Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

R. J. Rummel estimated that the institution of government killed just over a quarter billion people last century. What is the institution of government? It’s the group of people in society who believe, without evidence, that they have the authority to impose their rules onto peaceful people. The only difference between a government and other forms of organized or disorganized crime are the ways in which its parasitic tendrils have managed, through myth and coercion, to latch onto every function in society. Has the wealth leeched from society by governments enabled them to fund various scientific and technological enterprises, bringing new understanding and innovations to the world? Sure, but so what? Does it follow that because governments have sped up scientific and technological advancement, they are justified in the crime that they engage in? Do microwave ovens, GPS, and the Internet justify a quarter billion murders, and so much more? You can keep your science and technology if they must be advanced with bloody hands. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

I think everyone agrees that monopolies are bad for the economy (except the monopolists, of course). Why are monopolies bad? For starters, they have an incentive problem. Without competition, they have less reason to lower prices, improve their products, and innovate change. In most industries, consumers could choose to stop patronizing the monopoly business altogether. However, the more necessary the goods or services are two everyday life, the more willing consumers are to pay the higher prices for older products at lower quality. As soon as a little competition is introduced, the monopoly can no longer get away with it’s malfeasance with seeming impunity without going bankrupt. But what if competition is never allowed? What if the goods or services are necessary for people, and thus society, to function? What if consumers are coercively prohibited from simply ending their patronage? Then what incentives does the monopoly have to be concerned with satisfying willing consumers and maintaining market share? I dare say, it has little to none. So why aren’t you an anarchist, too? And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

This thought recently occurred to me: black people are maintaining the label “nigga” in the minds of non-blacks. Think about it. In music, movies, TV shows, anywhere you see black people interacting with one another, what is the primary pronoun they use toward one another? “Sup, my nigga?” There are a few “Uncle Tom’s” here and there that despise that sort of language and refrain from using it. Otherwise it’s quite commonplace, as least from those within my view. It would be dishonest and irrational of me to say that in my mind, from a very early age, this is the label that I associate with black people, and not because I heard it from racists. How can this not be the case? I see the very same phenomenon occuring in my children. It’s not hateful in any way, at least I don’t think so, but it is a label that accompanies the viewing of black people. The more a group use a label for themselves with each other, the more it enters the psyche of larger society. If this should lose its association with black people, either black people need to stop using it, or everyone needs to start using it toward each other. Remove it as a pronoun, or make it a pronoun for everyone. If you want special pronouns, then those special pronouns will be associated with you. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

It should be obvious to any observer of the recent Mormon Church’s interference in Utah politics that this organization is thoroughly opposed to anything resembling liberty. Not once, to my knowledge, in all of their efforts to portray their concerns about the medical marijuana ballot initiative either directly or through their lawyers have they expressed a commitment to the principles of liberty. The words “liberty” or “freedom” are completely absent in their official statement, their lawyers’ first analysis, and their lawyers’ “rebuttal” to Libertas Institute’s critique of it. On the contrary, their primary concern seems to be that of enforced safety. In other words, they are less interested, if interested at all, in liberty, and more interested in forcing everyone else to accept what they consider to be the “safe” course on this issue. Ironically, the Mormon Church has the following verse in it’s Official Canon of Scripture, “We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” (D&C 134:2) They must have forgotten to include, “unless your conscience is concerned about liberty, your property is a particular God-created herb, and your life is not really your own.” And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

At some point in your life you will be attacked by people who call themselves “government“. This attack will consist of these people making certain claims, claims which must be challenged. If the claims are proven true with verifiable facts and evidence, then the attack is no longer an attack, but an act of self-defense.

These claims are usually of the nature that a debt is owed, a service must be performed, or that your liberty must be surrendered. Each of these begins with a claim of jurisdiction, that these people’s rules (they call them laws, legal codes, Constitutions, et cetera) apply to you. It is supposed that this jurisdiction gives these people the authority to enforce their rules against you.

