2 Examples Of Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Governmental Promises

Governments undoubtedly perform many useful functions, and in general the good that they do outweighs the bad. But this does not mean that their actions should never fall under scrutiny. Centralized power abides by its own logic, and has its own prerogatives; and while an enlightened ruler can work wonders when bringing noble aspirations to tangible reality, mediocre leaders can actively erode the principles of liberty, privacy, and public safety. I was reminded of this fact by reading some recent news stories.

Several days ago, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the NSA’s mass surveillance programs of its citizens, justified on the ever-shifting grounds of “national security,” are in fact illegal. The ruling arose out of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU against the NSA in the wake of disclosures by dissident Edward Snowden that Verizon was required to turn over to the NSA (on a daily basis) all of its domestic and international phone records.

The NSA had maintained that Section 215 of the Patriot Act allowed them to sweep up all of this “metadata” whenever it wanted to. The ACLU disagreed, taking the position that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution could not justify the NSA’s broad powers, which essentially amounted to the de facto creation of a vast database on every citizen, regardless whether they were suspects in any criminal activity.


FISA courts: a cruel joke

Readers may recall that the government’s rubber-stamp “FISA Court” (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) had permitted such data collection provided it was related to “authorized investigation” of suspected terrorist activity. This shadowy “court” (which is not really a court at all, in any meaningful sense of the world) had given carte blanche to the program since 2006. It had never denied any government requests for information. It had been renewed over forty times since 2006. The NSA’s position was basically that everything and anything might be relevant to a terrorist investigation, so it was justified in collecting everything and anything on everyone.

And there things stood until last week. The Second Circuit, however, was not persuaded by the government’s logic. It noted the obvious: if we were to accept the NSA’s position, we would be forced to conclude that the program had no collection limits at all. The collection program was patently illegal under the very section of the Patriot Act that had created it (Section 215).

Disappointingly, however, the court refused to order a halt to the NSA’s collection program. It felt that the matter was best handled by having Congress amend the Patriot Act so that such collections abuses would no longer be an issue. In other words, the court tossed the hot potato into the lap of Congress. The predictable result, of course, is that Congress will do nothing. The NSA will continue to collect whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with the useless warm bodies in Congress continuing to collect their salaries without doing anything.  They will mouth the right platitudes for the cameras, and then turn to their reelection campaigns.

Other examples of government abuses are not hard to find. I recently wrote about the worst small arm ever designed, the French Army’s “Chauchat” light machine gun. The weapon was manufactured without any real oversight by the French government in the years before and during the First World War.

As a result, factory owners pocketed fat profits from lucrative contracts while skimping on manufacturing quality and materials. The final product was a horror, which undoubtedly caused the deaths of many Frenchmen in combat. Postwar investigations into the matter went nowhere, as the parliamentarians charged with investigating it were the same ones who had initiated the calamitous program in the first place.


The Chauchat machine gun: a disaster that took the lives of many of its users

Power nurtures itself, and has its own logic. It can only be prevented from committing abuses by the skeptical vigilance of its citizenry. A further example (to add to the two noted above) of this principle can be seen in a recent news story coming from Brazil about the country’s so-called “rubber soldiers.” You may not have heard of the “rubber soldiers,” but the story is a compelling one.

It begins in 1942. With the United States in the midst of a massive rearmament program, there was a need for all types of strategic raw materials. One of these was rubber, which was used for a thousand military purposes. Synthetic rubber was still a laboratory aspiration; natural rubber from rubber trees was the only reliable source at that time. There were extensive rubber plantations in Southeast Asia, but these had fallen into the hands of the conquering Japanese. Only Brazil—the original home of the rubber tree, hevea brasiliensis–had the potential to meet the wartime demand.

So the American government struck an agreement with its counterpart in Brazil, whereby Washington would help finance a crash program to produce and export massive amounts of rubber. With promises of good pay and new opportunities, Brazil enlisted over 55,000 workers to go to the Amazon region and work on what they were told were rubber plantations. Using an enticing advertising campaign, the government promised to feed, transport, house, and medically care for the workers and their families.

But the promises turned out to be cruel deceptions. It took months to reach the malarial swamps of Amazonia, with workers having to pay for transport themselves. Once there, they quickly realized that there was no infrastructure to support them: no housing, no pay, no education for children, no organization, and no way of getting out. Subsistence was essentially at slavery levels.

Workers were reduced to shooting wild animals for food, and living in handmade huts of the most primitive quality. Tens of thousands died of neglect and disease; the bosses who controlled the labor made workers pay for everything, so that any wages they did receive were consumed by supplies they were required to buy themselves.


Brazil’s “rubber soldiers”: used and discarded

At the end of the war, government promises of bonuses for the survivors of the program came to nothing. Monies earmarked for the laborers found their way into the pockets of corrupt officials, and stayed there. After nearly seventy years, the Brazilian government finally acknowledged the sacrifices of its “rubber soldiers” and awarded the survivors (now in their eighties and nineties) a bonus. The amount was only US $7,800 for each survivor.

The cruelest irony of all? For all the work and suffering, the actual output of rubber was middling at best. Rubber production limply rose from 16,135 tons in 1940 to only 22,350 four years later. This was not all. In the event, the Americans turned out not to need Brazilian rubber. Making use of its chemical industry, the United States found ways during the war of producing synthetic rubber on such a scale that it became a net exporter of rubber by the end of 1945.

What we conclude from all this is that governmental promises must be viewed with skepticism until proven effective and reliable. Concentrated power must continually be monitored by an educated, informed citizenry, so that the shadow of authoritarianism does not darken the institutions of a free society. The only antidote to governmental abuses is enlightened, vigorous leadership. Unfortunately, this has now become one of the world’s rarest commodities.

In analyzing governmental promises and statements, the following rules of thumb are useful:

1. Don’t focus on what governments or politicians say. Look at what they do. Even the most odious despotism can call itself a democratic republic.

2. Pay more attention to capabilities, rather than intentions. The stated intentions of governments can change overnight; capabilities often take much longer. Our focus should therefore be on capabilities.

3. Pay attention to a government’s “track record.” It’s the best indicator of how it will behave in the future.

4. Receive information from a variety of sources. Don’t rely on your own media for all of your information. The media often operates as the propaganda arm of the government.

Power will always create abuses. This is unavoidable. As with any institution created by man, governments will produce corruption and abuses. But an awareness of how governments operate can enable us to make informed decisions that are based on fact, rather than aspirations.

