http://youtu.be/wN34fUtpJkg

What if you could fire the current (company) police and hire a different
(company) police? What if the police were accountable for their actions, like you and I
are? They likely would get their operating funds voluntarily by offering their services
to the public and competing to provide the best overall service, like a computer
technician or a roofer would do. What happens when a (police) business doesn’t use
tax-payer funds to provide protection services and relies only on customer support and
payments?

Dale Brown of Detroit-based Threat Management Center has been in business providing
accountable protection services to neighborhoods and businesses in Detroit for 20 years.

http://youtu.be/onWC8nNpIco

http://youtu.be/xMoPBDz5ycA

It’s a dell sentence from a dull documenet. But that document marks the moment when the World Wide Web entered the public domain — a moment that was central to creating the Web as we know it today.

I emailed Mark Lemley, an intellectual property expert at Stanford, to ask him about the counterfactual. Could the Web have been patented? And how would the world have been different if it had?

Here’s an excerpt from his reply:

It is entirely possible that the Web could have been patented. A strong patent right would have driven innovation along a different path.

Even in 1993, as the Web was being introduced, scholars and the government interested in data communications were talking about the “information superhighway,” a proposed centralized, government-sponsored broadband network that would have delivered video from TV stations and other approved content. [It is this, and not the Internet, that Al Gore "invented"].

The Web is what happened from the bottom up while government and the telecommunications companies were still figuring out how to build something from the top down. But a patent right could have changed the course of innovation from the decentralized Internet model to a centralized information superhighway model. And we would all have been the poorer for it.

This week, a CERN spokesman called the document “the single most valuable document in the history of the World Wide Web.” There might be a bit of hyperbole in that statement. (It came from a guy sometimes called the half-spin doctor.)

Still, at a moment when the technology world is swamped in patent lawsuits, it does seem worth pausing to appreciate the moment when a group of researchers renounced their intellectual property rights to patent and gave the World Wide Web to the world.

Also See:

• Does Innovation Require the Patent Office?

http://youtu.be/JK55GSbSWQ0

Also See:

• At the Command of the State Department, Defense Distributed Pulls Its 3D Printed Gun Blueprints
• Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun
• 3D Gunmaker’s Website Shut Down

http://youtu.be/qc_ReTBxOR8

On the whole, I think that it cannot be maintained that dressing has in this or any country risen to the dignity of an art. At present men make shift to wear what they can get. Like shipwrecked sailors, they put on what they can find on the beach, and at a little distance, whether of space or time, laugh at each other’s masquerade. Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. We are amused at beholding the costume of Henry VIII, or Queen Elizabeth, as much as if it was that of the King and Queen of the Cannibal Islands. All costume off a man is pitiful or grotesque. It is only the serious eye peering from and the sincere life passed within it which restrain laughter and consecrate the costume of any people. When the soldier is hit by a cannonball, rags are as becoming as purple.

The childish and savage taste of men and women for new patterns keeps how many shaking and squinting through kaleidoscopes that they may discover the particular figure which this generation requires today. The manufacturers have learned that this taste is merely whimsical. Of two patterns which differ only by a few threads more or less of a particular color, the one will be sold readily, the other lie on the shelf, though it frequently happens that after the lapse of a season the latter becomes the most fashionable. Comparatively, tattooing is not the hideous custom which it is called. It is not barbarous merely because the printing is skin-deep and unalterable.

Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they must have such a one as their neighbors have. As if one were to wear any sort of coat which the tailor might cut out for him, or, gradually leaving off palm-leaf hat or cap of woodchuck skin, complain of hard times because he could not afford to buy him a crown! It is possible to invent a house still more convenient and luxurious than we have, which yet all would admit that man could not afford to pay for. Shall we always study to obtain more of these things, and not sometimes to be content with less? Shall the respectable citizen thus gravely teach, by precept and example, the necessity of the young man’s providing a certain number of superfluous glow-shoes, and umbrellas, and empty guest chambers for empty guests, before he dies? Why should not our furniture be as simple as the Arab’s or the Indian’s? When I think of the benefactors of the race, whom we have apotheosized as messengers from heaven, bearers of divine gifts to man, I do not see in my mind any retinue at their heels, any carload of fashionable furniture. Or what if I were to allow — would it not be a singular allowance? — that our furniture should be more complex than the Arab’s, in proportion as we are morally and intellectually his superiors!

At present our houses are cluttered and defiled with it, and a good housewife would sweep out the greater part into the dust hole, and not leave her morning’s work undone. Morning work! By the blushes of Aurora and the music of Memnon, what should be man’s morning work in this world? I had three pieces of limestone on my desk, but I was terrified to find that they required to be dusted daily, when the furniture of my mind was all undusted still, and threw them out the window in disgust. How, then, could I have a furnished house? I would rather sit in the open air, for no dust gathers on the grass, unless where man has broken ground.

It is the luxurious and dissipated who set the fashions which the herd so diligently follow. The traveler who stops at the best houses, so called, soon discovers this, for the publicans presume him to be a Sardanapalus, and if he resigned himself to their tender mercies he would soon be completely emasculated. I think that in the railroad car we are inclined to spend more on luxury than on safety and convenience, and it threatens without attaining these to become no better than a modern drawing-room, with its divans, and ottomans, and sun-shades, and a hundred other oriental things, which we are taking west with us, invented for the ladies of the harem and the effeminate natives of the Celestial Empire, which Jonathan should be ashamed to know the names of. I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself than be crowded on a velvet cushion. I would rather ride on earth in an ox cart, with a free circulation, than go to heaven in the fancy car of an excursion train and breathe a malaria all the way.

The very simplicity and nakedness of man’s life in the primitive ages imply this advantage, at least, that they left him still but a sojourner in nature. When he was refreshed with food and sleep, he contemplated his journey again. He dwelt, as it were, in a tent in this world, and was either threading the valleys, or crossing the plains, or climbing the mountain-tops. But lo! men have become the tools of their tools. The man who independently plucked the fruits when he was hungry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a tree for shelter, a housekeeper. We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven. We have adopted Christianity merely as an improved method of agri-culture. We have built for this world a family mansion, and for the next a family tomb. The best works of art are the expression of man’s struggle to free himself from this condition, but the effect of our art is merely to make this low state comfortable and that higher state to be forgotten.

When I consider how our houses are built and paid for, or not paid for, and their internal economy managed and sustained, I wonder that the floor does not give way under the visitor while he is admiring the gewgaws upon the mantelpiece, and let him through into the cellar, to some solid and honest though earthy foundation. I cannot but perceive that this so-called rich and refined life is a thing jumped at, and I do not get on in the enjoyment of the fine arts which adorn it, my attention being wholly occupied with the jump; for I remember that the greatest genuine leap, due to human muscles alone, on record, is that of certain wandering Arabs, who are said to have cleared twenty-five feet on level ground. Without factitious support, man is sure to come to earth again beyond that distance. The first question which I am tempted to put to the proprietor of such great impropriety is, Who bolsters you? Are you one of the ninety-seven who fail, or the three who succeed? Answer me these questions, and then perhaps I may look at your bawbles and find them ornamental.

The cart before the horse is neither beautiful nor useful. Before we can adorn our houses with beautiful objects the walls must be stripped, and our lives must be stripped, and beautiful housekeeping and beautiful living be laid for a foundation: now, a taste for the beautiful is most cultivated out of doors, where there is no house and no housekeeper.

Read more from Walden.

Also See:

• Machiavelli: Liberty Must Be Destroyed

http://youtu.be/JMCLponCK8I

This is my confession: Fifteen years ago last May when the echoes of the Haymarket bomb rolled through the little Michigan village where I then lived, I, like the rest of the credulous and brutal, read one lying newspaper headline, ‘Anarchists throw a bomb in a crowd in the Haymarket in Chicago’, and immediately cried out, ‘They ought to be hanged’. This, though I had never believed in capital punishment for ordinary criminals. For that ignorant, outrageous, blood-thirsty sentence I shall never forgive myself, though I know the dead men would have forgiven me, though I know those who loved them forgive me. But my own voice, as it sounded that night, will sound so in my ears till I die a bitter reproach and shame.

What had I done? Credited the first wild rumor of an event of which I knew nothing, and, in my mind, sent men to the gallows without asking one word of defence! In one wild, unbalanced moment threw away the sympathies of a lifetime, and became an executioner at heart. And what I did that night millions did, and what I said millions said. I have only one word of extenuation for myself and all those people ignorance. I did not know what Anarchism was. I had never seen it used save in histories, and there it was always synonymous with social confusion and murder. I believed the newspapers. I thought those men had thrown that bomb, unprovoked, into a mass of men and women, from a wicked delight in killing. And so thought all those millions of others. But out of those millions there were some few thousand —— I am glad I was one of them — who did not let the matter rest there.

I know not what resurrection of human decency first stirred within me after that – whether it was an intellectual suspicion that maybe I did not know all the truth of the case and could not believe the newspapers, or whether it was the old strong undercurrent of sympathy which often prompts the heart to go out to the accused, without a reason; but this I do know, that though I was no Anarchist at the time of the execution, it was long and long before that, that I came to the conclusion that the accusation was false, the trial a farce, that there was no warrant either in justice or in law for their conviction; and that the hanging, if hanging there should be, would be the act of a society composed of people who had said what I said on the first night, and who had kept their eyes and ears fast shut ever since, determined to see nothing and to know nothing but rage and vengeance. Till the very end I hoped that mercy might intervene, though justice did not; and from the hour I knew neither would nor ever could again, I distrusted law and lawyers, judges and governors alike. And my whole being cried out to know what it was these men had stood for, and why they were hanged, seeing it was not proven they knew anything about the throwing of the bomb.

Little by little, here and there, I came to know that what they had stood for was a very high and noble ideal of human life, and what they were hanged for was preaching it to the common people – the common people who were as ready to hang them, in their ignorance, as the court and the prosecutor were in their malice! Little by little I came to know that these were men who had a clearer vision of human right than most of their fellows; and who, being moved by deep social sympathies, wished to share their vision with their fellows, and so proclaimed it in the market-place. Little by little I realized that the misery, the pathetic submission, the awful degradation of the workers, which from the time I was old enough to begin to think had borne heavily upon my heart (as they must bear upon all who have hearts to feel at all), had smitten theirs more -deeply still so deeply that they knew no rest save in seeking a way out — and that was more than I had ever had the sense to conceive. For me there had never been a hope there should be no more rich and poor; but a vague idea that there might not be so rich and so poor, if the workingmen by combining could exact a little better wages, and make their hours a little shorter. It was the message of these men (and their death swept that message far out into ears that would never have heard their living voices) that all such little dreams are folly. That not in demanding little, not in striking for an hour less, not in mountain labor to bring forth mice, can any lasting alleviation come; but in demanding much — all — in a bold self-assertion of the worker to toil any hours he finds sufficient, not that another finds for him – here is where the Way out lies. That message, and the message of others, Whose works, associated with theirs, their death drew to my notice, took me up, as it were, upon a mighty hill, where from I saw the roofs of the workshops of the little I world. I saw the machines, the things that men had made to ease their burden, the wonderful things, the iron genii, I saw them set their iron teeth in the living flesh of the men who made them; I saw the maimed and crippled stumps of men go limping away into the night that engulfs the poor, perhaps to be thrown up in the flotsam and jetsam of beggary for a time, perhaps to suicide in some dim corner where the black surge throws its slime.

