The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[Jason]

What if I'm sinning to the extent that it brings on the judgments of God....and some the rain ends up on your side of the fence? Do we have a right to set and enforce laws that are in congruence with God's law?

God is a just judge, and if some of the rain ends up on my side of the fence, he will compensate me a hundred fold.

It does not take away agency if the law is just. Be careful, however, and do not ascribe to yourself the rights that God did not give you. Example: he commanded you not to drink alcohol, but he gave you no right to KILL those who do. It would be a violation of God's law if you attempt to use such violence that God DID NOT COMMAND YOU. YOU will be the transgressor then, and the punishment for murder is justly severe, especially to those who know right from wrong.

I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Certainly the prophets have stood for passing laws that restrict alcohol for all ages. I've posted numerous quotes and I've seen nothing posted from God's anointed to the contrary.

If that is true, then you should feel comfortable loading your favorite gun and standing in front of a liquor store force people to get rid of alcohol, or try to knock out liquor stores. If you think that you have the moral right to do so, you are more messed up than I thought, and you will probably end up killed by the police, which you love so much, and justly so. Good luck.


And which part do you exactly disagree with in my quote:

• a) That you have no moral right to KILL those who drink?
  b) That you would be condemned by the justice of God if you did kill them?
  c) Or do you disagree that God’s punishment for murder is justly severe?

Which part of this do you exactly disagree with? This is EXACTLY what I have said. So how can you possibly disagree with it if you are in your right mind?

Sensationalism doesn't add anything....and only detracts. Just because I support the prophetic stance on passing laws to limit alcohol consumption....doesn't mean I'm going to go on a shooting rampage at the liquor store. Quite odd that you would carry it to that extreme and for what purpose...

Your argument is with the prophets....as I'm just sticking with their words on alcohol. Post something contrary (prophetic discourse) and we can discuss that.

Also we are discussing law. Whether its a law on alcohol or speeding or driving drunk....the right to kill does enter the picture when the individual refuses to be obedient to the law (if they resist the law as you put it). There is a spectrum of response just like there is a spectrum of resistance. If the resistance is carried far enough...so goes the enforcement....from a verbal reprimand to fines and slaps on the hand at one end of the spectrum all the way to lethal force on the other. You mentioned getting killed by police...yeah that's the likely outcome when a person carries things to the extreme position.

Law has no teeth without enforcement. God enforces His laws. We have the right to do likewise. Where we must be extremely careful is in establishing laws in accordance with God's laws (if we want lasting peace, prosperity, liberty, etc). And we are entitled to enforce those laws....to whatever extent is needed.

[LoveIsTruth]

Sensationalism doesn't add anything....and only detracts. Just because I support the prophetic stance on passing laws to limit alcohol consumption....doesn't mean I'm going to go on a shooting rampage at the liquor store. Quite odd that you would carry it to that extreme and for what purpose...

If you feel justified in promoting such a law, you should also feel justified picking up a gun yourself and enforcing it at your nearest liquor store. IF you do not feel such moral right, you have no moral right to promote such law.


If you do not feel justified in using such LETHAL force yourself, how can you delegate it to the government? The government can rightly do no more than what you, PERSONALLY, have a right to do, as far as private property is concerned.

Your argument is with the prophets....as I'm just sticking with their words on alcohol. Post something contrary (prophetic discourse) and we can discuss that.

Also do not confuse the prophets advocating such laws in the past, to advocating it today. Not everything that prophets said in the past applies today.


Secondly, IF the prophet said TODAY it was the will of the Lord that we should promote such laws, I would support them too. However, RIGHT NOW it is not the case, neither do I NOW feel PERSONALLY justified in using such LETHAL force, and until I do, I cannot in good conscience promote such laws, because by promoting them I am authorizing the use of LETHAL violence, where I do not feel justified in doing it myself. I cannot delegate an authority I do not have. That is basic logic.

So, until I PERSONALLY, feel justified in administering such LETHAL VIOLENCE in the case, I will not authorize the government to do the same.

DO YOU feel morally JUSTIFIED in picking up a gun, marching to a liquor store and FORCING people to get rid of their alcohol? Answer this!

If the answer is NO, you have no moral right to ask your government to do it in your behalf. If the answer is Yes, then you can ask the government to do it for you.

It is that simple.

[Jason]

Sensationalism doesn't add anything....and only detracts. Just because I support the prophetic stance on passing laws to limit alcohol consumption....doesn't mean I'm going to go on a shooting rampage at the liquor store. Quite odd that you would carry it to that extreme and for what purpose...

If you feel justified in promoting such a law, you should also feel justified picking up a gun yourself and enforcing it at your nearest liquor store. IF you do not feel such moral right, you have no moral right to promote such law.


If you do not feel justified in using such LETHAL force yourself, how can you delegate it to the government? The government can rightly do no more than what you, PERSONALLY, have a right to do, as far as private property is concerned.

If you feel so inclined...and along the same lines...does that mean that if you don't like/agree with any government law or the enforcement of any particular government law...that you now will arm yourself and attack the government? Instant terrorist/rebel/anarchist?

Your argument is with the prophets....as I'm just sticking with their words on alcohol. Post something contrary (prophetic discourse) and we can discuss that.

Also do not confuse the prophets advocating such laws in the past, to advocating it today. Not everything that prophets said in the past applies today.

Great....show me where it doesn't apply today...

Secondly, IF the prophet said TODAY it was the will of the Lord that we should promote such laws, I would support them too. However, RIGHT NOW it is not the case, neither do I NOW feel PERSONALLY justified in using such LETHAL force, and until I do, I cannot in good conscience promote such laws, because by promoting them I am authorizing the use of LETHAL violence, where I do not feel justified in doing it myself. I cannot delegate an authority I do not have. That is basic logic.

So, until I PERSONALLY, feel justified in administering such LETHAL VIOLENCE in the case, I will not authorize the government to do the same.

DO YOU feel morally JUSTIFIED in picking up a gun, marching to a liquor store and FORCING people to get rid of their alcohol? Answer this!

If the answer is NO, you have no moral right to ask your government to do it in your behalf. If the answer is Yes, then you can ask the government to do it for you.

It is that simple.