Read More: 5 Reasons Why You Should Not Date Indian Girls

134 thoughts on “2 Examples Of Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Governmental Promises”

  1. “Power nurtures itself, and has its own logic. It can only be prevented from committing abuses by the skeptical vigilance of its citizenry”
    Quote of the week already.
    The more you understand about how the system actually works, the more depressing it is when you realize there is nothing you can do. Ignorance really is bliss.
    You are left to deal with reality – and be very skeptical – of anyone who makes promises with the usual buzzwords. Personally, I’ve realized Aaron Clarey is right.
    One might as well play the system like a fiddle, because the game – taxes, fines, fees, ect – is still going – whether you are actively participating it in or not.

    1. Honestly, the only way to bring down the system is to exploit its weaknesses. Leftism relies on collectivism to work. It assumes humans are altruistic, when that could not be any further from the truth. That’s why they try to employ shaming techniques, ad nauseum, to control your behavior. Every choice you make should be about you and only you.

      1. I would argue the opposite. Leftism paradoxically espouses Hobbesian views of human nature. That is, it believes humans need to be “taught” to behave properly through “education” and that laws should compel this “altruistic” (i.e. collectivist submission) behavior. Locke, a classical liberal, maintained that man was a “noble savage,” naturally cooperative but corrupted by government and society. Locke’s views, despite being the darling of liberalism today, are more closely aligned with Libertarianism. Modern liberalism, however, is nothing more than thinly veiled communism/totalitarianism that seeks ultimate control of all facets of public and private life.

  2. doktorjeep once posted a link to a very enlightening article about The (Not So) Dark Ages when the power in Europe was mostly decentralised.
    Decentralization Hidden in the Dark Ages
    Examples of decentralized society in history are often hidden. They are hidden because those in decentralized societies never bothered to keep records. They are also hidden for the purposes of the current state.
    How did people live absent a strong central power (Rome)? In what manners was governance achieved? How did such a society evolve over the centuries into the nation-states of Europe? From whose perspective were these ages “dark”?
    The king was not above the law, but equally subject to it. For law to be law, it must be both old and good. Each lord had a veto power over the king and over each other law (I will use the term “lord” for those landed free men. Even the serfs could not be denied their right without adjudication. Land was not held as a favor from the king; title was allodial. A man’s home truly was his castle.
    Feudal lords and kings did not typically fulfill the requirements of a state; they could only “tax” with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land every free man was as much a sovereign (ultimate decision maker) as the feudal king was on his.

    1. “oktorjeep once posted a link to a very enlightening article about The
      (Not So) Dark Ages when the power in Europe was mostly decentralised.”
      The population of city of Rome went from over a million (the size of London in the 19th century when London was the largest in the world) to a mere ten or twenty thousand. When Michelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel, Rome still only had a population of sixty thousand.
      That’s the level of collapse that happened in the West. The East, where the Roman empire didn’t collapse until 1453 (by which time, the civilization had passed over to Russia), is the part that should really interest people. Russia is the past, the present, and the future, for whatever future remains, until it dies destroying Mystery Babylon.

      1. I told my wife about this information on Rome, which frankly I did not know. She asked what happened to the people, if they all died or moved.
        I told her I didn’t know, but I assumed they mostly left to live somewhere else. I told her what do you think would happen to the population of Washington, D.C. if the government could no longer tax the nation and pay large numbers of people ridiculous amounts of money to hang around. They would be leaving by every form of transport.

  3. Women are stupid and naïve for readily trusting the government. It’s obvious why they weren’t allowed to vote forever.
    I don’t really respect anyone who wants more government to solve any of their problems.
    It’s clear the only thing stopping totalitarianism is white male voters. Women and minorities don’t seem to think big-picture very well.
    Women have no desire for true freedom. All these girls with college degrees aren’t starting businesses or taking risks males always have. Their ’empowerment’ is a complete waste of resources.
    I know a young woman pharmacist making 100k. Lower taxes aren’t even a voting issue for her, it doesn’t even cross her mind. Just more benefits to women. Government can control and rob women and women are too stupid to go against anything they are taught in academia.
    Even childless women use more healthcare than men, but Obamacare now forces men to pay the same higher insurance rates women do. What a crock of shit. Any man who fights for this country anymore is an idiot.

    1. Women need men to provide resources for them. When she is unable or unwilling to provide value to men in order to get those, she resorts to the gub’ment, which garnishes (mostly) male paychecks and transfers resources (i.e. money) to her. It’s basically a form of robbery. A few women are talented enough to earn themselves a living, but most rely on the government to force companies to hire them over more qualified men.

    2. I know a young woman pharmacist making 100k. Lower taxes aren’t even a voting issue for her, it doesn’t even cross her mind. Just more benefits to women.

      I’ll never forget the first time I heard this same exact thing from leftist women in my own family. They really believe that more taxes, even if they have to pay them, are a “good thing” for all of society.
      They completely refuse to accept the idea that “our government” could ever do anything bad to us.

      1. It’s no coincidence that women tend to be more sympathetic and nostalgic for Communist ideology.

        1. Women did well in communism because men had to figure out where the next meal was going to come from. There is no difference for women.. communism, capitalism..oh, communism gives them a better touchy feely… that’s the only difference.

        2. Same reason they couldn’t care less about economics. They don’t even notice if the number of homeless has doubled.
          But those poor cats in the backyard look so hungry!!!

        1. The problem is they don’t think they’re bad.
          For example, let’s say a leftist politician proposes doubling some tax on something to pay for “some good thing.”
          Many leftist women will cheerfully accept making that sacrifice for what they perceive as being “the common good.”

    3. If forced to choose freedom or “security”, women usually choose security. Whatever that means in their female minds. Women only choose freedom if it comes with minimal responsibilities. In that regard they are like children in adult bodies. Having that awareness can explain much of female behavior.

      1. And, in their minds, if “security” means turning every working person into the modern equivalent of a serf, then so be it.

    4. You should stop painting all non-whites which such a broad brush. You may be disappointed.

      1. He doesn’t mean it in a racist way, just basically disappointed how the vast majority of blacks seem to vote for larger government and programs.

        1. Their options are to obey the law and work or get free shit. Incentive, incentive, incentive. Blacks aren’t the only ones, but they seem to have a disproportionate amount of the freeloaders.

        2. Even so, one should still not paint non-whites with such a broad brush. Not all of us worship Obama’s feet.

        3. yeah… that’s where a third of my income goes. to these motherfuckers and their bastards… why the fuck am I working anymore?