I saw the rose fire of the furnace shining on the blanched face of the man who tended it, and knew surely as I knew anything in life, that never would a free man feed his blood to the fire like that.

I saw swarthy bodies, all mangled and crushed, borne from the mouths of the mines to be stowed away in a grave hardly less narrow and dark than that in which the living form had crouched ten, twelve, fourteen hours a day; and I knew that in order that I might be warm I, and you, and those others who never do any dirty work — those men had slaved away in those black graves, and been crushed to death at last.

I saw beside city streets great heaps of horrible colored earth, and down at the bottom of the trench from which it was thrown, so far down that nothing else was visible, bright gleaming eyes, like a wild animal’s hunted into its hole. And I knew that free men never chose to labor there, with pick and shovel in that foul, sewage-soaked earth, in that narrow trench, in that deadly sewer gas ten, eight, even six hours a day. Only slaves would do it.

I saw deep down in the hull of the ocean liner the men who shoveled the coal – burned and seared like paper before the grate; and I knew that ‘the record’ of the beautiful monster, and the pleasure of the ladies who laughed on the deck, were paid for with these withered bodies and souls.

I saw the scavenger carts go up and down, drawn by sad brutes driven by sadder ones; for never a man, a man in full possession of his selfhood, would freely choose to spend all his days in the nauseating stench that forces him to swill alcohol to neutralize it.

And I saw in the lead works how men were poisoned; and in the sugar refineries how they went insane; and in the factories how they lost their decency; and in the stores how they learned to lie; and I knew it was slavery made them do all this. I knew the Anarchists were right the whole thing must be changed, the whole thing was wrong — the whole system of production and distribution, the whole ideal of life

And I questioned the government then; they had taught me to question it. What have you done – you the keepers of the Declaration and the Constitution — what have you done about all this? What have you done to preserve the conditions of freedom to the people?

Lied, deceived, fooled, tricked, bought and sold and got gain! You have sold away the land, that you had no right to sell. You have murdered the aboriginal people, that you might seize the land in the name of the white race, and then steal it away from them again, to be again sold by a second and a third robber. And that buying and selling of the land has driven the people off the healthy earth and away from the clean air into these rot-heaps of humanity called cities, where every filthy thing is done, and filthy labor breeds filthy bodies and filthy souls. Our boys are decayed with vice before they come to manhood; our girls — ah, well might John Harvey write:

Another begetteth a daughter white and gold,
She looks into the meadow land water, and the world
Knows her no more; they have sought her field and fold
But the City, the City hath bought her,
It hath sold
Her piecemeal, to students, rats, and reek of the graveyard mold.

You have done this thing, gentlemen who engineer the government; and not only have you caused this ruin to come upon others; you yourselves are rotten with this debauchery. You exist for the purpose of granting privileges to whoever can pay most for you, and so limiting the freedom of men to employ themselves that they must sell themselves into this frightful slavery or become tramps, beggars, thieves, prostitutes, and murderers. And when you have done all this, what then do you do to them, these creatures of your own making? You, who have set them the example in every villainy? Do you then relent, and remembering the words of the great religious teacher to whom most of you offer lip service on the officially religious day, do you go to these poor, broken, wretched creatures and love them? Love them and help them, to teach them to be better? No: you build prisons high and strong, and there you beat, and starve, and hang, finding by the working of your system human beings so unutterably degraded that they are willing to kill whomsoever they are told to kill at so much monthly salary.

This is what the government is, has always been, the creator and defender of privilege; the organization of oppression and revenge. To hope that it can ever become anything else is the vainest of delusions. They tell you that Anarchy, the dream of social order without government, is a wild fancy. The wildest dream that ever entered the heart of man is the dream that mankind can ever help itself through an appeal to law, or to come to any order that will not result in slavery wherein there is any excuse for government.

It was for telling the people this that these five men were killed. For telling the people that the only way to get out of their misery was first to learn what their rights upon this earth were freedom to use the land and all Within it and all the tools of production and then to stand together and take them, themselves, and not to appeal to the jugglers of the law. Abolish the law — that is abolish privilege and crime will abolish itself.

They will tell you that these men were hanged for advocating force. What! These creatures who drill men in the science of killing, who put guns and clubs in hands they train to shoot and strike, who hail with delight the latest inventions in explosives, who exult in the machine that can kill the most with the least expenditure of energy, who declare a war of extermination upon people who do not want their civilization, who ravish, and burn, and garrote, and guillotine, and hang, and electrocute, they have the impertinence to talk about the unrighteousness of force! True, these men did advocate the right to resist invasion by force. You will find scarcely one in a thousand who does not believe in that right. The one will be either a real Christian or a non-resistant Anarchist. It will not be a believer in the State. No, no; it was not for advocating forcible resistance on principle, but for advocating forcible resistance to their tyrannies, and for advocating a society which would forever make an end of riches and poverty, of governors and governed.

The spirit of revenge, which is always stupid, accomplished its brutal act. Had it lifted its eyes from its work, it might have seen in the background of the scaffold that bleak November morning the dawn-light of Anarchy whiten across the world.

So it came first a gleam of hope to the proletaire, a summons to rise and shake off his material bondage. But steadily, steadily the light has grown, as year by year the scientist, the literary genius, the artist, and the moral teacher, have brought to it the tribute of their best work, their unpaid work, the work they did for love. Today it means not only material emancipation, too; it comes as the summing up-of all those lines of thought and action which for three hundred years have been making towards freedom; it means fullness of being, the free life.

And I saw it boldly, notwithstanding the recent outburst of condemnation, notwithstanding the cry of lynch, burn, shoot, imprison, deport, and the Scarlet Letter A to be branded low down upon the forehead, and the latest excuse for that fond esthetic decoration ‘the button’, that for two thousand years no idea has so stirred the world as this — none which had such living power to break down the barriers of race and degree, to attract prince and proletaire, poet and mechanic, Quaker and Revolutionist. No other ideal but the free life is strong enough to touch the man whose infinite pity and understanding goes alike to the hypocrite priest and the victim of Siberian whips; the loving rebel who stepped from his title and his wealth to labor with all the laboring earth; the sweet strong singer who sang No Master, high or low; the lover who does not measure his love nor reckon on return; the self-centered one who ‘Will not rule, but also will not ruled be’; the philosopher who chanted the Over-man; the devoted woman of the people; nay, and these too —governmental and capitalistic brutality has whipped and goaded and stung to blind rage and bitterness, these mad young lions of revolt, these Winkelrieds who offer their hearts to the spears.

by Voltairine de Cleyre

Also See:

• The Haymarket affair (also known as the Haymarket massacre or Haymarket riot)
• Memorial Address, by Voltairine de Cleyre
• November Eleventh, Twenty Years Ago
• Our Martyred Comrades, by Voltairine de Cleyre
• November Eleventh, by Voltairine de Cleyre
• November 11th, by Voltairine de Cleyre
• The Fruit of the Sacrifice, by Voltairine de Cleyre

A Boston cop manning a Humvee draws a bead on a resident photographer while police raid every residence:
Gun safety 101: Never point your gun at something you don’t intend to kill.

http://youtu.be/FQ1-ZUN3Li0

http://youtu.be/4nrkcUV_7Qk

Victims Of Boston Bombing Police State Lockdown Speak Out

http://youtu.be/lA69pQY9ldg

MTV produced these two commercials in 2008:

http://youtu.be/stXwRoiY1y8

http://youtu.be/WIQ4S8xAMac

Also See:

• The War On Terror Is Over. America Lost.
• The Fourth Strike of the Match

http://youtu.be/p2f_x9qqkKY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj4Zu46DwIY&feature=share&list=PLdD4A06_c5WYVT6sL_bGrn7_hy7xVZJ3G

http://youtu.be/A_pfgt6R7S8

History… Interview and a Movie: Larken Rose premieres the Directors Cut and is interviewed on TragedyandHope

http://youtu.be/ApMNKGT6eE8

So when we bring this out, they usually stop and make a distinction between the two by claiming Ian is “within the territorial jurisdiction of the state.” This doesn’t help at all because there still is no evidence the code applies and there is jurisdiction.

http://youtu.be/xFjPVylWpDI

IMPORTANT NOTE. This Map does not include the bombing of the MOVE organization in philadelphia during a raid in 1985 which would indicate that this map in far from complete.

http://youtu.be/rtuk08E09cw

Also See:

• We Are Both Subject To State Power

http://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

This irony stems from the fact that these public pensioners never comprehend that their pensions are in fact set up in the same way as the Federal welfare system. So let’s compare these two investment schemes…

1) Welfare is paid for by Federal and State taxes collected from all taxpayers and placed into an investment fund.

1) Public pensions are partially or wholly paid for by all taxpayers of the State, local, and Federal governments as “matching funds” and placed into an investment fund. Government employers are taxpayer funded, thus “matching funds” is taxpayer money.

2) The people (taxpayers) have no equity in the employer (taxpayer) contributions (taxation) to the Welfare system. That tax money is property in the trust of government.

2) The people (taxpayers) have no equity in the employer (taxpayer) contributions (taxation) to the Public pension system. That tax money is property in the trust of government.

3) Welfare pays benefits to people who qualify for it under certain criteria.

3) Pensions pay benefits to people who qualify for it under certain criteria.

4) Welfare is a trust run by government.

4) Pension funds are a trust run by government.

5) The taxpayers who never claim welfare benefits never get a return on their investment.

5) Taxpayers cannot claim pension benefits and therefore can never get a return on their investment.

6) Taxpayers are funding the benefits paid to welfare recipients with no benefit to themselves.

6) Taxpayers are funding the benefits paid to public pensioners with no benefit to themselves.

7) Welfare benefit recipients contribute their own tax money into the welfare system.

7) Pension benefit recipients contribute their own tax money into the pension system.

8) People who use welfare system benefits are knowingly mooching from the public tax-base.

8) People who use the pension system are either knowingly or unknowingly mooching from the public tax-base.

9) Welfare is an insurance pension investment fund that pays benefits for a certain amount of time for “un-employment”.

9) Pensions are insurance pension investment funds that pay benefits for a certain amount of time for “post-employment”.

10) The welfare system can be shut down and liquidated at any time by its owner, which is government, and pay no future benefits.

10) The pension system can be shut down and liquidated at any time by its owner, which is government, and pay no future benefits.

11) Benefits paid in both systems are a way to collect revenue as “contributions” for government that no longer belongs to the people, which is taken from the entire taxpayer base and invested in stocks, bonds, derivatives, foreign currencies, real estate, commercial paper, toxic debt contracts, mortgage backed securities, credit default swaps, and everything else that is ruining the financial structure of the world, its markets, and the livelihood of all the people.

