The penalty is always death

2 June 2008 by Mike Gogulski
Posted in mind control, police | 65 Comments »

One of the great triumphs of civilization touted by liberal-minded thinkers around the world these days is the abolition of the death penalty in most of the planet’s “more-civilized” countries, with some notable exceptions. Without question, it is an advancement that the State’s premeditated, long-calculated and coldly applied murder of helpless prisoners, separated mostly by gulfs of time, space and sometimes personal reform,  has come to be seen widely as an abomination which cannot be tolerated.

I would submit, though, that these thinkers celebrate too soon. The State’s ultimate penalty for real crime (initiations of force or fraud against people or their property) as well as all those non-crimes the State takes umbrage at is always death. This is the nature of the State; killing is the instrument by which it maintains itself.

To be sure, the State is mostly careful to not exercise the penalty too often. The system of compulsion and coercion, backed by the ultimate tool of death, is one which States have learned functions much better when the sword is cloaked in layers of misdirection and abstraction. The simple — and perhaps more honest — compulsion of the local tyrant demanding of his subjects, “Do it thus, or I shall kill you,” has been replaced with a long chain of escalation beginning with paper things like demands for compliance and citations, leading through more forceful papers such as summonses and warrants, but ultimately grounded upon the power of that barely-concealed blade.

If we accept the natural-rights view of self defense as given by libertarian theory, we can see that the penalty for every infraction is death.

Fail to pay your taxes? You will be killed.

Consume a proscribed substance? Death awaits you.

Neglect or ignore some trivial regulation? Murder is your fate.

“Oh come now,” they will cry, “the government doesn’t kill people for not paying their taxes!” In general this is true. In general people are compliant, whether out of worship or fear. But as situations escalate from non-compliance to the State’s demand for enforcement, be sure that the blade remains ready to plunge into the belly of the scofflaw.

I’m quite fond of hyperbolic examples. Let’s make one now.

Imagine that Bob is a fruit vendor. He sells apples, oranges and plums, and prices them by the piece. He advertises them at “12 for $3″ or “20 for $5″, or at whatever price he determines he can sell them profitably.

One day a policeman comes around to Bob’s stand and tells him about a new law. The State has adopted a new numbering system, duodecimal, which uses base-12 instead of base-10 decimal notation. The State has passed a law saying that all transactions, offers, sales, etc., must be denoted in duodecimal.

The policeman informs Bob that his signage is out of order. “12 for $3″ must be replaced by “10 for $3″, and “20 for $5″ must be replaced by “18 for $5″. Because Bob is in violation of the law, the policeman issues Bob a citation ordering him to comply and imposing a fine for breaking the law.

Bob naturally looks at this as ridiculous. Everyone he sells fruit to understands decimal notation, and to change it would only create confusion. Further, Bob knows that he’s committed no crime, no offense against the person or property of another. Bob refuses the citation and tells the policeman to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

A few days later, Bob receives a letter saying that the fine has been imposed on him by a judge, that he has 30 days to pay it, and that he must comply with the new duodecimal law. As before, Bob ignores this letter and this judge, harming and having harmed no person or thing.

Thirty days pass, sixty days, ninety. Bob keeps on selling his decimal-denominated fruit during the day and going home to enjoy time with his family in the evening. One day another letter arrives stating that the judge has issued an order which says that if Bob does not comply with the first letter within 5 days, he will be in criminal contempt of court and subject to arrest and a term of imprisonment. Bob is disturbed, of course, by this threat against his person, but ignores it as he might ignore the taunts of a bully on the street.

A week later, a group of armed men wearing clown suits appear at Bob’s door and say they are there to arrest Bob and take him before the judge. Bob tells them he won’t go, as he’s done nothing wrong, but the uniformed thugs are insistent. He closes the door in their faces. They break down the door and enter Bob’s home, guns drawn against Bob and his family.

Bob then, in fear of his life and the life of his family, perhaps draws a pistol and tells the clowns to go away. Perhaps he attempts to flee. The clowns shoot him dead.