    5. This is why I resist higher wage jobs. I don’t want to end up paying more taxes. I’ll take the 40 hour week and have the rest of my time for myself, not the 60 hours and no life and I get tax raped to pay for someone else.
      What are they going to do, force me to work longer? They’ll have to put me in a camp to do that.
      The camp will be a smoking black spot before I get there.

    6. Pls note: Ayn Rand was a women. Pls note 2: I’m not white
      However, apart from the above, I agree. Dating 2 right now, (1) russian who does not stop talking about $ and how she’s an independant women (parttime MBA for adults program basically a university cash grab program, works as a bookkeeper but calls herself a finance professional, has a Mercedes ML350 but calls it an AMG, travels extensively but only to nice postcard fb friendly photo resorts and call herself well travelled, and acts like she’s decendant of an oil oligarch or even Putin himself, yet openly states a man should pay for everything, make more $ than her, but yet has an unbreakable iron fist around her purse strings. Shes hot, and the only reason she’s dating me is cuz I’m sure no one else can stand more than 5mins around her ego. (2) Latina ex-mormon. Hot with strong values, very low carousal count (I can tell , started out bad in bed and she was married prior), talks about family, and shows good promise………however again proud strong independent women thing going, makes above average and proud of it, but all I see is shorty T-rex arms which can’t reach her purse when the bill comes around. On top of that, she makes demands on where we’re eating when she knows she ain’t paying ? wtf ? talk the talk on values but in the end, I feel only like a piece in ” her ” puzzle. In summary, in common among these 2 extremes are “CONSUMPTION”,in particular, their own consumption , and “AMBITION. When I bring up politics, their doctrine is driving by (1) whatever makes Russia (her) look good; (2) the laws should change so she can get more $ out of her ex husband. Nothing else matters…….oh I feel soooooooooo alone.

    7. “I know a young woman pharmacist making 100k.”
      Egads! Well at least she can buy her own boob implants, Michael Kors bags, and trips to Paris to post Eiffel Tower pics without have some mangina do it for her.
      Or not…

    8. It is mostly libertarian/conservative white males. Plenty of effeminate metrosexual libtard white males destroying things as well with their stupid voting patterns.

  4. All you need to know is that governments are incapable of giving freedom, because people are naturally free. Governments can only take freedoms away.

    1. Is the “social contract theory” even taught in civics anymore? The amount of people that believe government gives us rights is truly disturbing.

      1. The Lockean-Hobbesian social contract theory, which I personally reject in favor of the (correct) conquest theory of statism advocated by Thomas Paine, Franz Oppenheimer, and Murray Rothbard, postulates that the people form the government and surrender to it some of their rights that existed in the “state of nature.” Theoretically, the government is based on the people’s consent, and when the government violates the people’s rights again and again (“Long train of abuses,” anyone?), the people are within their rights to overthrow the government and set up a new government that would do better than the old one.
        Again, I reject this as an admirable attempt at understanding governemnt but an essentially bogus theory

        1. So why does the government need to violate people’s rights “again and again?” For example, the government doesn’t dismiss your first fifty murders before finally deciding to punish you.

        2. The government needs to violate peoples rights because it operates from the fundamental premise of coercion. It has a monopoly on violence and force. Taxes aren’t voluntary. A product of your labour gets stolen from you every day. It pays for women, retirees that ransacked the economy, and bankster bailouts among other things. Don’t like it? Fuck you! What are you gonna do about it? Big daddy government has bigger guns, sucka.
          Your example is flawed. Murder is a violation of natural law. Destruction of life is chaotic (evil). Whether your sovereignty resides within yourself or within a government, murder is still wrong.

        3. Murder isn’t a violation of “natural law” because there’s no such thing as “natural law.” Nature is the very definition of lawlessness. Nature is nothing more than massive genetic warfare. Animals kill and harm each other all the time as a way to gain control over resources. “Nature” rewards he who’s genes survive, not he who is moral and/or obeys “laws.”

        4. The idea of natural law is that humans are qualitatively different from other animals. Specifically, we are capable of building civilizations and advancing our own well-being through peaceful voluntary cooperation.

        5. We are not different because we are still very much animals. That’s why we have Law and Punishment in the first place, because without that extra incentive humans would resort to animal-kingdom-like behavior. Humans arrange ourselves in social groups and hierarchies just like the other apes. Human beings are not peaceful. Humans are the most ferocious animal on the planet.

        6. Agreed. Humans have higher faculties of reason. The universe prefers order over chaos. Some say it’s looking to reduce entropy (see physicist Thomas Campbell on Youtube). Natural selection/ evolution brought us to this point. It’s in our best interest to align ourselves with it. I could go off on a spiritual/ esoteric tangent but I will say “satanic” moral relativistic beliefs are the cause of a lot of needless suffering of good people.

        7. Human beings are among the only creatures on this planet that kill for the pure pleasure of it, even members of the same species. When it comes to the same species, we’re among the only one that will kill a fellow member “surrendering” in combat.
          We broke with “natural law” a long time ago. Better? Worse? You can decide.

        8. You mean the only ones that “can”.
          Breaking the law, natural or otherwise, does not mean that that law does not exist or cannot be followed. We do not live in a deterministic world. You have a choice. That said, based on natural law we can decide whether the action you have taken is unethical or not and how to deal with you.

        9. Some human beings are not peaceful. By biology we are animals but obviously we are the only animal with the capacity for abstract thought. If you think that law and punishment exist because otherwise we would be slaughtering each other, you are quite naive. If you disagree, please explain how we avoided wiping each other out before we established forms of law and order.

        10. While it has been observed that chimps murder each other, murder in the natural animal kingdom is practically non-existent. Indeed, a critique of the chimp murder observations was that they were being pushed off their land by humans and therefore man was altering the natural social makeup of groups, as additional males were forced into smaller tracts of land already occupied by other males. Sort of like how if you throw one ant hill onto another, they will fight each other, but otherwise ants are peaceful.

        11. There’s only one law in the natural world: I can and you can’t stop me. People who talk about natural freedom and other stupid shit should learn: if you can’t take it with strength or cunning (and get away with it), it’s not really yours.

        12. It is rare, but not THAT rare. Infanticide is common among chimps. Still, there is no “natural law,” although it is biologically harmful to be too murderous, as you’ll obviously wipe out your own species. Still, doesn’t change the fact that nature is nothing more than lawless biological warfare, and kindness is largely dependent on how much resources are available. If an animal doesn’t kill another it’s because it needs the animal for group protection or reproduction, etc.