–=–

So what is the difference between the public pension system and the welfare system?

Perhaps the illusion and false-paradigm of integrity is the only thing that comes to mind…

For while welfare recipients (who paid for this insurance through taxation) collect benefits without pride and feel no certainty about their future, public pensioners brag about being on public welfare at the expense of taxpayers and feel justified in their arrogance and future financial security. Ironically, the average pensioner has no idea of his or her disposition of being on welfare at others expense. They believe that just because they themselves paid some of their own money into the pension system (though some do not contribute and these pension schemes are fully funded by taxpayers), this gives them entitlement to receive benefits without even a fleeting consideration that they are actually collecting welfare at their retirement or disability (post-employment).

While welfare recipients get the worst kind of horrific taxpayer-funded health care, pensioners enjoy the benefits and choices of mostly taxpayer funded private insurance-based health care.

While pensioners enjoy buying food, welfare recipients enjoy redeeming food stamps. The difference here is not palpable when considering that both are taxpayer funded and that food stamps represent tax dollars or debt funded by taxpayer debt. Either way you look at it, the taxpayers are feeding both welfare recipients and public pensioners.

All of this pride is based on the illusion that these benefits are based solely on years of personal contributions and savings by pensioners, while not comprehending (or not knowing) that most of their benefits are indeed publicly paid for.

And to be quite frank… I personally have much more resentment that for my whole working life I have been paying for the pensions of government workers while knowing that I will never receive any benefit for doing so, and that at my own retirement I will only have what I saved myself and anything I can scrounge from Social Security. In fact, I really have no problem contributing to the welfare system because some day it might actually save myself, a friend, or a family member from becoming homeless and totally destitute – I may actually receive a benefit from my own tax if I need it. And the fact that complete strangers that would otherwise suffer and starve without this subsistence certainly doesn’t create the same feeling that it does to think of public pensioners living high on the hog after taking early retirement and receiving monthly stipends for life simply for not working as long as all the taxpayers funding that pension fund.

And for those pensioners who just cannot comprehend that what I am saying here is true; that pensioners are welfare receivers based on the collection of taxpayer money, I would like to show you just how much money is spent on the welfare system by all taxpayers and how much is spent on the public pension system by all taxpayers…

I was happy to find that someone else had actually done the research to break down how much taxpayer money is paid for welfare and public pensions by government. Of course, the term “paid for by government” means paid for by taxpayer money. And when this is reported in the financial reports of public pension funds, it is stated as being paid for by “employers” or by the “state”. The employer is government, and again government is funded by taxpayer money. Never forget this, pensioners.

So well written was this article that I took the liberty to copy this well sourced researched presentation here, and give full credit to this site: http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/

Begin excerpt:

.

“How Much Do We Spend On Welfare”

Whenever you see a pie graph that is meant to represent all government spending, you will probably see a graph like the one at US Government Spending or the one at Wikipedia which shows that “Welfare” spending is 12% of the federal budget.  The problem with that is that the government has no spending category called “Welfare”.   Therefore, what somebody calls “Welfare” is somewhat subjective and undefinable.

The Office of Management and Budget(OMB) does have a spending category called “Income Security”.  The two pie graphs I linked to in the introduction just take that entire category and divides it by total spending to get 12%.  In 2009 accounts categorized as “income security” accounted for 533$ billion in spending.  According to the government printing offices’ historical tables, table 3.2: Oulays by Function and Subfunction, that spending is broken down into 6 distinct subfunctions.

1. General retirement and disability insurance
2. Federal employee retirement and disability
3. Unemployment compensation
4. Housing assistance
5. Food and nutrition assistance
6. Other income security

But as I described in a previous post, 3 out of the 6 income security subfunctions go to pensions and unemployment – things that must be earned by working and paying into.

The 3 remaining subfunctions cost a combined 284$ billion dollars, but even that doesn’t tell the whole story.  Over the last week I’ve taken a more detailed look at each of these subfunctions to get an idea of how that money is spent.  What I found was that even in the remaining subfunctions, Food and Nutrition, Housing Assistance, and Other that not all of that spending was spent on the poor.

When I analyzed the “Other” income security subfunction, I  graphed how that money was spent by categorizing that spending into 4 different categories:

1. Not Directed at Poor\Earned: Welfare not targeted to poor.  The poor may use these programs, but just being poor will not qualify you for these programs.
2. Direct:  Welfare that’s Direct money to the poor
3. In-direct: Money paid to 3rd parties on behalf of the poor
4. Poor & Middle Class: These are tax rebates that poor and most middle class people qualify for and use.

I would now like to extend that analysis to the entire 533$ billion that the U.S. government spent on “income security”.  Here’s how the numbers break down.

(Click chart for Larger Image. See The Numbers for  this Chart)

As you can see the vast majority of the money spent in the “Income Security” function of the government is spent on programs not directed at the poor or programs where the income must be earned.  If you want to know how I categorized everything, here’s how I did it:

• Unemployment and Pensions are classified as not-directed at poor\Earned.
• For Food & Nutrition, WIC & SNAP(Food Stamps) are “Direct”, School lunches are “non-direct”, the rest are “not-directed at poor”
• For Housing Assistance, I categorized the temporary “new homeowner” credit as “Poor & Middle Class” and the rest as non-direct
• For the rest you can read my previous post on how I broke down “Other Income Security“

If you would like more details on why I categorized the programs as such, I suggest you read my previous posts: Income Security, Food and Nutrition, Housing Assistance, and Other Income Security.

If you total up the direct and non-direct spending categories which are all the programs that are meant to help the poor, you will see that the federal government only spent 191$ billion on “welfare” for the poor.  That would be 5.5% of the unified budget.  I counted off-budget programs since the pie graphs in the beginning counted social security and other “off-budget” accounts.  If you only want to go with on-budget expenditures it’s 6.4%, still a far cry from the 12% that most internet graphs will show you.  Just for fun I decided to graph those numbers.  Feel free to copy these graphs to show anyone who thinks we actually spend 12% of the federal budget helping the poor.

(Click charts for Larger Images.)

Source for all numbers is the Public Budget Database

End Excerpt.

.

Now, this is certainly not a complete picture of the amounts contributed to public pensions.

Cristopher Chantrill states on his website that:

“Government pensions spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at zero percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It increased very slowly during the first half of the century. It was only in 1931 that government pension expenditure reached 0.12 percent of GDP. By the beginning of World War II pension expenditure had doubled–all the way to 0.22 percent of GDP.

After World War II pension expenditures began to accelerate, reaching 1 percent of GDP by 1953 and doubling to 2.1 percent of GDP by 1958. Pension expenditure reached 3 percent of GDP by 1970 and 4.22 percent by 1974. Pension expenditure breached 5 percent of GDP in 1980.

The ramp-up in pensions expenditure began to moderate after 1980, reaching 5.3 percent of GDP in 1990 and 5.5 percent in 2000. Pension spending breached 6 percent of GDP in the recession year of 2009, hitting 6.56 percent of GDP in that year. Pensions expenditure is expected to stay in the area of 6.6 percent of GDP for the next few years.”

Again, this is translated as taxpayers from all over the United States are paying taxpayer money to fund pensions.

The GDP for the United States for 2012, according to the IMF, was $15,684,750,000,000 or $15.68 trillion dollars.

At 6.6%, pensions made up approximately $1,035,193,000,000 or $1.035 trillion dollars of taxpayer expenditures to fund pension funds.

So who is on welfare?

Are pensioners 3-4 times more angry with themselves for collecting post-employment benefits than with the poor who collect un-employment benefits? Can it be that this collective delusion by pensioners is self-induced? Are they the first to step up and complain that legal requirements for pre-funding of public pensions is literally driving Cities like Stockton, Ca and so many other governments to declare bankruptcy based on that pre-funding requirement? Does it bother public pension welfare receivers that the United States Post Office has had to borrow money every year to cover this legal requirement of pre-funding pension funds with taxpayer money, and has now reached its debt borrowing limit while Congress sits back and watches it happen without changing the law?

Can it be that pensioners refuse to bite the hand that feeds them because it would mean they would not receive welfare payments for post-employment? And they think welfare recipients and unemployed are the bad guys?

CalPERS responded to false rumors that pensions were funded solely by taxpayers by stating:

Myth: The State of California and taxpayers pay the total cost of public pensions.
January 26, 2011

Fact: Investment earnings pay the majority of the costs of public pensions. For every dollar paid in pensions, 64 cents comes from investments.

Public employees pay for pensions as well. Each month State employees contribute a percentage of their paychecks toward their pension. Through agreements so far, State employees are paying 2-5 percent more out of their paychecks toward pensions for a total of 8-10 percent each month. This has saved California up to $400 million. In addition, more than 175 local governments have decreased pensions for new hires.

In this very clever response, CalPERS has just stated that California taxpayers used to pay $400 million more in taxpayer money than it does today. This is like a store telling you that you just save money on your purchase instead of spending it – the latest selling point of grocery stores. Spending is saving; in true Orwellian style.

Of course, if the over $240 billion that is being held by CalPERS in liquid assets were cashed in (liquidated) today for their market value, this would pay for the total costs of this public pension for the next 10-15 years without ever collecting another employee or taxpayer dollar. And if that money stayed invested, for which the return on that investment is stated above to pay 64% of all pension costs, this public pension would likely last 20-30 years depending on investment return without ever haveing to collect another dollar from employees or taxpayers (employers). Trust me when I say that employees alone could never have built this fund up to this value without California and Federal taxpayer contributions.

Last year, taxpayers of California paid $7,834,616,000 dollars into the CalPERS fund, while employees paid $3,727,600,000  (according to the 2012FY Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for CalPERS, Page 41).

Link to CAFR: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/about/pubs/cafr-2012.pdf

I constantly ask myself why the taxpayers of California – the entire base of taxpaying citizens – would agree to pay so much money for the sole purpose of supporting the lavish retirements of just a small percent of that population? And my only conclusion is that this information is simply not comprehended by the vast majority of people who have no idea that their government is spending their tax money on pension funds for its employees. And this goes for all States and the Federal government, which means all taxpayers in America. Why do you allow this to happen… even as the result of this spending is financially ruining your well-being and creating the need for more taxation that is ultimately being created through DEBT???

At some point, even those benefiting form these public pension funds as welfare recipients must see the folly of this madness. But most fall into temptation and will not be delivered from evil. The haves very seldom give up what they have to the have nots, even to save themselves or to save the very system that makes them the haves.

For government is raiding these public funds as we speak, and placing more indebtedness on the taxpayer base to support this looting for “future pension payments”.

In truth, the Federal Government pays more taxpayer money for public pensions than it does for the National Defense budget. More for pensions than for Education. And a lot less for public welfare than we think to support a whole lot more people that need it.

In conclusion, the difference between welfare and public pensions is just one – everybody pays for welfare and everybody qualifies for it. But while everybody pays for public pensions, only a few qualify to withdraw it at all others expense.