In the aftermath, the killing is sanctified among the State’s organized criminals as justifiable, since Bob failed to comply with lawful demands, threatened police officers and resisted arrest. The State’s worshipers and pawns fall all over themselves to praise the brave uniformed thugs and denounce Bob as having “had it coming.”

The penalty is always death.

  1. 65 Responses to “The penalty is always death”

  2. By Aaron Kinney on 3 June 2008

    An excellent way to illustrate what is so obvious to us, yet not apparent to so many. Good work.

  3. By Kent McManigal on 8 June 2008

    This is something I have pointed out many times, only to be told (by supposed libertarians) that I am exaggerating.

  4. By Jeff Molby on 2 July 2008

    Kent, here is your response to those who say you’re exaggerating:,2933,362144,00.html

  5. By Jimi G on 9 July 2008

    Brilliant post. Agreed with every word. Thank you.

  6. By Romantic Violnce on 14 July 2008

    I’ve always said that a ‘warrant’ of any kind, is tantamount to a de facto death sentence.


  7. By perlhaqr on 17 July 2008

    You are saying what I am thinking.

  8. By duh on 8 August 2008

    that is a ridiculous leap in logic- the final penalty of death is for threatening to kill another- he’s not breaking one rule- he’s breaking a whole series of rules that escalate in penalty-

    Have we not heard of the concept of civil disobedience? If the only crime committed is the signage rule, the guy pays a fine. But this guy doesn’t want anything to do with any of the rules… He’s making it pretty clear he wants to not be a part of that society- essentially declaring war -each step along the way he is making a more extreme statement about society until the final straw when he points the gun at the police and basically tells society “it’s either you or me”

    I suppose a society with absolute anarchy would not contain such rules- but any system of rules is inherently going to be interelated and havegreater consequences for more harmful acts

    Also… You seem to completely ignore the concept that the ultimate result of every action we take as mortal beings is death….or maybe you’ve used your magicians logic to prove to yourself that this whole life thing is going to end different for you…

  9. By Mike Gogulski on 8 August 2008


    Okay, I appreciate what you’re saying. Many would agree with you. However, I submit that it’s a sad testament to the effectiveness of the conditioning you’ve undergone that somehow you’ve managed to lose the plot here.

    There is a declaration of war here, you are right. But it is not Bob’s declaration. It is the declaration of arbitrary, unjustified and immoral authority. Bob doesn’t escalate, he acts morally at every step.

    I will spell this argument out in greater detail at some point in the near future. I have to accept that you very likely may not “get it” then, either.

  10. By Kent McManigal on 8 August 2008

    Mike is right. In the “escalation” between Bob and the state, the state is the one in the wrong at each step. The state is the thief, the kidnapper, the aggressor at each step. For “duh” to say that the penalty of death is Bob’s fault is to accept that theft, kidnapping, or any other evil act are OK as long as it is an agent of the state committing the act. That is seriously twisted.

  11. By Angela Keaton on 8 August 2008

    Frickin’ A. Kent should have been the LP nominee.

  12. By Romantic Violence on 8 August 2008

    I love the way the ‘state’ perverts language to justify it existence..fines, bail, arrest, capital puniishment, patriotism, regime change, are all euphemisms that if the average citizen engage in such behavior as theft, extortion, kidnapping, conspiracy to committ anything, murder, ransom, and hatred, just name a few, would earn you lifetime vacation in one of the nation’s prisons..all of which is done in your namesake-to keep society safe. Safe? Safe from what. Moreover, these euphemisms apply 90% to offenses that are consensual in the first place or ‘unlicensed’-without permit to live documentation. If it harms none, then do as thy will. So who watches the watcher?


  13. By Kent McManigal on 8 August 2008

    Thanks Angela. I see that I am not cut out for the circus of compromise and equivocation that is “politics”. I’m not “pragmatic” enough. Besides, no one could ever seem to understand why an anarchist would be running for president. Seems obvious to me, but contradictory to others. I guess no one remembers the Trojan Horse.

  14. By Bill St. Clair on 11 August 2008

    Good explication of the “gun in the room” observation. Whenever the state is involved, in anything, there is always a gun in the room, held by the state’s minions, and pointed squarely at my head. “Obey or die!” is the state’s command.