        13. Ah yes, the long since refuted “might makes right” argument. Good example of how the State denies our rights.

        14. If you think that law and punishment exist because otherwise we would be slaughtering each other, you are quite naive.

          So according to you we can get rid of punishment because people will voluntarily follow laws, right? If we don’t need law and punishment, then why does it even exist?

          If you disagree, please explain how we avoided wiping each other out before we established forms of law and order.

          Um, I never said that without law the human race would go extinct, that’s a strawman argument. I wrote that law and punishment provides an incentive for people to not kill, because it does. If law and punishment disappeared I have no doubt there’d be huge spike in killings overnight. At that point the only thing preventing others from killing would be fear of dying during the assassination attempt, or retribution from the slain’s friends and family. Of course, if you have no motive to kill someone, then you probably won’t.

        15. You misunderstood the intent of my question. It follows from your argument, without law and punishment people would set about killing each other and thus humanity would never have advanced to civilisation. Obviously this did not happen. Therefore, your argument for law and punishment is invalid. Frankly, you undermine your argument when you speak of “fear” being what stops people from killing and this is in fact closer to the truth.
          We have law and “order” and thus punishment to control people. As an example, look at the number of victimless “crimes” on the books for which you can go away for a long time.

        16. No, you just don’t understand what my argument and are beating a strawman.
          1. We are animals.
          2. Emotions are animal instincts.
          3. Without law and order people will try to settle problems on their own. Their sense of justice has more to do with emotional satisfaction than a fair and rational assessment of the facts.
          Law and order does control people because the average person is a stupid, irrational ape that needs controlled.

        17. 1) Not really
          2) animals don’t have emotions
          3)again you misunderstand intent. Law and order is not about justice. It’s about socialists like you trying to control or kill people you don’t agree with.

        18. 1. Yes, really. What evidence do you have that humans are not animals? See Evolution by Natural Selection.
          2. How do you know animals don’t have emotions? Besides, that wasn’t what I stated. Human emotions are nothing more than instincts, hardwired programming in the brain.
          3. So Law and Order didn’t exist until Socialists? Socialists like me? Ad hominem. Are you really going to resort to personal attacks? Can’t put together a rational argument, I guess?

        19. 1) Sure biologically we are animals but the differences are so great that now we can consider humans completely apart from “other” animals. If this doesn’t convince you, please tell me about the various civilizations created by the “other animals” and their systems of law and order.
          2) Its long been established. Emotions are completely different to instincts. Even if I grant you that animals have emotions, their emotions are so basic and our so complex there really is no comparison.
          3) I like you ran away with this. Even better is the way you accuse me of making a personal attack and then make a personal attack. You need to review what an ad hominem attack is. You have it wrong.
          Regardless, my point still stands, your attempt to change the subject notwithstanding..

        20. 1) Being the smartest animal doesn’t change the fact that you are still an animal. Humans are born into a civilization that’s gradually developed over a long period of time. They are forced and conditioned to obey its laws. Take civilization away and people will go back to behaving as they once did in the jungle.
          2) It’s “been long established?” Could you be anymore vague? Any dog owner will tell you that their pets have unique personalities and do, in fact, exhibit emotions.
          3) Humans are still influenced by various ancient and obsolete instincts that manifest as irrational emotion. That’s why you have some people kill another for stepping on their new sneakers and making them feel disrespected. That kind of overreaction is irrational in the modern world, but harshly handling public disrespect may have been necessary 50,000 years ago. In the distant past, any signs of weakness may have been extremely dangerous. Obsolete hunter-gatherer instincts do sometimes override how modern people are taught to behave. That’s because people are still fundamentally animals, and living in a civilization does not change that.

        21. Just so you are aware, the Latin derivation of “government” in the image, above, is laughably incorrect.
          It is from the Latin “guberno,” which means “to steer, pilot, direct, direct, manage, conduct, drive, control or govern.”
          The “ment” on the end is a common Latin suffix, which makes a noun of a verb, the noun being a thing that either does the action of the verb, or embodies the action of the verb, or results from the action of the verb. We have the same suffix in many English nouns. So, for example, a “document” is something that presents information, from Latin “doceo,” meaning “teach, show, point out.” An “impediment” is from Latin “impedio,” meaning to hinder or obstruct. A “testament” is from Latin “testor,” meaning “to confirm, attest, or bear witness to a fact.” Government is simply “the thing that embodies the act of management/control/direction/guidance.”

        22. You haven’t been paying very close attention, if you don’t see that nature has definite laws and tends towards definite ends. Though there is a certain competition and conflict in the wake of the Fall, the obvious natural tendencies towards preserving and continuing life, are obvious. Even the laws of physics are ideally designed for us carbon-based life forms!

        23. It is the hallmark of a leftist to argue from exceptions. Most people kill reluctantly, even when they do so justly. Even in the midst of human sin and dysfunction, the natural tendency to pursue a good, even in a confused way – heck, even pleasure is a good, in and of itself – is always evident.

        24. Presumably the way humans “once behaved in the jungle,” resulted at some point in civilization. Food for thought.

      2. Glad you brought that up. Our silence is consent to the false ideology of moral relativism. Rights have roots in natural law and exist independent of any government. Mark Passio does a great job explaining this in his seminar, although it’s very long.

        1. Yep. Rights existed outside the State. They are from God and nature. The best Enlightenment theorists for that right. So did Locke and Jefferson and Rothbard

        2. I would also say rights do not exist. (Are we all nihilists then, who believe in nothing? haha)

        3. You would be wrong. We can derive the existence of various rights through logic. You cannot so the same to prove the existence of God.

        4. Some examples, when stating the existence of rights, would be helpful to illustrate which rights exist and how.

        5. Bullshit. There’s only one natural law: I can take it and you can’t stop me. The leader of a group may be the most cunning, the greatest warrior, et al., but his existence is he summation of one thing in natural law: I can and you can’t stop me.
          Kings ruled by “natural law” for how long? Not all were despotic tyrants, but many did rule through the fear of: I can, and you damn well better do what I say. The king’s land, king’s men, et al. Yes, many kings even took ownership of the tribes women depending on culture.
          Natural law has not one whit to do with freedom. Natural law is the basic: “I’m stronger, smarter, faster, better at killing than you are loser.” For every bullshit conservative or liberal “reason” you say “rights exist in nature” you ignore the basic truth: nature doesn’t give a fuck about freedom really. Nature doesn’t have some metaphysical connection to freedom. We built cities for a damn reason, and one was that as flawed as the city society was, it was better than the nomadic natural freedom.
          There’s one more natural “law”: you were born, thus you’re going to die. Seconds to decades after you were born, but you’ll still die.