The public pension system is the worst kind of welfare subsistence because it is based on privilege, not need.

So why don’t you public pensioners fund your own damn retirement and quit being such parasites on the taxpayer’s back? Isn’t that what you continuously demand of welfare recipients?

In this investigative documentary, acclaimed public health advocate and filmmaker Gary Null examines the increasingly common practice of prescribing psychotropic drugs for children, including preschoolers as young as age 2 to 4, who have been diagnosed with ADD, or ADHD.

Psychiatrists may write these prescriptions without first exploring other causes or aggravating factors, like diet, or environment, and without making it clear to parents that these medications can have severe side-effects, including insomnia, loss of appetite, facial tics, headaches, psychotic symptoms and even potentially fatal adverse reactions, such as cardiac arrhythmia.

Many schools work with family court systems to force parents to drug their children, threatening those who refuse to cooperate with the prospect of having them taken from the home and placed in foster care. To some, this looks like institutionalized child abuse in the name of mental health, whereby active, naturally inquisitive children are drugged into submission while the pharmaceutical industry prospers.

http://youtu.be/26e5PqrCePk

http://youtu.be/NbNFJK1ZpVg

Also See:

• We’re the Government — and You’re Not

* The (so-called) “consensual” interaction -

This generally applies to pedestrians and so on – people out in public, but not operating a motor vehicle.

A cop may  – like anyone else – approach you at any time and ask you questions. He is not required to have “reasonable suspicion” a crime has been committed – much less “probable cause” suggesting that a crime has been committed.

Most people – because they have been taught to defer to people wearing state-issued costumes – will answer a cop’s questions, even though they would rather not – and probably would not have, if the person asking were just an ordinary citizen as opposed to a costumed enforcer. They feel pressured. Some will show their IDs, if asked – and even grant permission to let the cop rifle through their possessions.

Arguably, all of this is less than consensual, real-world-wise, if not legally speaking. Because it can be intimidating to find yourself face to face with one of the state’s costumed (and armed) enforcers. Absent the costume (and the gun) you might be inclined to tell the person to piss off and leave you the hell alone.

However, you are not legally obliged to provide your ID, or even tell the cop your name – much less answer the cop’s questions – if the encounter is “consensual.”

Unless the cop has some legally valid reason for detaining you (more on this in a minute) you have every legal right to simply walk away. And that’s how you determine whether the encounter is, in fact, consensual. By asking him a question:  Am I free to go?

The cop will either say yes – or no. If yes, that’s it. Walk away.

If the answer is no, then you are being detained.

Very important:  Always ask the question – am I free to go? – and get an answer. Because if you don’t – and just walk away -  the cop could claim later on that you “ignored a lawful order” (or “resisted”) and might escalate the situation in a way you will not like.

You want things crystal clear and openly stated – with no room for misinterpretation. If at all possible, turn on a recording device the moment you are faced with a costumed enforcer.

* Detention (Terry stop) -

This is the step preceding arrest. The cop has (or claims) a “reasonable suspicion” that some specific violation of law has occurred (or is about to occur) and has temporarily detained you for purposes of further investigation. As a practical matter, all traffic stops are Terry stops – named after a landmark Supreme Court case.

While you still do not have to answer any questions (Fifth Amendment) in several states you are legally obligated to state your name if asked and (if you are operating a motor vehicle) provide a driver’s license verifying your identity. In some situations – state laws and circumstances vary – the cop may demand that you exit your vehicle and pat you down/perform a cursory search of your vehicle.

Even so, you should always clearly state that you do not consent to any searches. This may help you in court if it is determined the stop itself was not legally justified.

Also: You are not legally obligated to carry a government ID on your person if you are not operating a motor vehicle on public roads – e.g., walking down the street.

Having stated your name – or provided your ID, if in a motor vehicle – you should once again ask: Am I free to go?

Now it is up to the cop whether to proceed to the next step – arresting you.

* Arrest -

Arrest means you have been  formally charged with an offense – and are being taken into custody.

Probable cause that a specific crime has been committed is the legal standard here. Usually, the cop will literally say, “you are under arrest” – and then cuff you. Once formally arrested, the cop has the legal authority to thoroughly search your person as well as any belongings and your vehicle, etc. Even so, do not give consent – unless you wish to consent to a search.

If the cop tells you he’s arresting you, ask him to specify the charge(s) and then zip it. Nothing you say to the cop at this point will result in him taking off the cuffs (much less letting you go on your way). Once formally charged and arrested, you will be taken into custody.  If the cop tries to question you further, tell him – politely – that you won’t be answering any questions.

Repeat, if need be.

If the cop won’t say “you are under arrest” – and has not handcuffed you – continue to ask: Am I free to go? Repeat this until you are either allowed to proceed on your way or taken into custody.

Politicians will never discuss this question. It is poison to their quest for authority.

Congressman Esteban Edward Torres’s press secretary steals the tape of the interview in order to prevent the congressman’s contradictions from seeing the light of day.

http://youtu.be/ObebwaznpLE

John Avlon, CNN contributor, doesn’t know if anybody wants to initiate force. He doesn’t know whether there are people in our society that want to use force to take other peoples money. Evasion requires him to feign ignorance of everyday facts and thus expose him to ridicule. The same thing happened with Chris Matthews and David Gergen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSEr7BVRQYA

Steven Crowder, FOX News contributor, says that we should follow our principles without intentionally violating them. However, he admits he does not follow his stated principle. He claims to love everyone as much as him self but then admits that he does not spend as much time or interest on other people. Clearly he intentionally violates his principle of love thy neighbor as thyself. When asked to explore this contradiction he runs away.

Furthermore, he says that his answers depend on where he thinks the interviewer’s questions are going instead of answering what he thinks are the truthful answers to the questions. Finally, he pretends this was an ambush interview when in fact it was coordinated and negotiated after multiple text messages going back and forth.

http://youtu.be/hhddp08ssAI

Also See:

• I used to be a fan of Steven Crowder

In Iraq from the end of the Gulf War to the start of the occupation of 2003, sanctions on the country conservatively estimated led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi Children.

That’s:

• 50,000 per year
• 137 per day
• 45 Boston Massacres per day in Iraq, for a decade! One every half-hour.

1.4 million have died in Iraq since 2003 as a result of the American occupation.

That’s:

• 140,00 per year
• 383 per day
• 128 Boston Massacres per day! one every 11.5 minutes.

…

http://youtu.be/PSdRNDbB27E

Also See:

• The War Is Not Over! Demanding the Right to Heal
• Gitmo Is Killing Me
• Boston Bombing VS West Explosion: A Nation Conflicted

http://youtu.be/AqQTAjjs-dA

1. Rights of “law-abiding citizens” are defined by whatever law lawmakers make.
2. Those rights are newly defined when lawmakers make new laws.
3. Therefore, since rights are redefined by new laws, it is impossible for any new laws to infringe the rights of “law-abiding citizens”.

New laws cannot infringe the rights of the “law-abiding”, because those rights become whatever the new laws say they are.

When being a “law-abiding citizen” becomes unconscionable, do you choose law or conscience?

http://youtu.be/7XebGuqD5R0

http://youtu.be/aI8vjoFjmdY

Perhaps I prefer chips and you prefer cookies. Maybe I’ll give you my cookie for your chips. Now both of us are happier with our lunches. This is one example of how exchange can make people better off even without increasing the total amount of wealth. Exchange helps correct mistakes in allocation and it makes everyone involved happier.

Professor Michael C. Munger offers a few examples of how exchange can make people happier whether people have the same preferences or different preferences, the same stuff to start with or different stuff. The ability to make people better off by simple exchange may seem like magic, Munger says, but it’s just markets.

http://youtu.be/W-qGYlRtCcM

http://youtu.be/OhdOZI-cdp4

The people traditionally known as Quakers are actually called the Religious Society of Friends, and we at Bad Quaker have nothing but respect for them, their beliefs, and the hard work they have done during their 360 years of consistently seeking ways to improve the human condition.

Quakers vary widely in their beliefs and practices, but are perhaps best known for their unshakable position on individuality. Quakers hold fast to their belief that no one person should be honored above or below another. As a logical outworking of this position, Quakers formed the first true anti-slavery movement and almost single handedly shifted the established Christian doctrine away from the acceptance of slavery. Recognizing women on equal footing with men in the early 1600′s and consistently holding to that position through physical oppression and even torturous death, Quakers were the origin of the modern Women’s Rights movements.

Some other interesting tidbits about Quakers:

Titles of honor;
Quakers refuse to use or acknowledge titles of honor. That is to say, titles given to men or women for the purpose of distinguishing them apart or above other men or women. Titles like “Judge So-and-so”, “Officer So-and-so”, “President So-and-so”, “Father So-and-so”, “Your Honor”, “Your Highness”, “Your Eminence” or any other title used to honor an individual above the rest of humanity.

Likewise, standing, sitting, bowing, kneeling, saluting, or adjusting one’s attire upon command or for the purpose of bestowing honor are not practiced by Quakers.

To acknowledge authority or bestow honor by ceremoniously removing one’s hat or bowing or any other activity is to agree with the notion that some humans are better or somehow more important than others. This concept, we reject.

Swearing of oaths;
Quakers do not swear oaths of any kind. In addition to the practice being clearly forbidden in Scripture, the act itself is illogical and to some extent, insulting. For example, lets say Bill wants to sell Jack a boat. Jack asks, “Bill, does this boat float?” Bill answers, “Yes, to my knowledge, it has no leaks and it floats.” If Jack asks Bill to swear the boat floats, does he not infer that Bill may be lying? If Bill is the type of person who would lie about the boat’s buoyancy, how would adding the words “I swear” magically change Bill into an honest boat salesman?

So again, the oath is illogical and insulting. If Bill is giving a statement in a court of law and Jack asks Bill if he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is Jack not inferring that Bill may be lying when he speaks without this magic oath? If so, and if Bill is in fact the type to lie, how is it that these magic words suddenly convert Bill the liar into Bill the honest man?

What about oaths of allegiance and of office?
Again, they are both illogical and insultive. If Jack tells Bill, “Join our cause!” and Bill responds, “I will join your cause.” are we then to assume Bill has not really joined and his honor is not really at stake unless he says the magic words? Are we to assume that Bill walks around on a day to day basis utilizing a loophole in honesty and if he fails to say the magic words he is never obliged to his statements?

What if the community gets together and decides Bill should be the final decision maker for the town. Are we to assume Bill will rob the town treasury unless he repeats some magic words swearing to follow edicts written on some paper?

Quakers understand that when one speaks one is either telling the truth to the best of one’s knowledge or they are telling a lie. There is no third choice in the category of truth labeled, “Oath Truth”. If one is honest but mistaken, adding magic words do not change the outcome. If one is lying, adding magic words can’t change the lie. And if one has honor one will tell the truth with or without the added burden of magic words. If one lacks honor, it cannot be conjured using magic words.