It isn't that simple...you can wish it to be so....but it simply isn't. Also the violation of such law doesn't involve lethal force....more like fines (as its not that serious of an offense). Then if they blow off those laws...and more laws....and continue down the course of law breaking (resistance to law and government as you put it)....it could eventually lead to lethal force. Also a key metric is how the individual chooses to resist.

fyi on prohibition (give ya a head start on your research about current recommendations on legal restriction of alcohol) -

From the time of prohibition the Church has opposed every law that made liquor easier for anyone to use at any age. The Church leaders opposed the repeal of prohibition, they have spoken against laws that would permit liquor by the drink, and they have discouraged action that would allow the sale of liquor to minors.

The logic of their arguments, which I fully support, is simple. The Lord has said that liquor is not good for man and that it is to be avoided.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

By the time Elder Heber J. Grant became Church President in 1918, America was in a reform crusade called Prohibition. One year earlier, in December 1917, the U.S. Congress had approved an amendment to the Constitution making the production and sale of alcohol illegal; the states ratified the amendment in January 1919. President Grant, a Word of Wisdom advocate, called Prohibition “the greatest financial and moral blessing that has ever come to humanity.” 10 But Prohibition failed to end the alcohol trade, driving it underground instead.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1999/09/the-c ... h?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the saddest days in all of Utah's history was when the people, including the Latter-day Saints (for it could not have been done without them), rejected the counsel and urging of the Lord's prophet, Heber J. Grant, and repealed Prohibition long years ago--yet many of those voters had sung numerous times, "We Thank Thee, O God, For A Prophet."

- The Teachings of Spencer. W. Kimball

I go back to the words of Jehoshaphat: “Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper.” (2 Chr. 20:20.)

There are many little things that test our willingness to accept the word of the prophets. Jesus said, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt. 23:37.)

So it has been through the history of mankind, and so it is today. In our own communities, even here in Utah, we have experienced some of this. President Grant carried to his grave a deep sense of sorrow that, contrary to his counsel, the people of Utah cast the final vote, in 1934, that repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

I am grateful to say that we had a different experience some years ago when we joined with other citizens in a campaign to control the distribution of liquor. There is no question in my mind that great benefits have come as a result of the overwhelming response to direction from our prophet.

- President Gordan B. Hinckley, "Believe His Prophets", General Conference April 1992

[LoveIsTruth]

If you feel so inclined...and along the same lines...does that mean that if you don't like/agree with any government law or the enforcement of any particular government law...that you now will arm yourself and attack the government? Instant terrorist/rebel/anarchist?

This is NOT “along the same lines!” This is the OPPOSITE of the same lines. It’s like me saying “a rock when dropped falls down,” and you coming back and saying “along the same lines, would you say it falls UP.” Are you insane? I advocate AGAINST violence, and you advocate FOR it. These are the OPPOSITES of each-other, just in case you missed it.

Also do not confuse the prophets advocating such laws in the past, to advocating it today. Not everything that prophets said in the past applies today.

Great....show me where it doesn't apply today...

Polygamy, animal sacrifices, the law of Moses, Brigham Young commanding to burn US army carriages that came into the valley, etc.

It isn't that simple...you can wish it to be so....but it simply isn't. Also the violation of such law doesn't involve lethal force....more like fines (as its not that serious of an offense). Then if they blow off those laws...and more laws....and continue down the course of law breaking (resistance to law and government as you put it)....it could eventually lead to lethal force. Also a key metric is how the individual chooses to resist.

But it starts with their drinking liquor. That means the government claims the right to KILL them if they resist it enough!

From the time of prohibition the Church has opposed every law that made liquor easier for anyone to use at any age. The Church leaders opposed the repeal of prohibition, they have spoken against laws that would permit liquor by the drink, and they have discouraged action that would allow the sale of liquor to minors.

The logic of their arguments, which I fully support, is simple. The Lord has said that liquor is not good for man and that it is to be avoided.

That logic is insufficient. With the same logic you can say “The Lord said that eating too much meat is not good for a man and that it is to be avoided; therefore lets threaten with lethal violence everyone who eats too much Kentucky chicken.”


Do you see the object absurdity of this line of reasoning? You could also say that the Lord said that Family Home Evening is good for a man, therefore, since he said that, lets threaten with lethal violence everyone who is not holding a Family Home Evening. This line of reasoning is so absurd that it quickly destroys itself! The same is for prayer, reading the scriptures, etc., would you point a gun at the head of everyone who chooses not to read scriptures too? Do you see the utter ridiculousness of this argument? You would certainly violate God’s laws if you attempted to do all of these things because he said “choose you this day whom you will serve.” Therefore, there had to be more than just “it is not good for man,” argument. There had to be a direct decree from the OWNER of the Earth saying NOW is the time to KILL everyone who drinks, if they persist in it.

I am not saying it is impossible that the Lord may require that, but I am saying that THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS when you pass a government law, and you have to be perfectly sure that that is what the Lord TRULY requires, because you have just sanctioned LETHAL VIOLENCE. That is my point. And the penalty for sanctioning lethal violence, where the Lord did not command it is severe indeed! In fact, hell is prepared for murderers unless they repent, and it is not easy for them to repent, especially if they were taught right from wrong.

[LoveIsTruth]

Lift Up Your Hearts
We're winning, and the establishment is terrified, says Eric Peters.

[Jason]

If you feel so inclined...and along the same lines...does that mean that if you don't like/agree with any government law or the enforcement of any particular government law...that you now will arm yourself and attack the government? Instant terrorist/rebel/anarchist?

This is NOT “along the same lines!” This is the OPPOSITE of the same lines. It’s like me saying “a rock when dropped falls down,” and you coming back and saying “along the same lines, would you say it falls UP.” Are you insane? I advocate AGAINST violence, and you advocate FOR it. These are the OPPOSITES of each-other, just in case you missed it.

Perhaps....but when you start getting carried away discussing resisting law and law enforcement....one starts to wonder. Of course its all in the definition and who's doing the defining.

Also do not confuse the prophets advocating such laws in the past, to advocating it today. Not everything that prophets said in the past applies today.

Great....show me where it doesn't apply today...

Polygamy, animal sacrifices, the law of Moses, Brigham Young commanding to burn US army carriages that came into the valley, etc.

Don't know what those have to do with prohibition which was the subject matter and context you left out.

It isn't that simple...you can wish it to be so....but it simply isn't. Also the violation of such law doesn't involve lethal force....more like fines (as its not that serious of an offense). Then if they blow off those laws...and more laws....and continue down the course of law breaking (resistance to law and government as you put it)....it could eventually lead to lethal force. Also a key metric is how the individual chooses to resist.

But it starts with their drinking liquor. That means the government claims the right to KILL them if they resist it enough!