        6. Property rights. Starting with your right to self ownership. This is a key right that the State denies us.

        7. Ah, well then we are simply disagreeing on the vocabulary. To me a right is something which is universal and cannot be denied, so the fact that a government “denys” someone a right is proof that it was never a right in the first place.
          As far as whether people SHOULD be entitled to self ownership and ownership of property? Absolutely. But in practice this is not the case.

        8. You can deny anything you like but does not make it untrue. You seem to view the Government as a godlike entity which issues commandments on what is true or untrue, right or wrong. Your view is flawed since government is merely a collection of flawed men. As such nothing these people say can be taken as proof of anything. Rights are derived from logic and are thus universal. This has nothing to do with what some band of men say.

        9. If there is no transcendent moral truth, there is no logical basis at all for a right. There is no logical basis for a transcendent moral truth, unless it is rooted in the will of a Being Who is Himself constitutive of the Good. That does not prove that there is a God; but, when the argument is fully exposited, it certainly does prove that there are no rights if there is no God.

        10. So much confusion on this topic, arises from people not understanding the sense of “Natural” in natural law. It does not mean “the cruel reality of how things often play out when our inherent passions collide.” It means the end towards which the truly natural elements are clearly oriented.
          So, for example, it is obvious that the laws of nature have provided genitals, sperm, eggs, a womb, etc., all of which are obviously oriented towards the natural end of procreation. Or nature has furnished us with an eye, which is clearly oriented towards the end of vision. Man’s natural capacity for cooperation, for preserving and improving his life, for making provision for future stability, etc., all indicate that man has natural instincts and desires that are oriented towards civilization, and that the natural end of civilization and government is to provide for eudaimonia (a state of stability in which man’s basic needs are met as well as possible, thus making it possible for other of man’s higher faculties to emerge and find expression).
          The fact that people have passions, confusions and failings which sometimes sabotage this successive chain of natural goods, does not somehow indicate that the natural law is equally ordered towards chaos and entropy. It is obvious to us all, in which system we feel that we flourish most, both individually and collectively, and in which we are most content. In my opinion, the only philosophy on Earth that makes adequate sense of this two-fold reality – of man’s natural ordering towards eudaimonia and the good, along with his self-sabotaging weakness – is the Gospel presented in its entirety in the Catholic Faith. This is so, because it avoids on the one hand the pantheism that dismisses the existence of sin and regards the self-sabotaging process as somehow equal to the natural good, and on the other hand avoids the nihilism that reduces everything to the “law of the jungle” in an affected attempt to dismiss the obvious fact of man’s higher ends and capacities.

      3. Saying that government gives us rights is perhaps incorrect, but a good government ought to enable our rights. For example, the right to hold property. Imagine that we live in a completely anarchistic state – no government at all. What’s to stop your neighbour deciding that your house would look a lot better with him living in it? So if he tries anything funny, you’ll just send him packing with a bullet in his backside, right? Now he goes and corrals his friends – “Hey, guys, grab your guns and help me conquer this guy’s house – there’s a share of the loot in it for you!” You think you can defend your property against a few dozen armed thugs with one lousy shotgun?

        1. Read “Market for Liberty” by Linda and Morris Tannehill, “For A new Liberty” by Murray Rothbard, “Chaos Theory” by Robert P. Murphy, “Machinery of Freedom” by David Friedman”
          These do a better job of defending libertarian anarchy than I can.
          Also, check Dan Sanchez, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Stephan Kinsella

        2. What’s stopping everyone in your community from packing heat?
          The type of world without government would rarely breed “criminals” anyway. Imagine a community where the government doesn’t steal from everyone. Imagine if you could provide goodwill by choice and not at gunpoint. Imagine the excess resources you’d have without paying tax, without inflationary currency, corruption etc. Of course we’d have voluntary central services but the free market would create efficiencies we don’t see today.
          Obviously there are problems that need to be ironed out, but humans will eventually need to break free from this subversion of free will. May as well start talking about it…

        3. “Hey, guys, grab your guns and help me conquer this guy’s house – there’s
          a share of the loot in it for you!” You think you can defend your
          property against a few dozen armed thugs with one lousy shotgun?”
          That is the very definition of government.
          An anarchist state is one where there is no group of thugs who are in control.
          Anarchy does NOT mean violence, chaos, and mayhem. It means that people are free from powerful, overlord governments.
          Govt propaganda twists the definition of anarchy to make us weak and scared. It’s just Stockholm Syndrome.
          Government brainwashes us to think that without them we would all robbed and killed
          instantly. Governments are the true mass murderers and robbers.
          Turn off the TV. Ignore the government “history” classes. Learn about the truly free and prosperous societies throughout history. You will learn that government was not the what made them free and prosperous…but that when government got larger, freedom and prosperity were lost.

        4. “Anarchy does NOT mean violence, chaos, and mayhem. It means that people are free from powerful, overlord governments.”
          Anarchy might not MEAN violence, chaos and mayhem, but I’d lay a significant amount of valuable commodities on anarchy LEADING to violence, chaos and mayhem. Most people would commit theft if they thought they could get away with it. If you really believe that people are inherently good and honest and, in the absence of government would all cooperate to build a better society and sit around a camp-fire singing kumbaya in their spare time, then I’ve got a great business idea for you.
          Start up a grocery store. You will be able to slash your prices much lower than those of your competitors – thus attracting a lot of customers – whilst maintaining industry-standard margins. How? Simple – don’t hire any cashiers, security guards or loss prevention teams. You’ll only need to hire shelf-stackers, cleaners, stock procurers, and a couple each of managers and accountants. You won’t need to fit any CCTV or burglar alarms. You won’t need to pay for any insurance beyond legally-mandated third party and employers’ liability. Your grocery store will instead operate on the honour system. There will be self-service tills (proper ones like cashiers would normally use, not the useless ones whose sole function is to announce that there is an unexpected item in the bagging area). You will plaster your store with posters informing your patrons, “Just because the chances of you being caught if you shoplift here are nil doesn’t mean that the stuff is free – we still expect you to leave payment in one of our self-service tills.”
          I’m sure that all the good folk you speak of will appreciate your efforts to keep your prices as low as possible so much that they will pay for every last item they take from your store – perhaps some will even leave a few pence as a tip!