Bad Quakers:
Where Bad Quakers part with good Quakers is in the area of self defense. Quakers tend to be pacifists. And while Bad Quakers appreciate and respect that position, and even agree that was certainly the position Jesus took while on Earth, Bad Quakers are not pacifists. Bad Quakers tend to be armed at all times, and are willing to defend not only themselves but their friends, loved ones, property, and at times even strangers.

More on Bad Quakers:
Bad Quakers embrace the Zero Aggression Principle or ZAP.

Bad Quakers recognize the State as an entity that exists by the use of aggression, lies, and theft. Therefore the Bad Quaker rejects the State as a legitimate form of government. Bad Quakers do not reject government. Bad Quakers realize that government, when entered into and maintained by peaceful voluntary means, can be legitimate. But when government adopts the State as its method of existence, it is no longer legitimate. The Bad Quaker understands that every act of the State, no mater the short term result, will produce evil.

While embracing the ZAP and acknowledging the State as the vehicle of evil on Earth, the Bad Quaker must embrace peaceful methods of resisting the State. The Bad Quaker understands that the State is economically and morally unstable, and therefore doomed to fail. But the Bad Quaker also understands that if the State falls at any stage prior to its maturity, it will simply grow back. Therefore, while individually working to separate ourselves from the State, and remaining dedicated to educating the masses as to the evil nature of the State, the Bad Quaker must not actively assist the collapse of the State.

Now, as to what Bad Quakers are not:
We are neither organized nor are we an organization.
We have no membership and we certainly follow no leader.
We have no manifesto and we neither have nor hold to any constitution written by the hand of a human.

We are free in our thoughts and we seek to be free in our day to day lives.
We ask no one to be our servant, and we refuse to serve others by any means other than our own choice.

We are enemies of the State, but we are not combatants of the State.

Visit http://badquaker.com

1. If he’s yelling, yell at him: STOP YELLING! IT’S NOT NICE TO YELL.

2. Tell him never to talk to strangers because it’s dangerous, but then tell him he is rude when he won’t say hello back to the cashier at the grocery store.

3. Tell him he should never let anyone touch him if he doesn’t feel comfortable, but then don’t intervene when his aunt, who he sees once a year, hugs him against his will.

4. Tell him you can’t afford to buy him the one-dollar candy bar he wants, as you are buying yourself a five-dollar cup of coffee.

5. Tell him he has to share his favorite toy with his sister, but then later when he wants to play with your iPhone, don’t let him.

6. If he has just hit his sister, tell him it’s not nice to hit someone, then grab him and hit him.

7. Tell him he’s not allowed to quit doing that thing he hates, because it’s important to be persistent and determined, but then tell him to quit asking for that thing he wants because it’s annoying how persistent he is.

8. Tell him not to eat now (when he’s hungry) because if he does, he won’t be hungry later (when the clock says it’s time for dinner).

9. Tell him you can’t do that thing he wants you to do for him because you are in the middle of writing an email, but then get really upset when he tells you he can’t do something for you because he’s in the middle of playing a video game.

10. Explain how important it is to be honest, and then freak out when he tells you the truth about something he did and punish him for doing that thing. And then later, lie to him about something really important.

http://youtu.be/cw4TQvbzLmk

http://www.free-tv-video-online.me/movies/…

• Visit MaryAndMax.com

Here are three independent proofs that the concept of government is not just susceptible to corruption and abuse, but is by its very nature self-contradictory and insane.

http://youtu.be/u-sRbR2QQ7w

1) There is not document or procedure where by any person or group of people can delegate to another a right which the first person or group didn’t have to begin with. Ergo, Congress cannot have acquired and does not have the right to do anything that you do not have the right to do yourself.

2) You can’t have a moral obligation to do what you think is wrong. Whenever there is a conflict between what authority commands and your own conscience you have the right to disobey. But if that’s true then the one giving orders isn’t authority, since ‘authority’ means the one with the right to rule you and the one you must obey.

3) No document or ritual can alter morality and make an evil act good. Either man-made law matches objective morality, in which case the law is redundant and irrelevant. Or it conflicts with objective morality in which case it is illegitimate and should be disobeyed. Either way legislation never creates any obligation to obey and therefore has no authority. Once all of this is widely understood, that’s the end of most of the theft, thuggery, oppression, and war in the world. Which happens now as a result of the belief in government, meaning a rightful ruling class. If evil were committed only be genuinely nasty people, instead of being condoned and committed by almost everyone. All those who image that legalizing evil makes it good and imagine that agents of authority have rights the rest of us don’t. The world will be a far more peaceful and just place… Amen.

–> The Most Dangerous Superstition at LarkenRose.com

As an insider, I’m giving you my top six most dangerous lessons that need to be destroyed before the coming chaos. Before sending me angry comments that this is just another teacher bash session, honestly explore the list with your school aged children or grandchildren at the dinner table. You may be convinced, if they’re allowed to talk freely. As I’ve said before many times, I work with some of the most dedicated, selfless, and knowledgable teachers who aren’t allowed to do the job they are passionate about – to teach.

Ready to be un-schooled? Warning: Unlearning these lessons carry a heavy price tag. But the freedom you discover is priceless.

A.) The Powers That Be knows what’s best for you. Questioning authority – or even worse – resisting TPTB will land you in the re-education compliance camp. Once labeled and drugged, your status and future path is set. Your child knows some of the system’s victims. Just ask.

B.) Learning only takes place in the classroom. Just ask TPTB. Students are taught inside the box. Some teachers encourage outside-the-box thinking. The problem with thinking outside the box is that students don’t have time to even explore the edges. Every minute of their day is planned and spoken for. Even after the last blaring dismissal bell screams, schooling follows them to their bedroom. Homework eats the remains of the day. Forget playing outside (some kids still do that, right?), stomping through mud to the creek to observe crawdads and tadpoles, or reading a book of her choosing for pleasure.

Discovery is replaced with memorizing facts from revisionist historians. We teachers correct ‘wrong thinking’. Constant correcting teaches the student to be dependent on us – the “experts”. Critical thinking dies.

C.) Going to college is your only hope of elevating your worth. TPTB plaster school walls with posters comparing different levels of ‘education’ with earning potential. Why all the one-size-fits-all college propaganda? Our rulers need more debt slaves.

Here’s my advice. If you’re in college now, drop out. If you’re 18, you probably have no idea what you want to do with your life. Don’t buy the lie that you’ll get left behind if you don’t go to college. College will not teach you real world skills. You learn that doing what interests you in the real world. College is pure theoretical. I’ve worked in different fields over my life and have found nothing beats the school of hard knocks. What I learned in college was that I had to perform to get a permission slip to teach kids. It’s a hoop I jumped through. Letters behind our names does NOT qualify us to teach your children.

Alternatives to college until you figure out what you want to do…

• Start a business. Become a producer.
• Travel. Save all your money – you’ve got a job, right – while living in your mom’s basement. Explore places you’ve always wanted to see. Pay attention to the local culture. Ask lots of questions. Take notes in your travel journal. Maybe even self-publish it.
• Volunteer. Not because someone says it’s the ‘right’ thing to do. Go help feed hungry people, build shelters, or work the local farmers market – for free. You’ve got low overhead living in your mom’s basement remember. This may not be your career path, but giving without expecting anything in return will expand your horizons, make you thankful, and even make connections for later life. It’s an antidote for self-absorbed navel-gazing.
• Self-educate. Take your education into your own hands. Figure it out. Teach yourself to play an instrument, write computer code, or draw.
• Work in a trade, find a skilled tradesman and become his/her apprentice. Contrary to what you’ve been told by your high school guidance counselor, you don’t start at the top – at least not in the real world.

D.) High Stakes Testing measures your future contributions to the collective. The dirty little secret about state standardized tests is that if your child ‘met the standard’ (passes a subject with a score of 800), little Susie only got 50% of the test questions right. And the parents breathe a sigh of relief and throw a pizza party for kids that score a 50. What kids learn is that vomiting facts and test taking skills are all answer-centered. Problem solving is not taught. It’s hard to when schooling institution’s accreditation (Federal and State money) is on the line. Right answers pay off for good students – the State gets especially giddy. Welcome to Answerland.

Kids in school seem to use a fairly consistent strategy…it is answer-centred rather than problem-centred…

– John Holt – from ‘How Children Fail‘

The ridiculous amount of energy, time, and money spent on High Stakes Testing has kids walking blindfolded into a train tunnel – with their parents cheering them on. These tests do not measure true value.

E.) We own you. Nothing about forced schooling teaches self-ownership. On the contrary, we (the State Collective) dictate what students need to learn, how to dress,  what to eat, when to talk, how to obey, how to think, and that you don’t own yourself. You have no right to privacy. We can search you and your possessions without cause anytime. You are under constant surveillance. Even that picture your first grader drew, or the app your high schooler created is fair game in one school district in Maryland. I’m sure this will be a catchy trend. The lesson: You belong to the State.

F.) Learning is separate from living. Some things in life should be dropped. Schooling is one of them. Compulsory schooling is a type of child abuse. Yes, I just went there. Every child that enters school at age 5 will have his or her creativity, curiosity, confidence, individualism, playfulness, independence, intuition, and self-reliance crushed under the school steamroller. It’s painful, but these poor lumps of clay have to be molded into what the State thinks they should be.

What passes for ‘education’ today promotes fear of making mistakes, fear of failing, constant pursuit of everybody-is-a-winner awards (Student of the Month bumper stickers and gold stars, for instance), and conforming to the collective. We group students according to age. They spend their most formative years never exposed to adults or other children outside their age bracket. They are now dependent on the one ‘expert’ standing in front of them to gain all the knowledge they need. Sure, we’ll invite an occasional guest into talk about their job in the real world. But that’s far enough. These commoners don’t possess the credentials to ‘teach’ kids – anything.

If you’re curious, here’s a list of people who quit being schooled and ended up doing something with their lives.

• William Faulkner – dropped out of high school
• Walt Disney – high school drop out
• Wilber and Orville Wright – never graduated. They tinkered with things.
• Richard Branson – Branson’s dyslexia caused him a great deal of trouble as a student, so when he was 16 he left school to go into business for himself.
• Thomas Edison – Dropped out of school to be taught at home – over 1,000 patents followed.
• Albert Einstein – Dropped out at age 15. He later went back to get a diploma so he could enter the university. He failed the entrance exam twice.
• Colonel Harland Sanders founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken dropped out of elementary school.

If you’ve attended, or you have children in public schools, the chances are very high you need to unlearn these dangerous lessons. Un-schooling your mind is your first step in becoming prepared.

I have hope and confidence in the human spirit. Once freed, there’s no limit to what we can accomplish.

Feel free to share your miseducated lessons in the comments.