No it starts with at least the majority passing a law....well the representative elected by at least the majority. Then if they resist that law and precedent/subsequent laws....to the extent that lethal force is required....then yes government (the people) does have the right to KILL them. You might check out and study (as well as ponder and pray) the history of government in the BoM....

From the time of prohibition the Church has opposed every law that made liquor easier for anyone to use at any age. The Church leaders opposed the repeal of prohibition, they have spoken against laws that would permit liquor by the drink, and they have discouraged action that would allow the sale of liquor to minors.

The logic of their arguments, which I fully support, is simple. The Lord has said that liquor is not good for man and that it is to be avoided.

That logic is insufficient. With the same logic you can say “The Lord said that eating too much meat is not good for a man and that it is to be avoided; therefore lets threaten with lethal violence everyone who eats too much Kentucky chicken.”


Do you see the object absurdity of this line of reasoning? You could also say that the Lord said that Family Home Evening is good for a man, therefore, since he said that, lets threaten with lethal violence everyone who is not holding a Family Home Evening. This line of reasoning is so absurd that it quickly destroys itself! The same is for prayer, reading the scriptures, etc., would you point a gun at the head of everyone who chooses not to read scriptures too? Do you see the utter ridiculousness of this argument? You would certainly violate God’s laws if you attempted to do all of these things because he said “choose you this day whom you will serve.” Therefore, there had to be more than just “it is not good for man,” argument. There had to be a direct decree from the OWNER of the Earth saying NOW is the time to KILL everyone who drinks, if they persist in it.

I am not saying it is impossible that the Lord may require that, but I am saying that THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS when you pass a government law, and you have to be perfectly sure that that is what the Lord TRULY requires, because you have just sanctioned LETHAL VIOLENCE. That is my point. And the penalty for sanctioning lethal violence, where the Lord did not command it is severe indeed! In fact, hell is prepared for murderers unless they repent, and it is not easy for them to repent, especially if they were taught right from wrong.

You'll have to take that up with church leadership....

From the time of prohibition the Church has opposed every law that made liquor easier for anyone to use at any age. The Church leaders opposed the repeal of prohibition, they have spoken against laws that would permit liquor by the drink, and they have discouraged action that would allow the sale of liquor to minors.

The logic of their arguments, which I fully support, is simple. The Lord has said that liquor is not good for man and that it is to be avoided.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;1974/07/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

[Benjamin_LK]

One of the important aspects regarding what the leaders of the Church do regarding the laws of the land is that they direct. That is, they give a recommendation, and explain the consequences depending on the outcome. Regarding Prohibition, the church leaders simply did more than not recommend it be repealed, they indicated the potential consequences of the repeal, such as bad health consequences.

[LoveIsTruth]

No it starts with at least the majority passing a law....well the representative elected by at least the majority. Then if they resist that law and precedent/subsequent laws....to the extent that lethal force is required....then yes government (the people) does have the right to KILL them. You might check out and study (as well as ponder and pray) the history of government in the BoM....

“Majority passing a law,” say you? Can majority pass a law to exterminate a minority? Will that be just? Majority has exactly ZERO authority to violate the property of even ONE individual. Why? Because NO ONE in the majority has that right INDIVIDUALLY; therefore neither does the whole group, whatever the size, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have. Learn that at least!


If it is wrong for ONE person to rob an individual, it is also wrong for many persons to rob him. Don’t you get it? Even if everyone of 300,000,000 Americans voted to rob you, they have NO moral right to do so. What does this mean? It means that Private Property is NOT subject to the vote of a majority. They have no more right to vote upon it than they have the right to vote 2+2 to be equal 5. Even if they did it, they would be wrong. Even if all 6 billion people on earth voted to declare 2+2=5, it would not make it true!

You'll have to take that up with church leadership....

Answer to gospel questions section in Ensign magazine is not the same as the word of the Lord. Learn at least that.


Secondly, I said that the Lord has a perfect right to decree laws upon his own property. But you better be absolutely sure that the Lord commanded it, just as you better be absolutely sure before you cut off a Laban’s head, because I say it again: ANY government law is ultimately a threat of LETHAL VIOLENCE, and NOTHING short of the word of the Lord, i.e. genuine self-defense justifies it.

That is my point. And it is a correct one. It is the eternal truth as it exists in God himself. If you do not believe it, take it up with God Himself. You will lose as God lives. Remember what I have told you. You will know that I am right. You might as well dethrone God as to overturn this truth! Try it. You WILL fail.

[LoveIsTruth]

The Criminal State vs. Liberty

"Through taxation, the state aggresses against the property of the individual, and through the variety of compulsory monopolies it enjoys, the state aggresses against the free exchange of goods and services in the area of which it claims control. Murray Rothbard writes that ‘the State, which subsists on taxation, is a vast criminal organization, far more formidable and successful than any “private” Mafia in history.’ He makes the obvious point that ‘it should be considered criminal…according to the common apprehension of mankind, which always considers theft to be a crime’. [4] "
...
" Libertarians differ from both contemporary liberals and conservatives in that they reject the use of force in all cases except where it’s necessary to resist or punish aggression. For libertarians, liberty operates as a fundamental principle across the whole range of human endeavour ..."
...
"When it comes to considering whether to recognize actions or behaviours as criminal, we must ask if they involve aggression against the person or properties of others. If not, whatever view one may entertain of their morality or desirability, they should not be the subject of legal prohibition. "
...
" If I can show that justice, law and order can be provided without a state, then the state begins to look like the Wizard of Oz, a small man with a megaphone pulling levers behind a curtain. Chapter three outlines an idea of liberty that is consistent with the moral character of human action..."
...

Read more: http://lewrockwell.com/orig10/casey-g4.1.1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Larken Rose: "My Sympathies"
See here.

That's why I ONLY vote for those who oppose ALL public taxation of private property.

Larken Rose: "The God of Taxation" on The Peter Mac Show


Taxation is extortion by definition. See: Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation. It is one of the deadly mistakes in the original Constitution that needs to be corrected if Liberty is to survive and prosper, (much like slavery was and had to be corrected).

[LoveIsTruth]

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable – SHARE this urgent declaration

Mike Adams
Natural News
Dec 27, 2012

There is a destructive, delusional meme spreading like a virus among many misguided Americans. It pushes the idea that government can pick and choose which rights codified in the Bill of Rights it wishes to recognize or discard on any given day.