        5. Long experience has taught us that people struggle to dominate and control. “Government” is the force that has the control. There will never be any such thing as a society without a government, however official or unofficial. A father in his own house, for example, is the government. The only thing to be determined, is whether the controlling power controls much or little, and whether it does so justly or unjustly, and whether it is capable of maintaining that control against competing groups who would like to attain greater dominance.

    2. I worked with a woman and she said that we are not “free” because we [Americans] don’t get free education and free healthcare. I can only asume that she meant that this “freedom” was supposed to be doled out by the government.
      Most people’s definitions of freedom and liberty are profoundly bastardized.

    3. You’re “naturally free” until the bigger dude kills or enslaves you. This can be a government, or it can just be the most brutal bastard on the block.
      There is no “natural freedom” in the jungle. There’s the have(s) and the have nots. Get used to that brutal fucking truth. Do yourself a favor, get used to the idea there’s always one person more brutal than you.

      1. The reason for civilization was that no matter how brutal and tough that one guy was, three or four guys could gang up on him and drag him down. So, civilization was nothing more than a lot of guys ganging up and saying they were in charge. They had to hammer out rules they could all support about how they would deal with each other, as their only securtity was in hanging together, or they would surely hang seperately. How they dealt with the under class was strictly what ever was expediant. If you mistreat the slaves too badly they will revolt and risk death rather than obediance. Reaching a balance took thousands of years and we may not have reached it yet.

    4. I disagree, slavry is the natural state of man. Man seeks to be enslaved. Only a spcial type of man truly desires freedom. A man who avoids corporate slavery, dodges marriage slavery and child enslavement and enslavement by his parents and other people trying to guilt trip you into doing their work.. Most men are all too happy to be a slave to a master at work and a second one in the house and usually to another corporate consumerist culture too. Slaves have it easy, they don’t make choices just follow instructions.

    1. Unfortunately the quote about Hitler is wrong.
      However, Hitler did write the following about firearms:
      “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police.” – 1942.

      1. There are so many falsely attributed quotes. Does anyone ever check these things? We need to invent some false quotes and feed them to our enemies.

      2. Good quote, and thanks for the correction. Sums up perfectly why the U.S ‘whores in suits’ wants gun control (which leads to gun confiscation) so badly.
        Anything short of a completely disarmed population like the U.K would be a huge threat to them.

  5. The government is actually irrelevant, they simply follow orders. The orders are sent down by the group who has the privilege of creating money, those who own or control banks. Which is why it is illegal for an outsider to go into the banking business, as those already in that business have a special privilege in law denied to the rest of the people.

  6. Don’t rely on Social Security income when you retire. It’s the only legal pyramid scheme in America.

    1. SS is unfunded for future generations. So are public sector union pensions in major american cities. Maybe they can securitize the debt and break it up into lots of little pieces, re-package it, and sell it to unknowing foreign investors?

      1. Equity or debt purchases are a one-time boost.
        A company only receives money when it sells new shares. Young people paying into the social security would be sent as payments to the foreign security holders looking for a return.
        So there still wouldn’t be money for them. You’d have to keep issuing new shares to capitalize and cover the liabilities.
        Basically a purchaser of a securitized social security liability would get a share of every American’s paycheck. that’d be horrible.

      2. Just like what the banks did with mortgages? Break it up to CDOs.
        Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    2. It is a Ponzi Scheme, and one that every American has been forced into by law. Like all Ponzi Schemes, the people who get in on the game late will be those who lose everything they’ve “invested.”

  7. #4) So important. Non-US based media is almost the only source I trust for US news. There is (usually) no agenda in reporting what goes on in the USA, so the foreign press is far, far more honest.
    As far as the illegal spying, while of course being opposed to it 100%, I did hear that the reason the courts didn’t order an immediate halt to spying on all Americans phone calls was that the law expires at the end of the month anyway, so they are already wrapping it up, and as slowly as government moves, an order to halt it would probably take 30 days or so anyway, which is longer than the time remaining before the law expires. We shall see, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they pass a new law legalizing more intrusive spying.
    Foreign sources I enjoy:
    Greg Palast (The Best Democracy Money Can Buy)–American guy who now writes for UK paper
    Glenn Greenwald — same
    Russia Today
    Indymedia (if they are still around?)
    Veterans Today
    Infowars(not truly foreign)
    Notice how it is a mix of what the mainstream would call “extreme liberal and extreme conservative” viewpoints–which means if you read them all you will get to a consensus of the truth.

    1. Glenn Greenwald is good.
      Even Al Jazeera, which is often bashed to death by right wingers, can be a good source at times. Heck even Salon can be too (when they’re not advocating SJW statism, of course).
      Some of my own favorites sources: Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, FFF.org, TheAmericanConservative.com, The Intercept (which Is Glenn greenwald’s new home)

  8. “Governments undoubtedly perform many useful functions, and in general the good that they do outweighs the bad.” – I wouldn’t even go that far.

    1. Yeah I read that and was trying to think of what government on earth meets this standard….
      If you stopped at the first part, I could agree with that.

    2. And the good that government does can and has been done better by ordinary people in the free market.
      This applies even to defense and security services. To roads. To healthcare and welfare. To economic prosperity. To charity. To brotherhood. To healthy communities. All of these are the domain of the “economic means,” of voluntary society.
      The State corrupts all these good things and has the gall to claim that it is the origin of these good things.
      It’s evil, really

      1. even to defense and security services. To roads

        There I have to disagree with you. Of all the things that governments can do, infrastructure, environment defense and the military are the only ones that really fall under the gov. and that the govt can really do better than private individuals. No private agent (unless you are talking of mega-corporations and even they think it over) would undertake the design, plan, build, provide maintenance and ensure compliance measures (standardized measurements, waterflow limits and a long etcetera) for massive infrastructure like aqueducts and sewer and waste disposal systems that enable millions of persons to live in a city without having periodic outbreaks of mortal diseases.
        Moreover, no private agent is interested in defense or armies, unless some other agent pays them for it or…it becomes a de facto government, ceasing to be a private agent. There is a reason private armies (aka mercenary armies under feudal lords) are either outclassed and outgunned by empires or they become an kingdom on their own right. Even civil defense (shelter construction for the civilians in case of catastrophe or nuclear war) cannot be left in the private sector, otherwise you get what you have in the U.S.: nothing unless you have millions to pay for your own shelter. If you are a commoner you are fucked in contrast to Switzerland or Russia.
        In the same vein, the Infrastructure and associated standards needed to ensure the continuous flow of goods and persons are better served by PPPs not by pure private initiatives since no private agent is interested in building roads for altruistic motives, or even long term reasonings (beyond 5 years or in the case of the modern west beyond 3 quarters). I say this as someone that desires that 90% of all public employees are sent packing and agrees with 90% of libertarian ideas.