Also See:

• Education rewarding obedience and failure has predictable results

http://youtu.be/02cCx1P7dI8

The use of labels adds to this problem. Although they are useful to shorten our communications, and essential in our own minds as containers for a larger concept or principles, labels can work against clarity. When we are using a common label that is not grounded to a specific and shared definition, it becomes unlikely that the conclusions will be agreed upon. This is all too true with the label “liberty.” People want to see those who disagree with them as “enemies of liberty” (or whatever value is being sought), but unless you took the time to establish a common definition of that value, and they specifically indicated opposition, they’re not an enemy to anything but your own privately held notion. I can almost guarantee you that they have their own notion of “liberty” that they believe to be advancing, and to which they probably see you as an “enemy.” It is not until those notions are addressed specifically and either accepted as objectively correct or rejected as problematic, that undertaking to advance liberty makes any sense.

Stunningly, people will often resist efforts to examine the ideas that these word labels represent with any specificity. They often do this with a great degree of emotion and hostility. I suspect from my own experience that we do this because we know that our core concept is flawed, or at best unexamined. This practice of building conclusions on unexamined or flawed original concepts doesn’t just happen in our conversations. This is a deep and abiding habit in our own personal thinking into which we can easily fall. Once we have, our emotional investments in the conclusions we have formed through a process of avoiding the examination of our premises (and spent years reinforcing with selective evidence) will cause us to resist an examination of those foundational premises at their base. This is, to borrow an analogy from a great innovator in philosophy named Ayn Rand, a lot like building a skyscraper by starting at the thirtieth floor.

The first thing we should do is take a look at what is presumed by the very act of conversation. Despite what many people imply by the way they engage in conversation, to do so is not a neutral undertaking and it is not an action which exists in its own little vacuum apart from the surrounding reality. The act of conversing with others to communicate is an act which contains several implicit assumptions. Therefore any time the content of a conversation contradicts one of these premises the conversation has become an absurdity. Let me explain more clearly what I mean.

By engaging in a conversation, every party involved is presuming certain things by that very act. These presumptions need to be accounted for as the basis of any conversation, instead of ignored as immaterial to its content.

1. By having a conversation, you are presuming that each person involved (including yourself) actually exists. Unless there is a common, objective reality which each participant exists within, the act of conversation is an absurdity. “Am I really even having this discussion? Is the person I’m speaking with real?”  Why would you (or the non-existent entity acting as you) be trying to convince a non-existent entity of something? “Are they even in a reality that has the same rules as me? If not, then why bother?”  If you don’t believe you’ve answered those questions, that is where your effort needs to be focused instead of upon the act of exchanging information with another in a way that presumes an answer to all of those questions. You would be surprised how much time and energy can be spent, and ultimately wasted, trying to establish this seemingly obvious common ground for a conversation. I will assume that this is a non-controversial point for you, the reader, and not spend any time convincing you to accept it… because the very act of convincing presumes that it is already true. If these questions seem open to you, and fascinate you, be wary because you are perfect fodder for an army of word-tweakers and opportunists masquerading as “intellectuals.” You will have to explore them somewhere other than this column. For more detailed arguments, I would recommend the writings of Aristotle, Locke and Rand on the nature of reality (metaphysics) and how humans come to know it (epistemology).

2. By having a conversation, you are inherently presuming that the objective reality mentioned above not only exists, but that adherence to that reality is both desirable and obligatory for all participants of the conversation. Otherwise, why convey something about that reality to another? Why should it alter their conclusions or actions? Does not the act of conveying things to another imply that they should act in their accordance and alter their conclusions to account for the reality to which you are drawing their attention?

While these may all just seem to be stating the obvious, they have a lot of implications that most people fail to draw or at least to keep in mind when progressing through a conversation. We must not enter a conversation viewing it as an isolated little sphere of consideration detached from the rest of reality. We should always stay grounded to these assumptions in any discussion. This will help us avoid entertaining and getting bogged down in absurdities and contradictions. It will also help by giving a context for evaluating the validity of any given concept or assertion that may come up in the process.

I have no right to prevent you from pursing happiness, to force you into silence, or to criminalize something you might utter. I have no right to spy on you, to read your text messages and emails, or to listen to your private conversations. I have every right to disagree with you, and to voice, write or otherwise express that disagreement, and would be foolish to refrain from doing so. But that disagreement grants me no moral justification for infringing upon your right to say what you will.

I have no right to demand you to or prevent you from providing your children with a religious upbringing. I have no right to demand you to or prevent you from praying, from paying tithes, or worshipping your God however you wish to. I have no right to prohibit or infringe your freedom to go or not go to church, or to associate with others in any way, shape or form.

I have no right to dictate what kind of vehicle you can drive, how big a house you can own, what kind of clothes you should wear, or how much you can earn. I have no right to keep you from behaving like a pompous ass, or from being timid and quiet. I also don’t have any right to keep you from remaining uneducated, uninformed, and unaware of what’s going on in the world.

Man… there are a ton of rights I do NOT have in our interactions with each other.

In context, it would appear that there isn’t much we should be able to forbid through law. A list of generally accepted principles would pretty much suffice for maintaining order and peace in society, if given the chance. I mean, we all believe that murder is wrong. We all believe that theft is wrong. We all believe that rape is wrong, that child abuse is wrong, that poisoning the environment is wrong, and that our individual freedoms are pretty much sacrosanct. If we treat others as we wish to be treated, then any laws that came from adherence to and promotion of these generally accepted norms would be easy to comply with. On occasions where people chose to break from these norms, we wouldn’t necessarily have to use cages to punish offenders. Societal revulsion to such acts would result in some pretty nasty penalties for the offender. They may be ostracized from their families and social groups. Businesses may choose to not sell goods or services to them. They may not be able to own a home, or rent an apartment until such time as they made restitution for their offenses.

But, like in so many other aspects of life on earth, we fail to consider the simplest solution. Instead of handling this peacefully with respect to each other’s freedom, we ban together and vote to grant the government power and authority to do things to us that we all find morally reprehensible when done by individuals… to steal from us, to shut us up, to spy on us, to kill us, to tell us what we can consume, and force everyone to pitch into whatever the government is doing, even if we find those particular activities to be morally repugnant. This provides the framework by which I believe one of the most egregious forms of child abuse occurs: the indoctrination of children into a statist mentality.

We let the government teach our children a lot, with respect to morality and society. The government subtly exposes our children to the supposed morality of what’s called the social contract. I mean, we have to give back, right? Others paved the way for you, so you have an obligation to pave that same way for others, and to continue supporting those who paved it for you in the first place.

Despite there being no law, or anything in writing to detail what the “social contract” is, it is the only contract we are obligated to without our knowledge or consent. We are born into it, receive the purported benefits of what it offers, and are then subject to perpetual theft to pay it back. No other contract is legally enforceable without a person being at least 18 years of age, and having signed the contract indicating that they both read and understand the terms of that contract. But the social contract gets around that. The idea pervades our education system, and it’s certainly presumed in nearly all discourse about American society.

I didn’t sign any social contract. I wasn’t even aware of it until I was an adult. I did not vote for the laws that existed when I was born, nor did I vote for the legislators who codified those laws. That means that conditions of my adulthood were largely determined by people I never met, never had any association with, never voted for, and never received anything from. Now the promises of politicians made almost 4 generations ago are being seen for what they really were: buying votes by putting the debt of today onto the backs of the unborn… the easiest targets… I mean, they can’t fight back, after all. Like us, they will be stolen from to pay these costs of yesteryear. And as children they will be taught about this as their responsibility to society. It won’t be theft, you see… it will be giving back to all those who paved the way before them. It will be just a part of good citizenship… of being a good American.

Not one child will be taught in school that they were born into financial slavery, thanks largely to the apathy and ignorance of previous generations. No one will produce a social contract for them to read and sign. Not one child will be encouraged to consider the immorality of robbing from the unborn to pay for today. Worse, they will be taught that it is just for them to force their posterity to do the same as simply a matter of course.

Children will be taught that they cannot steal, kill, rape, damage property or infringe on other people’s freedoms, but will also be taught that government not only can, but SHOULD do precisely these things to people in the interest of the public good. How convenient is that? In truth, kids will have been royally screwed and stolen from before they were even born, but will be conditioned to believe that this was just, moral and good. It’s horrific, and… brilliant. How much more effective is slavery when you teach the slaves from the time their children that their enslavement is just and moral?

Welcome to the world, kid. Sorry about the noose of debt we hung around your neck.

Despite having all the faculties necessary to make itself well, society chooses to remain sick. On one hand we cry out against violence, coercion and theft when individuals remove freedom, steal and murder, but on the other hand we clamor for government to continue stealing, murdering and destroying freedom so we can ‘maintain our way of life.’ But, our way of life is morally inconsistent, and we are on the verge of financial collapse. When we collapse financially, not if, there will also be a type of collapse in society as well, which the obedient statists will demand the government protect us all from… at any cost. In our fear, we’ll demand that our good overlords essentially destroy the last vestiges of freedom, so as to preserve social order. This, of course plays right into the government’s hand. I mean… we don’t want the slaves getting restless now, do we? Of course not. That’s why government teaches children that slavery is freedom, that theft is charity, and that forced altruism is a virtue. It isn’t. In this instance, it’s child abuse. I thought we did almost everything in our society “for the children”…

The insidious and relentless indoctrination of children into Statism… is a cage.

visit NoMoreCages.com

http://youtu.be/5JEBj_Zijuk

Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web – http://www.freedomainradio.com

http://youtu.be/6RG5Nur0K4k

After the debate, visit http://www.freedomainradio.com to learn more about Stefan Molyneux and to download his books for free. Would you like to Know More? http://www.TragedyandHope.com & http://www.PeaceRevolution.org

Also See:

• The Philosophy of Fraud

The problem with building on poor or no foundations is that the building eventually collapses around you, as we are seeing today, with our empire of debt. We will soon be wondering–if we still have the luxury of time to think about it–why we imagined such foundations were adequate.

I like the power of simple barnyard analogies to undermine these ridiculous premises that we sometimes erroneously start with. Nothing could approach the comment about democracy, as “two wolves and a sheep, voting about what to have for dinner.” It describes democracy perfectly. In one sentence it seriously undermines the democracy meme in the brains of those who still hold it, and starts them on the long road of questioning premises. We can hope, with some luck, to find other analogies that can approach this one in power.

For “representative government,” one could say for example that it is “a wolf telling a herd of sheep he will take care of them if they let him into their pen.” That’s pretty good, but misses completely, demonstrating the impossibility of representation. Another example might be, “a pig telling a fox and a hen that he will provide them the dinner they want”–the point being that the pig doesn’t give a rat’s ass what either want, and that the hen and fox wanting radically different things for dinner. In fact, the fox wants to eat the hen. Our so-called “representatives” tell us they can represent both the gun lovers and the gun haters in their district, or both the conservatives and liberals, or those who produce and those who only consume. Of course, this is physically impossible. The reality is that they represent only themselves and the cronies who got them into power. The people are represented only to the extent their interests align with those of the representative and his cronies. One cannot simultaneously represent opposites. “Representative government” is a complete fraud.