This foundational claim of jurisdiction must be challenged before moving to the next step of determining whether their rules were violated, because jurisdiction is the first claim these people make in their attack. They know that without jurisdiction, their rules do not apply. One cannot logically say both “You have violated my rules” and “My rules do not apply to you”, as such would be a contradiction. Therefore, claiming “You have violated my rules” is simultaneously claiming “My rules apply to you” or “I have jurisdiction over you.”

Challenging jurisdiction is not a difficult thing to do (at least, on paper). When these people say something to the effect of, “You have violated my rule that says you may not possess the cannabis plant” the first reply should be something like, “How do you know that your rule applies to me?” Observe the following dialogue:

Them: You stand accused of violating legal code 123-45, “Prohibition of a Control Substance – Cannabis”.

Me: Is it your claim that legal code 123-45 applies to me?

Them: It applies to everyone, including you, within this territory.

Me: How do you know that legal code 123-45 applies to me just because I am physically located in this territory?

Them: You are in this territory, and possess cannabis, isn’t that correct?

Me: Those facts are not under dispute. What is under dispute is your jurisdiction over me. I will rephrase: do you have personal first-hand knowledge, such as facts and evidence, that legal code 123-45 applies to me just because I am physically located in this territory?

Them: You are a human being, are you not?

Me: Is your claim that your legal codes apply to human beings?

Them: Yes, that is my claim.

Me: Okay. How do you know that claim is true? (ie. What facts and evidence do you rely on to support your claim?)

The purpose in this line of questioning is to challenge the claim of jurisdiction, a claim which should not be allowed the light of day without accompanying facts and evidence. (Here’s a longer dialogue on challenging jurisdiction.) If these people have jurisdiction, as they claim, then it should not be difficult to prove. They should have no need to engage in dishonesty or in issuing threats. When they become non-responsive, dishonest, and threatening, you know that they know that their claim of jurisdiction is without factual merit. Simply put, they are initiating an attack against you, and you have the right to defend yourself by publically and explicitly challenging their claims.

At every point, you are asking them for the facts and evidence they rely on to support their claim of jurisdiction. In every case of an accusation that a rule has been violated, jurisdiction can be challenged. Without jurisdiction, their rules are without effect. This should be made very clear by challenging their claims. They must be forced to resort to dishonesty and threats, on the record, or to drop their attack. These tactics are violations of the codes of conduct they have explicitly agreed to, and as such are grounds for effective appeal.

When the accusation is based on jurisdiction, it must be challenged. However, not every accusation is based on jurisdiction. Many accusations are based on damages suffered. The rule of thumb is to remember what is being claimed, the violation of a legal code (a crime), or damages suffered (a tort). In the latter case there is an alleged victim who may or may not be able to provide facts and evidence supporting their claim that you have damaged them and are owed restitution. In the former, there is no alleged victim, merely a group of people who call themselves “government” asserting jurisdiction and claiming you violated their rules and must be punished.

When you receive a traffic citation, are targeted by the so-called “tax authorities”, or accused of violating their rules in any other way, the first step is to challenge jurisdiction. This takes practice, and thankfully there are plenty of resources and role play groups to assist you. Contact me here or Marc Stevens on Skype at frankrizzo3 to get started. I highly recommend listening to the No State Project radio show and podcast, recorded twice a week by Marc, to get familiar with this process. I also highly recommend reading Marc’s book Government Indicted, available on Amazon here. And checkout Marc’s “5 Tips to be Effective in Court” published recently. Challenging jurisdiction has proven effective in several States and countries.