  15. By Daniel Waite on 1 December 2008

    Beautiful. I *love* it. Do you understand? *LOVE* it.

    I will admit, when I read “duh”‘s comments I retraced my steps for a moment, and felt vulnerable; like I missed a crucial step in the logic. “Wait… what if I’m wrong?” was basically what went through my head.

    But the rebuttals came swiftly and without guilt. Thank you.

    Directly to Mike Gogulski, I like how you’ve highlighted your “essential posts”. It’s how I’ve been exploring your ideas.

  16. By gw on 3 December 2008

    I understand what you’re saying. Perhaps a better example exists, though. The law was absolute shit. Fruit vendor Bob ignored the law, understandably. He also pulled a weapon on a group of armed men.

  17. By Mike Gogulski on 5 December 2008

    @Daniel: Thanks much!

    @gw: Choose any example you like, the same logic applies. Yes, ultimately the conflict escalates until one man threatens to use deadly force against those who just smashed down his door and entered his home, armed, and threatening to kidnap him.

  18. By gw on 5 December 2008

    ehhh good point.

  19. By Ray on 11 December 2008

    The flaw in the logic is that it’s really true that the crime of threatening bodily harm to an agent of the state is punishable by death.

    It’s his choice to do that. But it’s a *different crime* than the violation of the ridiculous duodecimal law or the failure to pay the fine, and it has a different punishment.

    Calling that the punishment for the original infraction is, frankly, absurd.

    If you steal from someone’s house, set it on fire, and the result is that you kill them, you’ve committed (at least) 3 crimes. Different crimes with 3 different (though often concurrent) punishments. You might get a year in jail for the robbery. 5 years for the arson. And perhaps life in prison (or even the “real” death penalty) for the felony murder.

    And if you *additionally* resist arrest in a way that threatens bodily harm to the police that come to get you for it, you’ll get *yet another* punishment that, if you’re *really lucky* might end up just being another jail sentence.

    When it comes down to it, any society that enforces any rules at all, whether justified or ridiculous will always have that one last rule, with ultimately the same (potential) penalty.

    The only alternative is *pure* anarchy (as opposed to anti-statism), and even *that* has that same rule… there it just depends on who’s the strongest rather than who has official power.

  20. By JXL on 11 December 2008

    In opposition to the story presented and to all of “Duh’s” criticizers.

    Bob’s story, ignoring any exaggerations made for the sake of imagery, just highlights the author’s misunderstanding of the system of Law. Any being that feels cornered would attack what is oppressing them, but you need to holster those metaphorical guns and actually think. Whom has authority over you? Maybe your parents, to a degree, moreso when you’re younger but other than that:

    The -only ones with authority are the ones you give that authority to.-

  21. By Romantic Violence on 11 December 2008

    Re: JXL:

    I couldn’t agree more; I’ve always said and continue to say that authority is forcefully imposed. I never ‘authorized’ strangers to do anything for me or to me for the ‘good of society. Fuck society..90% of the time society doesn’t even know what is in their best interests that’s why society ‘authorizes’ strangers to make decisions for them..


  22. By Mike Gogulski on 12 December 2008

    Ray: I assert here that Bob commits no crime at all. None. All of the real crimes are committed by government agents against a man acting to defend his own life and liberty.

    JXL: I understand perfectly well what the system of “law” is: it is whatever our owners put into the law books.

  23. By Survival Acres on 12 December 2008

    Victimless crimes are always the manufacture of the State. And they always result in the ultimate death for the victims and their families, who are also punished as victims by the vengeance of the State.

    Suppose our fruit vendor did not resist his arrest when his house was forcefully invaded. Or suppose he was arrested while attending to his fruit stand.

    He is arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for his “crime”. This is physical and financial death for him and his family. He may not die right away, nor his family, but gradually they all will, having diminished life as a result.

    This happens due to severe financial issues directly associated with the “defense” of the victim by the crime of the State, future chances of bankruptcy, divorce, resulting problems with the kids at home and in school, deprived of their father, foreclosure, job losses and being forced to move (among many other things).

    All of this is the result of the multitude of crimes committed by the State, and punishing all who are related to the primary victim who’s only “crime” was simple disobedience to the demands of the State. But no real crime has occurred by the victim at any point, including any possible defense of his life.