This delusion is predicated on the concept that if a popular majority can be emotionally whipped into a frenzy over one particular right, then that right can simply be discarded and stricken from the Bill of Rights.

But no such power exists to discard any portion of the Bill of Rights, at least not without proper ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states. There is no such power found solely in the federal government. There is no such power placed solely in the executive branch, nor in Congress, nor in the White House.

The Bill of Rights describes a set of individual rights and liberties which are not granted by government, but recognized as DIVINE rights given to use by our Creator. Because government never granted the rights in the first place, it has no authority to take them away.

“The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to “create” rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.”– William J Brennan Jr.

The individual liberties described in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed, nor deleted, nor overridden by popular opinion… not even loudly screamed opinion. America is not a nation ruled by the tyranny of the mob. It isn’t even a democracy — it’s a republic, where certain inalienable rights describe the protection of each individual, even if that individual is the lone voice of sanity in a majority gone mad. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from the tyranny of mob rule — a phenomenon that routinely rears its head in any society where historical illiteracy is rampant and the masses are lulled into a state of complacency by charismatic but dishonest leaders.

It was the extended amendments attached to the Bill of Rights that outlawed slavery, guaranteeing individual freedom to those of African descent even in a time and place when the majority of voting citizens believed slavery was socially acceptable. And it was the Second Amendment that put firearms into the hands of those recently-freed slaves, ensuring that they could defend themselves against attackers of any color through the powerful expression of armed defense (aided by the laws of physics and certain materials from the table of elements, notably lead).

Another amendment beyond the Bill of Rights granted women equal voting rights in an age when the majority believed women should not be allowed to vote. It was the Bill of Rights that decriminalized prohibition, ending a dark era of mass criminalization of everyday citizens who suffered under the oppression of government law enforcement gone bad.

Yet today, incredibly, many African-Americans and women are actively assaulting the very document that first secured their own freedoms. They now wish to take their freedom and power and use it to enslave someone else by revoking other people’s rights under the Bill of Rights. This is the ultimate social betrayal, and it is a powerful demonstration of the principle that those who do not respect freedom for others do not deserve it for themselves.

The Second Amendment is not negotiable

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms — much like the Right of Free Speech — is not negotiable. Its protections are not subject to the whims of majority opinion, nor the screaming demands of hyperventilating media personalities. All the social media trolls and opinion writers in the world can comment all they want on the Second Amendment, yet the individual right to keep and bear arms remains immutable.

Just like the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is not negotiable. No Governor, Senator or President has any power whatsoever to banish the Second Amendment, and any who attempt to oppose it only brand themselves as criminal traitors to the United States of America. Any active effort to eradicate the Second Amendment outside of law — without going through the proper process of state ratification for Constitutional amendments — is, by definition, an act of sedition against the United States of America and its people.

Ironically, many who viciously attack the Second Amendment do so by invoking their free speech protections under the First Amendment. Yet they seem blind to the realization that the First Amendment itself is only made possible by the Second Amendment which balances power between the People and the government, ensuring that the individual right to bear arms serves as a check and balance against the monopoly of violence every government inherently seeks.

Disarmament of the populace is always the first step to depriving them of their civil rights and human rights. Without the right to bear arms, there is no right to free speech, no right to due process, no right to trial by jury and certainly no right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure. A government with a monopoly of force is a government that respects no boundaries and honors no limits.

Grasping this point requires competent thinking, which is why so many who now flourish in America on the popularity of pop culture idiocy fail to understand it. It is intellectually lazy to blame gun rights for violence, requiring no depth of thought or reason. Only someone of higher awareness and possessing the aptitude for multi-layered thinking can realize the critical importance of distributed firepower in stopping government violence against the People. As Ron Paul recently said, “Government security is just another kind of violence.”

Ron Paul gets it. He understands that an imbalance of power in the hands of government inevitably leads to mass violence waged against the People. Those who are currently screaming for the population to be disarmed do not realize that in seeking to prevent one kind of violence (school shootings), they are unleashing a far more disastrous and horrifying violence by allowing the government to monopolize physical power over the citizens. This is a mistake that has been repeated throughout history, often at the cost of tens of millions of destroyed lives. Click here to watch my short video documentary that lays out these facts in more detail.

The Second Amendment was put in place precisely for the purpose of making sure that future Americans would not fall for the same mistake yet again. That’s why it is the second highest amendment, right after the right of free speech, indicating its crucial priority in the enumeration of sacred rights that must be protected at all costs.
The Bill of Rights does not require your endorsement

The validity of the Bill of Rights does not require your endorsement. In fact, it encourages tolerance of those with whom you disagree.

If you do not believe in the freedom of speech for those with whom you disagree, then you do not believe in it at all (a derivation of a quote from Noam Chomsky). If you do not believe in freedom of speech, then you do not believe in the Bill of Rights. And if you do not believe in the Bill of Rights, then you are not, at heart, an American. You are something else, something less evolved. Something archaic and outmoded. The Bill of Rights is the single most important milestone in the history of civilized society because it lays out, with near perfection, the divine principle of INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties that come directly from the Creator rather than from a “King” — also known as a dictator.

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” – Theodore Roosevelt

Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights lifted human civilization out of the tar sands of tyranny and into the enlightenment of liberty. It was divinely inspired and stands eternal as the key milestone of human compassion, justice and equality. To oppose the Bill of Rights is to oppose human progress. That’s why the Bill of Rights is the single most progressive document that has ever been recognized by any nation.

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” – George Washington

Why the Bill of Rights extends through all time and innovation

Importantly, the rights described in the Bill of Rights extend through all time and cover all innovations and technological advances. It was not written to cover only those things that existed in 1791, but rather to serve as a template of liberty encompassing innovation, advancement and all future expressions of those rights, regardless of what devices or technologies may come into existence.

The Right to Free Speech, for example, does not merely protect speech written on scrolls or rolled out of a Gutenberg press. It covers all expressions of free speech, including speech expressed through devices that did not exist in the late 1700's: e-books, websites, blogs, television programs, bumper stickers and more. This very website, Natural News is a pure expression of the First Amendment. It would seem foolish and wrongheaded to argue that the First Amendment only applied to the printing press of the day and not to modern-day websites or e-books, yet that is exactly what many misguided people argue today when they say the Second Amendment only applies to “Muskets and bayonets.”

The Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear the firearms of your time. What are the firearms of our time? AR-15 rifles. 308 sniper rifles. 50 caliber Barretts. 12-gauge shotguns. Handguns with night sights and high-capacity magazines. Your right to own, carry, buy, sell and transfer these items is as solidly safeguarded as your right to free speech. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

Those who oppose the Bill of Rights are enemies of America

Some misguided, if not treasonous, U.S. Senators, lawmakers and public servants in the executive branch of government currently suffer under the dangerous misconception that the Bill of Rights only exists because they allow it to. They foolishly believe that they can selectively pick and choose which rights to nullify via new legislation or by the stroke of an executive pen. This delusion is not merely wrong-headed and arrogant, it poses a grave threat to the Republic and all its future generations.

Enemies of the Bill of Rights are enemies of America. Whether those enemies be found in the media, in Congress, in the Oval Office or on the streets of America, they are unworthy of being called “Americans” at all. Those who despise liberty do not deserve liberty. Those who deliberately and maliciously attack the Bill of Rights do not deserve the protections of the Bill of Rights. Those who despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are publicly indicating they would prefer to live as subjects, not Citizens.

I propose that any who attempt to denounce Bill of Rights protections for others must first surrender their own rights and freedoms. Do not speak of taking away my Second Amendment rights while you enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Surrender all your rights and freedoms first, because only then have you achieved the necessary moral consistency from which you can demand others be deprived of their rights.

Relocate to North Korea, in other words, and become a subject of Kim Jong-un and then continue your assaults of the Bill of Rights as a Korean gulag blogger. Because only then will you know how much you have lost, and how much you should have valued the liberties you so carelessly abandoned.

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. If you oppose it, you betray not only yourself, but all Americans.

Please SHARE this urgent declaration. You have permission to re-post, with proper attribution.
P.S. I will be hosting the Alex Jones Show this coming Friday, December 28th, during which I will discuss this topic in more detail. Tune in at www.Infowars.comhttp://www.infowars.com/

[LoveIsTruth]

"Gun Control" inevitably leads to Genocide!
This is proclaimed with a voice of thunder from the pages of History.

[LoveIsTruth]

The Anarcho-Capitalist Solution
Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the megalomaniacs called the State.

Obsessed by Megalomania
Interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe, [email protected]

Recently by Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Entrepreneurship With Fiat Property and Fiat Money



The following interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe first appeared in the German weekly Junge Freiheiton November 2, 2012, and was conducted by Moritz Schwarz. It has been translated here into English by Robert Groezinger.

Are taxes nothing but protection money? The state a kind of mafia? Democracy a fraud? Philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe is not only considered one of the most prominent pioneering intellectuals of the libertarian movement, but also perhaps the sharpest critic of the Western political system.

Professor Hoppe: In your essay collection ‘Der Wettbewerb der Gauner’ (‘The Competition of Crooks’) you write that ‘99 percent of citizens, asked if the state was necessary, would answer yes.’ Me too! Why am I wrong?

Hoppe: All of us, from childhood, have been moulded by state or state licensed institutions – preschools, schools, universities. So the result you quoted is not surprising. However, if I asked you whether you said yes to an institution having the last word in each conflict, even in those it is itself involved in, you would certainly say no – unless you hoped to be in charge of this institution yourself.

Er ... correct.

Hoppe: Of course, because you know that such an institution cannot only mediate in conflicts but also cause them, you can recognize that it can then resolve them to its own advantage. In the face of this I, for one, would live in fear of my life and property. However, it is precisely this, the ultimate power of judicial decision-making, that is the specific characteristic of the institution known as the state.

Correct, but on the other hand the state is based on a social contract, which provides the individual with protection and space for personal fulfilment, which without the state he would not have – in a struggle of all against all.

Hoppe: No, the state is anything but the result of a contract! No one with even just an ounce of common sense would agree to such a contract. I have a lot of contracts in my files, but nowhere is there one like this. The state is the result of aggressive force and subjugation. It has evolved without contractual foundation, just like a gang of protection racketeers. And concerning the struggle of all against all: that is a myth. Of course the racketeer protects his victims on "his" territory from other racketeers, but only so he can conduct his own racket more successfully. Moreover: It is states that are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people and immeasurable destruction in the 20th century alone. Compared to that, the victims of private crimes are almost negligible. And do you seriously believe that conflicts between the inhabitants of the tri-border region [of France, Germany and Switzerland] near Basle, who are living together in a condition of anarchy, are more numerous than conflicts between the inhabitants of Dortmund and Düsseldorf, who are citizens of one and the same state [Germany]? Not that I know of.

Why in your view is democracy just a "competition of crooks"?

Hoppe: All highly-developed forms of religion forbid the coveting of someone else’s property. This prohibition is the foundation of peaceful cooperation. In a democracy, on the other hand, anyone can covet anybody else’s property and act according to his desire – the only precondition being that he can gain access to the corridors of power. Thus, under democratic conditions, everybody becomes a potential threat. And during mass elections what tends to happen is that the members of society who attempt to access the corridors of power and rise to the highest positions are those who have no moral inhibitions about misappropriating other people’s property: habitual amoralists who are particularly talented in forging majorities out of a multitude of unbridled and mutually exclusive demands.

‘Politicians: lazy and spongers!’ Aren’t you afraid you might be reproached for complaining on the level of the ‘Bild’ tabloid newspaper?

Hoppe: So what? Up until the 20th century there was hardly an important political thinker who didn’t speak disparagingly about democracy. The keyword was: mob rule. The populist criticism of democracy, as can be found in Bild or at the water cooler, is all very well. But it is not fundamental enough, nor does it go far enough – to date Bild hasn’t asked me for an interview either. Of course politicians are spongers: they live off money extorted from other people with the threat of violence – which is called ‘taxation’. But unfortunately, politicians are not lazy. It would be nice if all they did was squander their booty. Instead they are obsessive megalomaniacal do-gooders, who in addition make life difficult for their victims with thousands of laws and regulations.

Democracy is only one possible variety of statehood. Would a different form of state be more acceptable to you?

Hoppe: In a monarchist state everyone knows who the ruler is and who the ruled are, and accordingly there is resistance against any attempt to increase state power. In a democratic state this distinction becomes blurred, and it becomes all the easier to expand state power.

Just a moment: that’s what courts, laws and the constitution are for, to limit and control the state – government as well as parliament.

Hoppe: The mafia also has "executive", "legislative" and "judicial" branches. Just go and watch the movie "The Godfather" again!

Another objection: What about the new internet-based detractors of the state, such as ‘Occupy’ or the ‘Pirates,’ who demand transparency and participation, without immediately condemning the state and democracy in their entirety?