        1. People are interested in building roads because they want to trade with each other.
          The Great Northern Railway was built in the 1800s and was privately funded. It stretched from Minnesota to Seattle, Washington.
          This proves that government is not needed for interstate highways. The railroads built by PPPs were bastions of corruptions that stole a lot of land and money from taxpayers and created an oligarchy.
          “since no private agent is interested in building roads for altruistic motives”
          No government agent wants roads for altruistic motives either! They want PPPs so they can profit from cronyism. A private road will have to serve the people or alternatives will be found. We have driver licenses not because govt want to protect us…we have them so they can control us.
          Roads are NOT instruments of altruism.
          “the continuous flow of goods and persons are better served by PPPs”
          Yeah like the United States Postal Service for example? They team up with private businesses.
          Have you ever driven on a government controlled highway system at rush hour with its archaic traffic control systems?
          Sewage systems are a local matter and appropriate management is established at a local level. There is no need for state-level and federal-level full time bureaucratic departments.
          Militias and a standing army are two different things. Militias form for a common defense of a common land. A professional army built on taxes and full time employees only gets more powerful and decreases liberty accordingly.
          Read “War is Racket” by United States Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler. (It’s online for free).

        2. I would agree that infrastructure / transportation, environmental protection, and the military are most effectively done by the government, with one caveat: A huge powerful military that has a maximum ability to kill and destroy is most effectively built by a government. An effective self defense or policing force is not.
          Militias or trained groups like the Swiss who have hidden tanks and rifles everywhere but no real organized traditional military system are far more effective at defense. And if you think about real threats or problems in your life, frankly, I’m far more concerned about a local group of street thugs than some stranger thousands of miles away who supposedly hates me (ironically, only knows about me because of the huge military that my government is provoking them with). So really a police or defense force is all I need my government to provide me.

    3. For every government action which is supposed to fix one problem, several other ones are created. It can only gets worse.

  9. I think any smart person would doubt the government promises. It’s always the same. Bunch of bullshit talk and empty promises but no follow ups.

    1. I think any smart person would doubt the government promises.

      Most people in the USA at least don’t fit that description, and therein lays the rub.

      1. lol you’re right… I think I was overestimating Americans and their ability to think logically.

  10. Hey! Truth does not lie. Truth is one of the best commenters on this website. I would imagine he would be pissed if he is reading this article.

  11. Just waiting for GhostOfJefferson to show up and tell me what to think about this article.

    1. Probably be waiting a long time since that’s not really what he does.

        1. Not really. He comes and gives his opinion like everyone else.
          If you feel the need to form your opinion solely on his post that’s more about you.

        2. Just posting my opinion. You seem awfully angry about people posting their opinions. Maybe a site with a feedback area isn’t for you.
          Anyways, you have fun being angry. So long.

        3. It’s an angry elf, heh. Internet stalker who has expressed violent gay fantasies about me already, he’s likely gay or transgender, and clearly has some rather concerning psychological issues. I’ve deemed him unworthy of further response, but wish to warn that he has now threatened to stalk people who up vote my comments. The “dude” is…touched in the head. His kind appear from time to time then fade into obscurity.
          There was some chick account here a year ago with a similar tone and word sentence structure, might be “her” for all I know.

    2. Look at the comment below. Libertarians are so stupid they can’t even understand when they are being insulted.

  12. the good that they do outweighs the bad
    I’m starting to disagree with that greatly. The federal government in the US is out of control. Way out of control.
    It doesn’t seem to be any better in Europe where country after country is led by people who are more than willing to surrender to an invading army without ever firing a shot.
    There’s a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson, which may not have been said by him, but is still a great quote:
    most bad government has grown out of too much government
    We are far beyond that point in the US.

    1. I didn’t meant to imply that the current government was my idea of “good.” I was only trying to say that it was better than total anarchy: that is, no government at all.

      1. “I didn’t meant to imply that the current government was my idea of ‘good.’ I was only trying to say that it was better than total anarchy:
        that is, no government at all.”
        Anarchy is only a temporary state. If the federal government fell (ex: Soviet Union), then the healthy regions of the country would be able to come back stronger than ever (Russia). What is amore likely to happen is, that the American federal government is never going to stop siding with the worst criminals (Ferguson, Baltimore), so as to create anarchy to justify the marital law and camps in which to murder tens of millions Americans (conservatives, Christians, etc.). Just a matter of time before several members of a black mob get killed assaulting a white CCW holder; and that will probably be the trigger for gun confiscation to protect the “youths” and “teens” from the consequences of their crimes:

        This video shows an interview of Larry Grathwohl who was an FBI agent assigned to investigate the Weather Underground. William Ayers is the founder of the Weather Underground. This man is speaking about William Ayers. It was in William Ayers’ livingroom that Barack Obama launched his political career.

        1. You mean red diaper baby Frank Marshall Davis Jr. Barack’s real daddy was a smut peddler, hate whitey communist. Communism appealed to him because he viewed it as a way to get da White man’s stuff n she-it. Gibs me dat!

  13. The only time you can trust government is when they say “Come out with your hands up.” That is the only time they don’t lie.

  14. I stopped caring about the government a long time ago. I’ve never voted and never intend to. I really don’t care who’s president, or senator, or governor. It really doesn’t affect me at all. Paying attention to politics is a waste of time. You just gotta accept and realize that there are people in power that will do and say whatever to stay in power. I just live my life and worry about myself.

    1. Really is the best way sometimes, the more I read the news the more I’m pissed off about shit that isn’t gonna change

    2. I look at it as the American Monarchy (although without all the positives of monarchy such as a long time horizon for leadership, candidates groomed from birth for leadership, a heritage of respect and sovereignty, etc.) where a mob gets to pick whether House Windsor or House Tudor rules for the next 4 years. My participation in that charade is utterly pointless.

