. The same economic principles apply to the Post Office as apply to the Patent Office. Of course, this wasn’t radicalism for the sake of radicalism, it was just consistency. And if you apply economic principles consistently across the board, you are left with a very grim perspective of government. However, I was no anarchist.
I firmly believed in small-government libertarianism. Markets could handle everything except few core services: the courts, military, and police. Of course, this would be considered wildly limited government compared to today’s standards.
My first interaction with an anarchist, ironically enough, was as an intern in Ron Paul’s congressional office. I was given the opportunity to be his intern in DC for a semester, and one of his staffers considered himself an anarchist. He was a nice guy, but I didn’t take his ideas too seriously.
But that changed in the summer of 2010. I was fortunate enough to attend a conference for students at the Mises Institute – the organization I held in such high regard. The conference was called “Mises University”, and it would be a week long, focusing solely on Austrian Economics. I was elated, and it turned out to be one of the most intellectually stimulating weeks of my life. I was surrounded with the smartest peers I’ve ever met.
A few lectures hinted at the possibility of complete statelessness – the idea that private entrepreneurs could better provide all the services of government, including courts, military, and police. Supposedly, for the same reasons we don’t want government to monopolize the production of shoes, we don’t want them to monopolize the court system or the production of national defense. I wasn’t convinced.
During the middle of the week, I was forced to adjust my beliefs a little bit, so I called myself a “Secessionist” for a few days. But I was no anarchist. I agreed with some core ideas – that taxation is fundamentally coercive and is therefore theft. I agreed that markets were based on voluntary, peaceful human interaction, while governments were necessarily based on violence or threats of violence; and I agreed that, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need any coercion whatsoever – voluntary decisions would reign supreme. But, I thought, we don’t live in a perfect world, and surely in some circumstances, large groups of people wouldn’t care about the “rights” of an individual. Statelessness might sound nice in theory, but in practice, people wouldn’t respect the property rights of a lone anarchist, declaring his independence in the middle of a city.
Until one night, when I was challenged by a fellow student named Dan. He was a pretty burly guy, former Air Force I think, and we were hanging out at one of the local bars after the lectures. (Of course, “hanging out at the bar” at Mises University really meant “talking loudly about nerdy ideas in public places”. I remember some locals dancing at the bar, but they were outnumbered 3-1 by sweaty geeks talking about monetary history.)
I told Dan about my hesitations with anarchism, and he said he understood. “But,” he said, “let me ask you this: if I want to opt out of government services, should I be able to?” It’s a simple question, but I didn’t know how to respond. I wanted to say, “Of course you should be able to opt out of government services! If you don’t want to pay, you don’t have to, but then you don’t get to use the services.” But alas, such an admission would be tantamount to anarchism. After all, government services are by definition tied to taxation, and you can’t opt out of taxation. Doing so would be opting out of government, which is precisely what these anarchists were talking about.
On the other hand, I couldn’t say with a straight face that indeed, Dan should never be able to opt out of government services. I’d have to be willing to put him in jail if he tried. Even if his decision to opt out was poor – if he’d be better off by using the services – I couldn’t justify forcing him to pay for something he didn’t want. So, I was perplexed. I didn’t have a good response, and I remember slowly responding, “I think I might be an anarchist now.”
I wrestled with that question for the next few months, as I kept trying to justify the existence of involuntary government. I read a book called Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy, which has a section on the private production of law. My list of necessary government services dwindled. Then it happened: I became a closet anarchist. After playing devil’s advocate so much with myself – being an annoying anarchist – I couldn’t find a proper counter-argument to my critiques of limited government.
I was shocked. I couldn’t believe I’d ended up so far away from where I started. I thought anarchists were bomb-throwing hooligans who smashed in windows for recreation. But this type of anarchism was about private property and peaceful, voluntary cooperation. I saw the contradictions and inconsistencies in popular conservatism, and I couldn’t stomach it any longer.
By the end of 2010, I came out of the closet. But I didn’t know what to call myself. “Anarchist” seemed too dramatic and hot-button. (Believe it or not, people dismiss you rather quickly upon identifying as an anarchist.) I toyed around with labels like “anti-statist” or other nonsense, but I’ve recently settled on the term I find most appropriate: market anarchism.
You can sum up market anarchism succinctly: all the services which are currently provided by governments can be more efficiently and ethically provided by private entrepreneurs. Granted, there’s a million different ways to phrase it, but that’s how I prefer. Really not so radical, is it?
Four years later, and my conviction has become stronger. The explanatory power of market anarchism is unparalleled. Politics finally makes sense when you throw out the romance surrounding government and patriotism. But what’s surprising to me is how my own justification for anarchism has changed. I still wholly subscribe to Austrian Economic theory, but now I am even more compelled by the ethical and philosophic arguments for anarchism. To an anarchist, it’s clear as day: taxation is theft. Theft is immoral. Therefore, taxation is immoral, which condemns government as immoral. Simple and profound.
Upon taking the leap to anarchism, it appears preposterous and naive to try and manage the lives of a hundred million people from a central planning board. Social problems involving 300 million people aren’t resolvable by one tiny group forcing everybody to act a certain way, threatening them with jail time if they don’t comply. It seems clear.
On a philosophic level, proponents for government run into trouble: what exactly is a government, anyway? Upon inspection, “governments” are only grandiose, harmful abstractions; they have no tangible reality. We live in a world inhabited by humans – not “governments” or “countries”. This might sound absurd – and I won’t defend the claims right now – but I intend to give rigorous explanations for these ideas in the future.
The anarchist worldview is radically individualist, not because it views people as isolated decision-makers, but because individualism is the most philosophically critical way of viewing the world. It helps us avoid dramatic abstractions and opens up the world of economic thinking. And at this point, I can’t imagine turning back; anarchism has gone to my core.
If anybody is intrigued by this story, I only ask they pursue the topic sincerely. Hold on to your objections as long as you can, and see if your beliefs can withstand the criticism of market anarchist arguments. I humbly suggest starting with Austrian Economics and see where it leads. I, for one, sought political truths as a young conservative, and I believe I’ve found them in market anarchism.
Reprinted with permission from Steve Patterson.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Withdraw Consent-Video

[Onebornfree/Freedom Network commentary: The system is a scam- however the system cannot be changed/improved. Trying to change it "for the better"only strengthens it and makes it larger and worse than it already is. Instead, simply withdraw consent. If you need help with the "withdrawing consent" part, maybe I could help. Email : onebornfreeatyahoodotcom . Regards onebornfree ]:


                 

Youtube 

Regards, onebornfree