Hoppe: The ‘Occupy’ movement consists of economic ignoramuses who fail to understand that the banks’ dirty tricks, which they rightly deplore, are possible only because there is a state-licensed central bank that acts as a "lender of last resort," and that the current financial crisis therefore is not a crisis of capitalism but a crisis of statism. The ‘Pirates’, with their demand for an unconditional basic income, are well on the way to becoming another ‘free beer for all’ party. They have a single issue: criticism of ‘intellectual property rights’ (IP rights), which could make them very popular – and earn them the enmity in particular of the music, film and pharmaceutical industries. But even there they are clueless wimps. They just need to google Stephan Kinsella. Then they’d see that IP has nothing to do with property, but rather with state privileges. IP allows the inventor (I) or ‘first maker’ of a product – a text, picture, song or whatever – to forbid all other people to replicate this product, or to charge them license fees, even if the replicator (R) thereby uses his own property only (and does not take away any of I’s property). This way, I is elevated to the status of co-owner of R’s property. This shows: IP rights are not property but, on the contrary, are an attack on property and therefore completely illegitimate.

In ‘The Competition of Crooks’ you outline as an alternative the model of a ‘private law society’. How does it work?

Hoppe: The basic concept is simple. The idea of a monopolistic property protector and law keeper is self-contradictory. This monopolist, whether king or president, will always be an expropriating property protector and a law breaking law keeper – who will characterize his actions as being in ‘the public interest’. In order to guarantee the protection of property and safeguard the law there has to be free competition in the area of law as well. Other institutions apart from the state must be allowed to provide property and law protection services. The state then becomes a normal subject of private law, on an equal footing with all other people. It can’t raise taxes any more or unilaterally enact laws. Its employees will have to finance themselves just the same as everybody else does: by producing and offering something that freely engaging customers consider value for money.

Wouldn’t that quickly lead to a war between these ‘providers’?

Hoppe: War and aggression are costly. States go to war because they can, via taxes, pass on the cost to third parties who are not directly involved. By contrast, for voluntarily financed companies war is economic suicide. As a private law subject the state too will, like all other security providers, have to offer its customers contracts that can only be changed by mutual agreement, and which in particular regulate what is to be done in the case of a conflict between itself and its customers, or between itself and the customers of other, competing security providers. And for that there is only one solution acceptable to everyone: that in these sorts of conflicts not the state, but an independent third party decides – arbitrators and judges who in turn compete with each other, whose most important asset is their reputation as keepers of the law, and whose actions and judgments can be challenged and, if need be, revised, just as anyone else’s can be.

Who should be such a ‘third party’? And with what instruments of power should it assert the interests of an individual citizen against his contractual partner – the private state, which of course is much more powerful?

Hoppe: In local conflicts, in a village or a small town, these will very often be universally respected ‘natural aristocrats’. Or else arbitrating organisations and courts of appeal, which insurers and insured have contractually agreed on from the start. Whoever then does not abide by the judgments will not only be defaulting, he will become a pariah in the world of business. Nobody will want to have anything to do with him, and he will immediately lose all his customers. This is no utopian idea. This is already the usual practice in international – anarchical – business transactions today. And another question for you: How should the individual citizen assert his interests in the face of a monopolistic tax-state? It is much more powerful – and always has the last word!

Do you understand the continuing scepticism with regard to your proposition?

Hoppe: Of course, as most people have never heard of this idea, let alone thought about it seriously. I am only unsympathetic towards those who yell out at the top of their voices when they hear this idea and demand the condemnation of its representatives, without having the least knowledge of economics and political philosophy.



It is hardly likely that a majority of citizens will ever support such an unfamiliar model. But what parts of it at least could be adopted, in order to achieve at least partial improvements of our current system, without a complete abandonment of state and democracy?

Hoppe: There is an interim solution. It’s called secession and political decentralization. Small states must be libertarian, otherwise the productive people will desert them. Desirable therefore is a world made up of thousands of Liechtensteins, Singapores and Hong Kongs. In contrast, a European central government – and even more so a world government – with a ‘harmonized’ tax and regulation policy, is the gravest threat to freedom.

For that too you will probably not find a majority. Therefore how will state and democracy develop in future? Where will we finally end up?

Hoppe: The Western ‘welfare state model’, ‘socialism light,’ will collapse just like ‘classical’ socialism – of course, I can’t say whether in five, ten or 15 years. The key words are: state bankruptcy, hyperinflation, currency reform and violent distribution battles. Then it will either come to a call for a ‘strong man’ or – hopefully – a massive secession movement.
December 29, 2012

Hans-Hermann Hoppe [send him mail [email protected]] is distinguished fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and founder and president of the Property and Freedom Society. His books include Democracy: The God That Failed and The Myth of National Defense. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.


The Best of Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[LoveIsTruth]

Wow! Greatest pro-gun explanations EVER!

Part 1


Part 2

[LoveIsTruth]

[LoveIsTruth]

Guns: Say What You Mean
Brilliant!

Watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Eatt6Sg ... 3gekWs8aEQ

[Book of Ruth]

I found this series put out by the Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official- ... us-freedom" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a six part series just started on Jan 3rd, it speaks about regilious freedom, however................it speaks about all of our other freedoms as well.

How I found this link was by reading Elder L Tom Perry's recent address on Freedom where he said, "“We live in a Christian nation, and this season of the year has most of us turning to the New Testament to read the real story of the mortal mission of our Lord and Savior,” he said. “It is the season to celebrate His birth.”

I'm thinking that he made a direct slam on the POTUS!! Cool!

The fact that a whole freedom series is being put together by the Church and speaking out against curtailing of freedom is awesome, and a little scary as well, since it means we're getting pretty serious about defending freedom.

[LoveIsTruth]

Awesome. Thanks Ruth.

[LoveIsTruth]

School Is Bad for Children

[LoveIsTruth]

War on Drugs: The Solution is Decriminalization

[LoveIsTruth]

Secession Part 1 of 3:
CONSENT of the Governed.



Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiaQvkY6eRY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvlx3kfxFtc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; << Awesome!

[LoveIsTruth]

Illusion of Choice By George Carlin, Ron Paul, and Judge Napolitano



http://www.successcouncil.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

The Correct Principles of Liberty
And The Errors of the US Constitution.


The Constitution of the United States is a largely inspired document, which unfortunately had certain key errors in it, which important errors, if are not corrected, will inevitably lead to the destruction of the Constitution, Liberty, and ultimately of the society itself.