No one could eviscerate constitutions better than the somewhat verbose Spooner, but I wonder what simple barnyard analogy we can make for them? Perhaps, “a wolf telling a herd of sheep that this paper the wolves have in their possession reduces their eating of sheep to reasonable limits, as interpreted by three special wolves”? Can somebody think of another?

Of course “the republic” is a reaction against one ridiculous thing (democracy), but that does not prevent it from being equally ridiculous–since it depends on ridiculous things itself, the two foregoing items (constitutions and representative government). However, I am at a loss for a barnyard analogy directly attacking it. In my own personal experience, republican government comes off looking pretty poor compared to direct democracy (in the form of the initiative), at least in Oregon. For example, regulatory takings were made illegal without just compensation, via initiative–until the legislature whittled that down a bit. And civil forfeiture was also made illegal via initiative. I don’t think the people’s efforts in lawmaking look that bad in comparison with the legislature’s; and there is a lot less of it, which is a good thing. Maybe that aristocrat Montesquieu’s notions against direct democracy, where the founders got their ideas about it, themselves need some critical review.

“Government ‘help’,” hmmm, what can we do with that? “Government help is a farmer feeding slop to pigs for their own good–until it’s time to butcher the pigs”?

How about basing our institutions and our opinions on reality? Now, that would be something new, wouldn’t it? We could start with notions like, “all people work in their own self interest”–even politicians and bureaucrats. A corollary of that might be “people adjust their behavior to take the easiest path.” And another, “power corrupts,” along with, “the worst get on top.” How about, “tax dollars are the easiest dollars to spend”? Here’s one: “for most people, principles go out the door at the first sign of inconvenience.” Here is another: “there are no rights, but only will.” And another: “taxes are theft.” And another: “laws are based on, and depend on, violence.” And another: “people naturally care to a great extent, what their fellows think of them.”

The trick is to simply let people work out on their own how these realities can be adjusted to and lived with. It doesn’t take a ruling class to do that. For example, there is nothing wrong with self interest, as Adam Smith noted: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” When people come to understand that their self interest lies in working with their neighbors, and not in screwing them over, self interest (along with reputation) will become an even stronger positive force in society than it already is.

It’s time to stop building on sand . . . .

Auernheimer revealed a security flaw in AT&T’s iPad user database, allowing him to scrape the data from 114,000 iPad users. The information was later on given to a journalist. In January 2011, the FBI did an investigation and filed a criminal complaint.

http://youtu.be/GV0JzMDnD4U

Over the last 30 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its law enforcement, along with a rise in the use of paramilitary police units (SWAT teams) for routine police work. The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home.

Meet Mark Ron (YouTube user SuperLuminousTV)

On July 16th, 2012 Mark heard outside his door, what he describes as a women screaming for her life. When Mark opened his door to possibly assist the woman, he was struck in the face by the aggressor. According to Mark’s testimony the assailant was the victims boyfriend who is a 45 year old,  6’5 -280lbs ex cop.

Moments after the assault Mark called 911 in search of some assistance and to press charges with the local PD. When officers arrived they refused to allow either of the victims to file charges but Instead, according to Mark, he was handcuffed and assaulted by an officer so bad his spleen ruptured in two places. Mark quotes the officer as saying  ”don’t play hero in our town”.

Mark was then rushed to the hospital once the ambulance arrived. (Footage here)

Marks recalls the aftermath:
When I woke up in the hospital (hospital footage)

I grabbed my IPhone and found the cops deleted video content.  But not all of it. I posted the evidence to my YouTube channel  for safe keeping. When I got home 8 days later a policemen knocked on my door at close to midnight. The policeman told me to remove the videos of their crimes or else they would be coming for me next day.

As you can see in this video that’s exactly what happened (warning: disturbing footage.)

Mark clearly stated before the raid that he was  unarmed and not a threat to officers positioned outside his residence.

This story is all too familiar, these raids seem to happen far too often in today’s climate of the encroaching police state. This is more substantial proof that we need to take a long hard look at corruption, excessive use of force and the militarization of police in this country .

Keep in mind, I became a police officer because I wanted to be a good guy. Even though we’ve all seen reports of police brutality and corruption, I still believe we cops are the good guys. I’ve seen cops perform brave, selfless acts for strangers on countless occasions. Even the worst cops I’ve ever known would risk their lives to defend the innocent. But I have to say this anyway. Before you start throwing shoes, hear me out. I have a good reason for saying it.

If you think our police are no threat to your freedom, you’re living in a fantasy world.

Now I’ll explain what I mean. I worked for the United Nations Police Mission in Kosovo for eighteen months. I wasn’t there as a soldier. I was a civilian cop, living in town, basically a Kosovo PD officer. For part of my tour I worked patrol with a group of international officers and local police. We had officers from America, the UK, Germany and Greece, plus local Kosovar Albanians. The Americans were regular street cops from police departments all over the United States.

One of the American officers in my station came from a very wealthy suburban police department. My cop stories were about murders, fights and chases; his were about citizens having garage sales without permits. For some reason, citizens selling things without permits aggravated him to no end.

In postwar Kosovo, many tens of thousands of war refugees lived in the capital. Not enough jobs existed to support them all. Many of them became vendors in a sprawling, dirty bazaar. They supported their families by selling cheap Turkish and Pakistani housewares and trinkets. Under old Yugoslav law, which was still the legal standard, those vendors had to have permits. Few bothered to stand in line at a dilapidated government building to pay for a permit.

This officer – I’ll call him Joe – became infuriated every time he patrolled the bazaar. He’d find vendors without permits, then ticket and berate them. He’d make note of other illegal vendors so he could ticket them later. He’d even drive through the bazaar off-duty to spot illegal vendors for future targeting. He’d vent his anger about illegal vendors at us, which always made me laugh. I didn’t care the least bit about vendors without permits, and thought Joe would eventually get over it. I was wrong.

Joe got so mad at illegal vendors that he researched Yugoslav law. We had been advised not to do anything that violated the Bill of Rights, but officially Yugoslav law was still in effect. And Joe discovered he could use Yugoslav law to do something about those damn illegal vendors.

Joe put a plan together. Officers from a couple of stations, along with some NATO troops, would go through the bazaar, identify which vendors had no permits, and confiscate all their merchandise. Local Albanian Kosovo Police Service (KPS) officers would assist. A large NATO truck would follow the officers so they could load all the confiscated items. All the seized property would immediately be donated to charity organizations.

When I heard the plan, I was amazed. Then I got angry. Why would anyone, in a country which had suffered through a horrible war less than two years earlier, think vendors without permits were such a big deal? We didn’t have a crime problem in the bazaar, the only reason we were going in there was because Officer Joe had a personal issue with the vendors. And wouldn’t an operation like that violate people’s rights?

I argued against the operation, and was overruled. Since Yugoslav law allowed it, we were doing it. I was ordered to take my team of KPS officers and participate.

The day of the operation, I forced myself to show up for work. My KPS officers were angry, frustrated and hesitant. They didn’t want to do to their people what we were about to make them do. But their jobs and livelihood, like mine, depended on following those orders. So we walked out of the station toward the bazaar.

An officer from a European country met me outside the bazaar, held out a stack of papers and sternly ordered, “Take these. You’ll need them to document what you confiscate.”

I kept my hands down. “I’m not taking them. I think this is wrong. We can’t just take people’s property.”

The officer held the papers out further. “It doesn’t matter. They’ve been warned. Take the forms.”

I didn’t move, or respond. The officer maintained his stern demeanor for a few seconds. Then, seeing that I wasn’t going along with it, he backed down.

“Okay, fine. Just take some forms, in case you change your mind.”

I took a few forms and stuck them in my pocket. The next time they came out, later that afternoon, I dumped them in the trash.

The operation began. Dozens of officers entered the bazaar, followed by NATO soldiers and their cargo truck. The vendors initially didn’t know what was happening. Then cops walked up to stalls and asked for permits. Nobody had them. The cops grabbed everything they had and threw it into the back of the truck.

Hundreds of vendors picked up their wares and ran. The slow ones were accosted and stripped of their possessions. KPS officers swarmed me, saying, “We can’t do this! This is what the Serbs used to do!” I stood back, watching the chaos in angry silence, and said something in Albanian. It was a phrase I never in my life expected to say.

“Ne jeme komunista sot.” We are communists today.

Our KPS officers were ordered, forced, to join in. They grudgingly helped take the property, although a few from another station were enthusiastic about it. Customers in the bazaar stood close by and yelled insults at the KPS officers, or screamed things like “Why are you doing this?” One KPS officer almost got into a fight he didn’t want to be in, over something he didn’t want to do, with one of the customers. Guilt was obvious on the KPS officer’s face. That was hard to watch.

I stayed back. Officer Joe, the illegal vendor hater, picked out an old man selling bananas. The old man, who looked about eighty but was probably younger, struggled to pick up boxes of bananas before the truck arrived. Officer Joe reached the old man’s stall, tore a box from the old man’s hands and threw it in the truck. The old man grabbed the next box. Joe fought it away.

I remember standing there in impotent frustration, thinking, So now we’re literally wrestling food away from old men. This is disgusting.

I finally managed to grab a handful of KPS officers and leave. I stayed at the station until the operation ended, angry at what we had done and at myself for being part of it. I had stood by and done nothing as a fellow cop turned us into petty tyrants. That still bothers me.

Joe beamed with pride when he came back to the station. As he promised, all the confiscated property was donated that day. No vendors had been ticketed. None received receipts for their property. None had recourse to recover what had been taken. If police did that here, they would be charged with a crime.

Later that day I argued my way up the chain of command that the operation had been wrong, we shouldn’t have done it and should never do it again. An Irish officer agreed with me. But a senior American officer listened to me with a disinterested expression and said, “Look man, it’s legal here. So I don’t have a problem with it.”

I learned a lot from that operation. Prior to it, I had been something of an idealist about cops. I thought American cops would go by what’s right and wrong instead of looking for what they can legally get away with. I know now that cops like Joe have no problem violating people’s rights, as long as they have some “official” way to do it.

Maybe you’re thinking, “But this was in another country, so it’s okay.” I don’t think so. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, not to enforce any law no matter what it is. If I go to Afghanistan as a cop, I’m not going to beat women for walking the street without a male relative, even if it’s legal there.

So why do I tell this story now? This might seem like an abrupt topic change, but it isn’t. It’s directly related. – Read More

Also See:

• Ah, Wilderness! Mountain Man vs. the Building Inspector

http://youtu.be/ZYpF5lizrrQ

“It is clearly within the power of government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public.” – Joe Biden, United States Vice President

Really? You wouldn’t want the government telling you what to do? Who or what is “the government”?

http://youtu.be/PvIo-vvlYkI

why should “they” have power over us? Are “they” more intelligent than you? Are “they” morally superior? What right do “they” have to be our masters? Why should we be “his” subjects, her peasants, his slaves? Why do “they” have power over us? What power do “they” really have?

“The state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence.” – Jerrold Nadler, United States Congressman for New York.