More on this topic by the author:

Evidence of Jurisdiction
On Jurisdiction
Is Taxation Theft? Yes and No
Stop Lying about Laws Applying
What the Response to the Challenge of Jurisdiction Should Tell You
The Facts on Government
My Ongoing Battle with Leviathan
Not Requiring Evidence of Jurisdiction is a Violation of Due Process
Dreamers’ Parents Never Sinned
The Essence of the Ruling Class

More on this topic by Marc Stevens at EVC:

Debunking Territorial/Personal Jurisdiction – Why it Doesn’t Exist
Don’t Let Prosecutors Intimidate You – Overcoming Their Flawed Opposition

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

You get no virtue points for tolerating your allies, but your enemies. Here’s a simple test to know how tolerant you are: look at a person and consider their characteristics, everything from gender to skin color to sexual orientation to age, but also their religious, political, philosophical, and pop-cultural views and opinions; then figure out how much, if any, of these characteristics really, truly, make you uneasy; after, decide how willing you are to abide their expression of any or all of these such characteristics, those which make your skin crawl. If you will abide, then congratulations, you are being tolerant. If you will not abide, if you are unwilling to either permit them in your presence or permit them their life or liberty, then you are being intolerant. Whichever characteristic it happens to be, only when it truly bothers you, yet you abide their expression of it, can you be said to be a tolerant person relative to those people. Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not passing judgment on tolerance relative to any particular characteristic. There are many of which their expression I personally will not abide. Indeed, there are many ways in which I am a very intolerant person. I think that’s true for everybody. But give me a break, having friends of different skin color, sexual orientation, or political views does not make you tolerant unless those specific characteristic expressions drive you batty. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

The anonymous writer of that recent New York Times op-ed is supposedly a senior official in the Trump regime. They wrote, “It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.” I wonder, where were the “adults in the room” when: Barack Obama went after whistleblowers in record numbers? George Bush shoved the PATRIOT Act and two endless wars down our throats? Richard Nixon doubled down on the War on Drugs? Lyndon Johnson saddled Americans with his Great Society? Harry Truman committed genocide in Japan? Franklin Roosevelt hubristically signed his New Deal? and so on, and so forth. I have serious doubts that there’s ever been an “adult in the room” at the White House. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

Unhappy Government Failure Day. Let us never forget: the group of people who call themselves “government” failed their supposed charter to protect Americans on 9/11; this same group of people then launched two heretofore endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, profiting nobody except themselves and their corporate war racketeering partners; this same group of people then granted themselves even more power over and plunder from Americans; when these people fail, it is never a reason to remove their power, but always justification for more power and plunder; these same people hubristically tell us they have the knowledge and resources to keep us safe from the boogeymen they have either failed to detect or partnered with in their quest for global hegemony. Tell me: who’s the bigger threat to my life, liberty, and property if not these fuckups who erroneously and maniacally believe they have the right and capability to rule the world? And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

I recently discussed antinatalism, the belief that it is morally wrong to procreate. While I do not consider myself an antinatalist on the grounds that it is always morally wrong to procreate, I would caution would-be parents not to procreate under several specific circumstances. Those circumstances are when there is virtually a guarantee that their child will be traumatized. The first circumstance that qualifies are when one or both of the parents have not yet dealt with their own childhood trauma. Broken parents do not make good parents if being a good parent means not repeating the cycle of trauma. Other circumstances that qualify include parents held hostage by a Communist regime, parents in bondage, and parents who live in an area guaranteed to be bombed by predator drones. It just seems both foolish and cruel to bring a child into this world under these sorts of circumstances. And that’s today’s two cents.

Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor).

A clever and effective parasite will not only feed on its host as long as possible, but will do so in such a way that removing it will be fatal. As long as the parasite can stretch its tendrils into the most vulnerable organs of its host, the host will be forced to sustain it if it wants to remain alive. The analogy that government is a parasite is oft made by libertarian types, and for very good reason. The most clever and effective governments are those who stretch their tendrils into every part of society in such a way that removing them is perceived as exceedingly dangerous, and deadly. A few examples of these parasitic tendrils are central banking, foreign military interventionism, public schooling, the welfare state, retirement “savings”, consumer and employee safety regulations, and occupational licensing. Can this government parasite ever be removed? Probably not without causing its host some degree of pain and suffering. I suppose all the host can do is either wait for the parasite to engorge itself to the point of suicide, or find ways of making each of its many tendrils ineffective through obsolescence. And that’s today’s two cents.