The main error of the US Constitution is violation of both Justice and Liberty by violation of Private Property via twin abominations of public taxation and public regulation of Private Property. This stems from misunderstanding of what government is, and what its proper role ought to be, which, in turn, stems from the lack of understanding of what Property is.

Understanding of Property is the KEY, which answers what proper role of government is, as well as defines both Justice and Liberty, without which no society can hope to either survive or prosper.

So let’s first look at what property is.

The most fundamental type of Property is Private Property.

What is Private Property?

Private Property is defined as something that you own, that belongs to you and none else, so that:

• a) you do not need to ask anyone’s permission to use it, but
  b) others must obtain your voluntary consent to use, because it is yours, and
  c) you can do with it whatever you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.

That is what Private Property is.

How does one become an owner of a property? A just owner of a property is either:

• i) the first user of it, or
  ii) the recipient of it via voluntary gift bequest or sale.

Now, according to these definitions, private property is more than just land or real state, etc. Your Private Property, among other things, includes: you, your body, your mind, your ability to make choices, your ability to move, to speak, to act, the fruits of your labor, your natural, unalienable rights, etc.

It is actually the case, that all rights and virtues derive from the concept of Private Property. In fact, they all, are entirely meaningless without it.

Let’s look at Liberty and Justice, for example. What are they?

They are nothing more or less than attributes of Private Property.

What is justice but Non-Aggression of Private Property, with the implied right to use equal force necessary to offset an aggression against, and repair damages to, private property caused by another? And what is Liberty if not the right to do with your own property whatever you please as long as you do not violate the property of another? Both Justice and Liberty, therefore, are attributes of Private Property and have exactly ZERO meaning without it. This is why I say that Justice and Liberty are two sides of the same coin, which coin is Private Property; in other words, Justice and Liberty are one and the same as Private Property. You cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other. They are the same thing.

Interestingly, God subscribes to exactly the same principles. The right of Private Property is summarized in these two great commandments:

Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.

Thus God reaffirms Life, and defines Liberty and Justice.

Incidentally, this is the very reason why the first plank of Luciferian/Illuminati/Communist manifesto is to abolish Private Property, because thus they abolish Justice, Liberty, and consequently Life itself.

The opposition here is clear as night and day!

All types of property are ultimately based on Private Property. The most prominent of these is public property. Public property is property to which all people have equal claim of ownership. Example would be a public road that was used for centuries by millions of people. All have equal claim of ownership upon it. Everyone has the right to travel on it as long as he is not violating the same right of others.

Now let’s return to the question of What is Government?

The principle of Government, as all other principles, unsurprisingly, is also derived from the principle of property.

What is government? It is nothing more than ownership, and ownership is nothing more than just control of property. You have the right to govern your property. Your neighbor has the right to govern his property. The proper extent of one’s government is no further than the extent of his property.

Now, let’s return to Public Representative Government. What is it? And what is the proper extent of its authority?

The answer is simple. Proper Public Representative Government is a group of people chosen by the majority of the population to represent them, to whom they delegated a part of their own authority. And that delegated authority is the only proper and just authority that such a government can ever have. Now, since no one can delegate an authority he does not have, and no individual, obviously, has the right to govern his neighbor’s property, therefore he cannot delegate such authority to the government; hence, the only proper authority of a Public Representative Government is to manage Public property according to justice, so as to represent and protect each person’s equal claim of ownership in the public property.

So, we will ask again, what is Public Representative Government? It is the government of public property. Nothing more, nothing less.

It has exactly ZERO moral or logical right to govern or violate the Private Property of ANY individual, because the government does not own Private Property of individuals, and NO ONE could have delegated such authority to it, because no one has the authority to govern the property of his neighbor, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. And proper representative government cannot justly have ANY authority, except that which has been DELEGATED to it by the individuals comprising it. This is a fundamental principle of Liberty, and a principle of Justice also.

This clearly shows, among other things, that public representative government has no logical, moral, or just right to claim an exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement or on operation of courts, because no one can delegate the authority to establish such a monopoly to it, because no one, individually, has such authority, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have. Therefore such a monopoly supported by aggressive violence of taxation of private property, would be unjust, and would violate private property, and thus would be nothing more than a mafia style protection racket: “We will rob you now, so no one may rob you later” deal, which is obviously a fraud. Actually, they cannot even rightly promise that. The track record of governments justice enforcement is dismal at best. It is inefficient, expensive (think of all the taxes you are forced to pay to support it), and above all, it is UNJUST.

As always, free market enterprise can deliver the service of justice enforcement much more efficiently in both price and quality, and infinitely more justly than an unjust by definition, government forced monopoly.

(As a side note, we will point out that anti-nuisance laws can still exist in a just society, because no one has the right to violate or pollute the property of another, be that property private or public. So, one cannot rightly build, say, a pig farm next to your house, and thus, without your consent, pollute your air with the smell or noise of pigs; neither has anyone the right to project offensive sounds or images upon your property, nor can they project that upon public property if the majority of the users of the public property find it offensive. So property rights, or in other words, non-aggression/non-violation principle, takes good care of anti-nuisance enforcement.)

All of the expenses of operating of Public Representative Government can only be justly derived from public property user fees and from voluntary contributions, and nothing else, provided that everyone is treated equally, and the property of no one is violated in the process.

Thus, we can see that public taxation of Private Property is wholly immoral, and UNJUST. It is nothing more than legalized plunder, i.e. the use of state sponsored aggressive violence, to confiscate/violate the Private Property of individuals against their will, which is the very definition of plunder and theft. The fact that a group is doing it does not make it any more moral or right than if a mugger on the street was doing it. Where does the government get this authority? Who delegated it to it? No one! Because no one has such authority! And you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

The idea that violent aggression, whether by individual or a group, can be used to violate Private Property is the root of all evil. In fact, it is the very definition of evil. Literally.

Thus, you can only justly tax the things you own and nothing else. The government or the public DO NOT OWN YOU, therefore they have absolutely no right to tax you or to violate your property.

The only thing the government can rightly tax, if the majority of the population chooses, is the PUBLIC PROPERTY, in the form of public property user fees, and nothing else, provided that such fees are:

• 1) approved by the majority of the people,
  2) are administered equally among all the users, since all have equal claim of ownership in public property, and
  3) the rights and the property of no individual is violated in the process.