The power of “the state”, of “the government”, is violence. It is the power to assault with impunity. To rob, to kidnap, to imprison, and to kill. But is it “legitimate”? “legitimate violence” is defensive, but “government” is inherently offensive, aggressive, dominating, controlling. “Government” in its very essence, is coercive, using physical, emotional, and economic threats to impose its will.

When “they” “determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public”, how will we defend against “their” aggression? Will he defend out liberty? Will her dictates be prevented? Will he protect your right to live as you choose? Do you believe it’s “the government’s” “right” to rob as much product of our labor as “they” choose?, to kidnap and imprison us, not for harming others, but for failing to comply with some edict “they” have declared to be “law”? To kill us without charge or trial if “they” decide we are a threat to their power?

Coercive power is a physical reality. But “they” rely also on a less concrete power. The imagined moral imperative to obey “their” commands. But when “authorities” impose immoral “laws” and issue immoral commands, is it moral to obey? Is it moral to lie, steal, assault, kidnap, imprison, hold for ransom, and kill when these evils are sanctioned by “authorities” and disguised as “law”? Are “government” enforcers absolved of responsibility for their actions because those actions are performed under the guise of “authority”? Are we absolved of responsibility when we willingly obey immoral “laws” and commands of “authorities”?

Do we allow the “laws” of “the state” to supersede our own conscience? Are we devotees, supplicants, kneeling at the altar of “the state”? Are we slaves to the god of “The Government”? Is “the government” moral when it is the aggressor, and when “they” kill by remote? Is it moral to turn off our conscience to serve it? Is it moral to willingly fund it? To proudly pay our taxes?

Are enforcers of the “government” extortion racket morally different from non-governmental thieves and thugs? Would you feel justified resisting the assault of this man, but feel guilty resisting the assault of this “authority”?

If we automatically comply with “authority”, if we feel guilty disobeying “government”, then “they” have enslaved our minds. With relentless conditioning, “they” have built the myth that “government” is Master, and that “authority” must be obeyed unless and until “they” consent to change their decrees.

“They” are working to take from us our capacity to think and act independently. “They” are eliminating our freedom to live as we choose. Through the myth of their “authority”, they impose their will. “They” seek to dominate us, body and mind. With threats of violence if we resist. “They” steal the product of our labor, dictate what we must buy, and what we are not permitted to buy. And now, “they” are attempting to remove the final obstacle that constrains their power:

Do you believe “they” are really doing this “for the kids”? Or is it to eliminate our ability to resist “them”? When we are disarmed while “they” are not, when “they” finally reach their goal of complete, irresistible power, will “they” be benevolent tyrants? Was Hitler? Lenin? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Karadzic? Milosevic? Remember their benevolence towards those they disarmed.

Is our government really different? How far will “they” go to gain and maintain power? Is it wise to trust that “they” will never abuse power?

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe” – Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator for California.

Will you “feel safe” when guns are banned from everyone EXCEPT “them”?

“When governments fear the people, there is liberty, when the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson

http://youtu.be/m1qbhSwQul8

Qualified immunity as a legal doctrine has a bit of history, but at the root of it is the idea, propounded in the Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” I.e. Ignorance is an excuse for them (but of course, not for you).

Not only is ignorance an excuse for police, the whole idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is turned on its head with this doctrine. The default requirement for police is not that they restrain themselves unless they are certain a criminal has violated an establish law (which is how it should be) – the default is that police may act as they please, unless the law has clearly established that doing so is a violation of the victim’s rights. Read More

Also See:

• Tyranny requires equality

http://youtu.be/Lt151_R-EqY

A fascinating discussion with historian Thaddeus Russell, the author of A Renegade History of the United States.
[Audio clip: view full post to listen]
Download .mp3

Also See:

• The Moral Of The Public Education Story

As in other family courts, the truancy judge exercises a great deal of discretion. One judge in Pennsylvania bragged of being harsh with parents and children. Of parents who did not attend court-ordered guidance classes, he declared, “bam! I slam them in jail.”

Why Criminalize Truancy Now?

Officials who pursue truants argue that it is “for the children’s good.” They point to the alleged benefits of a public school education but another justification emerged. Truancy is called a “gateway crime” that leads to more serious ones and, so, it puts children on the fast track from public school to prison.

The real motive for the war on truancy is money, however. Public schools receive funding for every child who attends at least 60% of the school day; for example, the Berkeley, California school district reportedly receives $35 a day in state funding. Federal programs and other sources of funding also use attendance rates to delegate money to districts. The U.S. Department of Education offers a general sense of where the funding comes from, “In the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government’s share is 8.3 percent.” \

It is difficult to find reliable data on how much schools spend to educate a child for one school year (approx. 180 days). In a March 10, 2010 Cato policy report entitled “They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools,” Adam Schaeffer wrote,

Although public schools are usually the biggest item in state and local budgets, spending figures provided by public school officials and reported in the media often leave out major costs of education and thus understate what is actually spent.

To document the phenomenon, this paper reviews district budgets and state records for the nation’s five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia. It reveals that, on average, per-pupil spending in these areas is 44 percent higher than officially reported.

Real spending per pupil ranges from a low of nearly $12,000 in the Phoenix area schools to a high of nearly $27,000 in the New York metro area.

The financial stakes are high, with the flow of money into school coffers hinging upon student attendance. This establishes precisely the wrong incentive. When a government agency is paid for the number of people it processes, that agency has a strong incentive to force as many people as possible to use its ‘service’. Attendance becomes mandatory, and the ‘right’ to an education becomes a legal requirement to obtain one.

Now public schools are taking the next step to ensure that absenteeism does not deny them tax-dollars. If the absence is chronic, then officials are going after the parents with the threat of fines and jail time. The threat is not an empty one.

San Francisco leads the Way

In a San Francisco Examiner (09/24/08) article entitled “Why prosecute parents of chronically truant students?,” then-district attorney of San Francisco Kamala Harris explained, “I chose to file criminal charges against six parents whose children, as young as 6 years old, had missed as many as 80 days out of a 180-day school year. Those parents are now reporting to a model Truancy Court we created…” One of the powers of the Court is to mandate family services and training programs. In the case of a chronic truant, the student may become a ward of the court.

Harris’ crusade began with a letter. Near the start of the 2007-08 school year, all parents or guardians of “a San Francisco Unified School District student” received notification that she was prepared to prosecute those who “broke the law by keeping their children out of school.” In an article in the Bay Citizen, Harris proclaimed her policy as a success. Pointing to attendance figures that were up by 4,500 days, she said that the increase caused a “savings of $350,000.” That is, the schools received $350,000 of additional funding from the state and federal governments. Other statistics back up the claim. For example, in the 2007-08 school year, there were reportedly 5,436 students with 10 or more unexcused absences. In 2009-10, there were 3,605.

Eager to “save” more, Harris then pushed a 2010 Chronic Truancy Reduction bill. As a result of its passage, the parents of truants can now be punished with up to a year in jail or a $2,000 fine or both.

Other cash-strapped school districts are taking notes. An article in the May 29, 2012 San Francisco Chronicle explained, “A year ago, Berkeley school Superintendent Bill Huyett…took about $250,000 out of the district’s bank account and placed a bet.” He hired staff ‘to focus entirely on student attendance’.” The result? Within nine months, the district reaped “more than $1 million in state and other funding to pay for the 150 additional students on average who now show up for school each day.” The district reversed its plans to send out 148 pink slips to teachers. – Read More

http://youtu.be/cvo-yEymNuQ

After the debate, visit http://www.LarkenRose.com to learn more about “The Most Dangerous Superstition”. Would you like to Know More? http://www.TragedyandHope.com & http://www.PeaceRevolution.org

I was being nice when I said it was one of the most ridiculous things I’d ever heard: The code is applicable when you don’t file a return.  I would not recommend thinking through that too much, it will make your head spin.

He finally broke down and admitted he didn’t understand the question e.g., What facts do you rely on your silly code is applicable to my client at all?  If you really can’t understand such a simple question it’s probably because of two things:

1. There are no facts to support your opinion the code applies; and
2. Your job does not involve objective standards of proof and critical thought.

Whether he really understood or not, he clearly didn’t have any facts proving the code he insisted applied to my client actually applied to him.  Despite no facts, he continued insisting what was on the form letter was true.  Like most people, the man is stuck in a mental loop, a program running on perceptions, not based on critical thought and analysis of the facts.  I probably could have spent an hour with the guy and he still would not get it.

We encounter this mental block all the time and the more someone has invested in political perceptions, the more they will be unable to process the facts right in front of them.  Even when I get some of these tax agents to admit there is no evidence they just dig their heels in and attack even harder.  An example is the Maryland tax case with Denis.  There the agent who did the assessment admitted there were no facts and she was not qualified to do the assessment.  Such an obvious lack of evidence seems to drive psychopaths like Kathleen Barry with the Maryland attorney general’s office even harder.

So if you have ever encountered disdain from others who believe the code applies to everyone or is “universal”, let them hear this call and others from the Call of Shame.  Ask them to give you the facts they rely on proving the code applies to you.  You may get personal attacks, but you won’t get any evidence.

Listen to podcast of article: [Audio clip: view full post to listen]
4min 49sec – 24kbps – 24kHz – mono [ 1 MB ]

Also See:

• Make a Bureaucrat Run – Just Ask Them for the Facts

Written and spoken by Michael Rivero. The written version is here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerwars.php. Video by Zane Henry.

http://youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4

Countless centuries men have asserted their status and place in society through violence. Some have been labeled heroes and others villains in their use of violence. The same action of causing harm and taking lives is labeled good or evil based on the outcome and how they impact us. When children in Afghanistan are murdered by our military we praise and reward them. When it is our children in the U.S. Being murdered we call the perpetrator a terrorist. Both perpetrators have the same addiction to violence.

Our society has an addiction to violence. Our media is saturated by images of masculine men shooting up people. It is often police or heroic acts of glorified violence depicted. We praise those. We look at villainous acts of violence by ‘gangsters’ and depict them as cool or manly. We are groomed by our media to praise violence, it is glorified and our children are being raised to want to participate in this violence and be seen as manly or tough because they are violent or some force you do not want to ‘mess with’.

There is no Good and Evil

Good and evil are labels we place on an action that are dependent on the outcome and how they impact us. It is a judgment not a reason for an action. People do not kill because they are ‘evil’ but people are labeled evil because of the outcome of the killing. As stated earlier the same act of murder is both heroic and villainous depending upon the impact it has on us. My Spouse often says “there is no good or evil only varying degrees of consciousness.” As people evolve to a higher functioning level of intellect and consciousness in the area of violence it is rejected. Evolution of society to a higher level of functioning eliminates violence. Many of my comrades have been frustrated in the past with my absolute rejection of the use of violence. There is always a better and more effective option to violence. Until we really start to challenge violence absolutely we will stay exactly where we are.

The closest thing I can see as an exception to opposition to violence is not even an exception. It is the fact that I will not condemn the use of violence by the violently oppressed to overthrow their oppressor. This is not to say that there was not a better solution, it is to say that I will not condemn them. Read More