      1. Politics can still be useful and interesting information though, I wouldn’t ignore politics outright.
        For example, the New Democratic Party (NDP) just got a majority in Alberta, Canada’s main source of oil, and the very same day this was announced the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) value plummeted.
        Investors were all like… “You want me to invest my money into an oil patch sitting on a socialist welfare province? Where the hell are we going to get workers? How are we going to make money? Do you people even understand how business works?”

        1. In Canada, and every other first world democracy I have visited, there are at least 3 real political parties. I believe Canada has Conservative, New Democratic, and Liberal. With 3 or more choices, there is an actual choice and perhaps a case could be made for democracy. I do not know as I have never experienced that.

        2. We’ll see man. In Canada Bill-C51 actually managed to pass. A “conservative” government that is happy to spy on its citizens, despite protests and backlash.
          Sounds like free-lite to me.

        3. Oh yes, just to clarify I didn’t mean to say that would lead to good government or freedom or anything. Only that perhaps in the case of having 3 or more candidates, democracy / voting is something worthwhile, because there is actually a choice presented to the voter. Whereas with 2 candidates, you have no real choice, and can only really say “yes/no”.
          Do you want to be shot with a gun? No? Ok the only other choice is stabbed with a knife, congrats!

  15. “The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”
    -Charles de Montesquieu
    Words uttered more than 200yrs ago that still ring true with every passing decade:
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.”
    -Thomas Jefferson
    I’d say we’re already there folks. If you trust anything further, you’re a little behind the times.

  16. This article is the essence of the red pill. It isn’t all about getting pussy. It is about the truth masculine truth

  17. That story about the French machine gun reminds me of the early M16, which the government said did not need to be chrome plated or issue cleaning kits. Even to this day the weapons system requires a lot of maintenance due to the gas mechanism, and in Vietnam it jammed very often because of the government’s oversight. No idea how many guys it winded up killing.
    Unfortunately, I’m just not sure that the public at large can be informed. I almost think that we need a sort of Platonic guardian class, which many in the manosphere are acting as of sorts.

  18. Governments undoubtedly perform many useful functions, and in general the good that they do outweighs the bad

    I am not aware of any good done by governments.

    1. At least not this regime. Everything they do is intended to cause harm. It is by far the most malevolent force on earth.

  19. A recent example of a woman’s dependence on government: This weekend I went hiking with a buddy and my dog. We stopped at a café by the path after our hike to grab a quick bite. I parked my car in the shade, cracked all the windows a couple of inches, put my dog inside, and went in to enjoy our meal.
    When I returned, a woman in a huge SUV was parked in the gravel lot next to me blabbing on the phone. As we walked up, she quickly ended the call and told me she was wondering whose dog it was and she had fed my dog some water. I smiled and said “Oh, thank you! That’s very kind”. I opened the door, got inside, and then she said “Yeah, you know your car is going to be in the sun pretty soon and I was worried about your dog so I called Animal Control and they have all your information”. I smiled again and said, “Thanks, we’re fine” and drove off.
    Another interaction where I literally cannot imagine a man behaving in the same manner. Her initial concern for an animal and feeding it water was admirable. Even her overreacting to a case where a car was parked in shade, with windows open so wide that water could be provided, and a vehicle so cool that upon my return I did not even run air conditioning, is understandable. It’s part of woman’s nature to worry and fret and assume the worst. So even calling animal control on a Saturday (lol as if they would respond to such a call in less than 12 hours) I can forgive her for. But the “telling me off” of how the authorities “Now have my information” as if I should be scared or intimidated in some way was beyond tolerable.
    I have had the city called on me before when I was doing work on my house, which caused me hours of bureaucratic nonsense. I know this had to be a woman who turned me in. They are always looking to punish others, where men are looking to help others, or at least nod and continue on their way unmolested. I am relatively free from a lot of government and feminist meddling by not having a wife or children, and can only imagine what that is like.

  20. What do you think the government in the US is ? Do you think that a guy named Barry runs things ? Nope, its the oligarchy that runs things in the US.Its a full fledged oligarchy and these oligarchs are not burocrats in a government office , they are financial oligarchs sitting in private “banks” that are more like mafia gambling casinos.
    Freedom can only be archived when you have a modern state with a government for the people, by the people and of the people.So what men have to do is take out the oligarchs and get back into power, get the government working for you not a deep state oligarchy.Any middle class is connected to the hip to a modern national state with a government.

  21. As a Federal worker for the last 30+ years, all I have to say is…..DUH! gub’mints lie.

  22. Our Founding Fathers are constantly being reaffirmed as the wisest men in history.
    I think we should stick with what they started.

  23. But as soon as something happens the mass majority will be crying for more government. Why did a white cop shoot a black kid? The answer more goverment. If they are your god, which they are to most people it’s bound to disappoint. What’s even funnier is the past weekend every one forked over 100$ to watch manny fight mayweather in what was titled the good against evil fight. And people betted wildly on manny but at the last minute the state of Nevada denied manny the shot in his arm over a clerical issue. A clerical issue why can they get away with that blatant sports rigging, and the only honest guy gets sued not mayweather he’s touted as a genuis for running and hiding for 6 years, nobody’s talking about Nevada but the one honest man gets hit with a 5 million $ lawsuit for lying. This is just the most recent thing I can think of.

  24. Sorry but the libertarian idealists are just as bad as the communist Utopians. Face facts, there will never be a world without some element of coercion as a main factor.
    You want things like some semblance of property rights / and laws than that has to be enforced by an entity like a government.This of course leads to a host of other issues, like women’s rights and parasites. But it’s the nature of the beast, don’t trust governments but at the same time don’t throw your life away chasing something that will never happen.

  25. If I could be so bold as to suggest a #5, it would be:
    5) Remember that the government is a servant; it does not exist to serve itself, neither does it exist to serve your desires, but rather, it exists to serve the authentic and natural ends of mankind within just limits. Any governmental promise that does not restrict itself to furthering the natural ends of man within its own, due scope, is misguided at best, or a usurpation at worst.

  26. Featured comment and the article is solid. There are also numerous examples of the US government pulling its own shenanigans. Giving citizens syphillus, other horrid things. All governments are evil.

  27. I am starting to see the benefits of a “Han Solo” lifestyle. Stay out of the mainstream and as far off the grid as possible. Live an outlaw life that gives you benefits the sheep don’t have, but don’t get so big as to draw the full attention of Leviathan.

Comments are closed.