Thus we see that Private Property is the Supreme Law of the land, and is not subject to the vote of the majority, if Liberty and Justice are to exist, and consequently, the society is to survive and prosper.

In light of this understanding, let’s look at US Constitution.

Though largely inspired, this document has the seeds of its own destruction firmly implanted in it.

The greatest error of the US Constitution is that it allows, and actually sanctions public taxation of private property. It is theft. It is legalized and institutionalized aggressive violence and plunder. It is immoral. It is evil by definition. (Evil is defined simply, as aggressive violence, or as violation of Private Property. These two definitions are equivalent.). It is UNJUST. It is an affront to the eternal principles of Liberty and to JUSTICE itself. It is an abomination, which together with slavery, copyright and patent laws, and other things, guaranteed that Liberty would eventually be destroyed in this land, and tyranny, like cancer, would inevitably spread, until the whole society is utterly destroyed, if this gross error is not vanquished.

---

Now, some would say, if the taxes were low, we wouldn't care so much, so instead of abolishing taxation lets work only on reducing it. The problem with this is the following: By allowing 1% tax of private property you concede 100% of the principle of liberty.

You concede that the government OWNS YOU 100%, but allows you to keep most of your stuff, for now. You concede that you are a slave. You concede plunder, robbery and theft. You concede evil. You forsake 100% of the principle of JUSTICE.

And once JUSTICE is forsaken, there is nothing preventing the gradual and inevitable growth of tyranny until a completely totalitarian state destroys the society itself. It is like being a little bit pregnant: once began, the tyranny will grow to its logical conclusion of complete destruction of liberty and of the society, unless INJUSTICE is rejected completely, and JUSTICE is embraced as the only true law.

Justice is an ALL or NOTHING proposition: life or death, liberty or slavery. If you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other also. You reap what you sow. Cause and effect.

It is also like this joke: "A man says to a woman, Will you sleep with me for 1 million dollars? She says, Yes. He says, Will you sleep with me for 20 dollars? She says, Who do you think I am?! He says, We already established WHO you are, now we are only arguing about the price."

The point is that once the principle is gone, there is nothing of substance preventing the gradual slide to a total tyranny. Once the principle of liberty is forsaken for the sake of convenience or laziness, tyranny will metastasize and inevitably grow, until total and complete destruction of all liberty, unless the correct principle is reestablished.

If you allow a little bit of rape, or a little bit of plunder, or a little bit of INJUSTICE, you allowed rape and plunder and INJUSTICE, and unless these are COMPLETELY rejected, any society that accepts these will unavoidably self-destruct. It is a simple statement of inevitable cause and effect.

Plunder, rape, aggressive violence and INJUSTICE, must be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY rejected if Liberty and the society is to survive and prosper.

Again it is, an ALL or NOTHING proposition. Either we will have JUSTICE, or not. There is no middle ground. But if you reject justice, you have chosen eventual and INEVITABLE self-destruction of the society. It is a mathematical certainty. It is as inescapable as truth. It is cause and effect. It is the way things REALLY are.

---

I have written five Constitutional amendments designed to fix the most egregious errors in the US Constitution. You can find them here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty.

[jonesde]

If all we had to worry about was copyright, patents, and moderate taxes (more like 10-20% instead of the 50% across all forms of tax for middle-class folks), life would be pretty darn sweet compared to the govt overreach we currently suffer from.

I heard a recent stat that on average businesses spend about 1/3 of their expenses on legal compliance of some sort or other. Those are business expenses that are not taxed, along with other deductible expenses. Sales taxes are based on revenue and income taxes based on profit, and different businesses have very different balances between revenue, expenses, and profit... but as far as expenses go this is a STAGGERING number!

Obviously some industries are forced to spend more than others, but this often includes equipment, personnel, software systems, etc and there are many laws that affect all businesses, and typically smaller ones disproportionately more than larger ones (especially employment related things, including income and payroll tax management and a huge variety of state and local labor laws). It's interesting that unemployment insurance, for example, is state mandated and not a benefit like health insurance... oh wait... I guess now under Obamacare they aren't so different.

[LoveIsTruth]

If all we had to worry about was copyright, patents, and moderate taxes (more like 10-20% instead of the 50% across all forms of tax for middle-class folks), life would be pretty darn sweet compared to the govt overreach we currently suffer from.

I added this section:

• Now, some would say, if the taxes were low, we wouldn't care so much, so instead of abolishing taxation lets work only on reducing it. The problem with this is the following: By allowing 1% tax of private property you concede 100% of the principle of liberty.
  
  You concede that the government OWNS YOU 100%, but allows you to keep most of your stuff, for now. You concede that you are a slave. You concede plunder, robbery and theft. You concede evil. You forsake 100% of the principle of JUSTICE.
  
  And once JUSTICE is forsaken, there is nothing preventing the gradual and inevitable growth of tyranny until a completely totalitarian state destroys the society itself. It is like being a little bit pregnant: once began, the tyranny will grow to its logical conclusion of complete destruction of liberty and of the society, unless INJUSTICE is rejected completely, and JUSTICE is embraced as the only true law.
  
  Justice is an ALL or NOTHING proposition: life or death, liberty or slavery. If you pick up one end of a stick, you pick up the other also. You reap what you sow. Cause and effect.
  
  It is also like this joke: "A man says to a woman, Will you sleep with me for 1 million dollars? She says, Yes. He says, Will you sleep with me for 20 dollars? She says, Who do you think I am?! He says, We already established WHO you are, now we are only arguing about the price."
  
  The point is that once the principle is gone, there is nothing of substance preventing the gradual slide to a total tyranny. Once the principle of liberty is forsaken for the sake of convenience or laziness, tyranny will metastasize and inevitably grow, until total and complete destruction of all liberty, unless the correct principle is reestablished.
  
  If you allow a little bit of rape, or a little bit of plunder, or a little bit of INJUSTICE, you allowed rape and plunder and INJUSTICE, and unless these are COMPLETELY rejected, any society that accepts these will unavoidably self-destruct. It is a simple statement of inevitable cause and effect.
  
  Plunder, rape, aggressive violence and INJUSTICE, must be COMPLETELY and TOTALLY rejected if Liberty and the society is to survive and prosper.
  
  Again it is, an ALL or NOTHING proposition. Either we will have JUSTICE, or not. There is no middle ground. But if you reject justice, you have chosen eventual and INEVITABLE self-destruction of the society. It is a mathematical certainty. It is as inescapable as truth. It is cause and effect. It is the way things REALLY are.