    Defense in the courtroom or the living room is in fact, the same thing after all. One method is demonized as being “unethical” and immoral and wrong, while the other is just as bad, bleeding the victims into oblivion and financial ruin and ultimately death (prison) anyway.

    In truth, death results whether he resists his “punishment” (State vengeance) or not. By taking the non-compliance route for any human alive today, you are courting with your own death.

    Most humans are willing to accept the compromise (slow death) versus immediate death, deeming that this is somehow more worthy or something. But this position only lends credence to the State and furthers its crimes against victims by perpetuating the power of the State (because you permit the forcing of their “game”, which is your compliance to their system of rules and laws and courts and judges and lawyers).

    You are in effect, now complying — which is the exact opposite of the original position you took. By complying (now, by their force) you are enabling the very system that you once refused to submit to.

    So what do you do? Comply now or be forced to comply later? It is really a simple question with an answer that determines your entire life.

    More direct resistance would result in the State (agents) eventually refusing to enforce the “crimes” against other victims.

    The answer here to my mind is clear — resist by any and all means necessary and by so doing, you are making it easier for all to resist.

    You may not survive it, but you will not “survive” it anyway. Unless you think being someone’s bitch in prison is “life” or by being forced to go through their court system so you can beg for what was stolen from you (your life) and still suffer the State’s vengeance anyway (prison).

  24. By JXL on 14 December 2008

    Greetings Mike,
    You say “[the system of “law” is] whatever our owners put into the law books.

    You are almost correct by definition, and completely incorrect by intent.

    Why are you continuing to be their property? Do you use, benefit, or pay into any function requiring an SSN? Do you admit to being a “person” or “individual”? Do you EVER habitually present “Gov’t ID” to policy enforcement(police) at ANY time, for ANY reason? Gov’t ID meaning any ID with a picture of your face, A CAPITALIZED NAME, and a birthdate?

    There are so many ways that we have been conditioned to accept truth as self-evident, when the very source of remedy lies in the Law. Everytime you present ID to a cop, you are lawfully providing them with information that you have a contract with the government and you MUST, by your own consent, abide by your employer’s legal rules which they are required to enforce.

    Continued in my next reply is an analysis of your story. Remember, it’s just the application of understanding of the system, however much that might be. It cannot be assumed to be legal advice.

  25. By JXL on 14 December 2008

    cont. from above.

    You tell Ray that: “Bob commits no crime at all” but that is incorrect. First off, he’s presented with a citation from the clown-suited police officer. I am to assume that Bob knows his Common Law rights; and has verified this clowned man to be a real officer by asking for, and confirming his badge, ID, and business card. The clown cop says he’s violated the law and presents (HIS DUTY) a citation. Bob refuses the

    How come Bob didn’t clear up that the ‘person’, whose name was in all capital letters on the citation, was not him? All citations issued for act, statute, or bylaw violations will never be without a capitalized name. Bob, of the Fruitbasket family, is just an agent for BOB T FRUITBASKET. By declining to accept this offer and, more importantly, by failing to clarify the clown officer’s case of “mistaken identity” between Bob the human, and BOB THE PERSON; Bob has then agreed ‘by default’ that he is the party whose name is written in the aforementioned citation, when in actuality, he is merely the agent for the capitalized name.

    So, he has now dishonored the lawful presentment of a notice to appear in court of which he is now responsible for (by default). He receives a NOTICE, not letter, by mail 3 days later. A judge has issued a fine by a judgment of estoppel(default). He hasn’t been arrested and he has 30 days grace to pay the fine OR to present notice clarifying this situation of mistaken identity. Acts are merely rules given the force of law by members of that particular society. Common Law holds true that life, liberty, and enjoyment of property cannot be infringed upon, nothing more, nothing less. He does nothing during these 30 days to return a notice to clarify the misunderstanding through conversation.

    1) He has declined a court order after being mistakenly identified by the presenting officer as the capitalized name on the citation.
    2) He has failed to clear up the misconception. (because he cannot tell the difference between his name, and the name on the citation. Here’s a hint: it’s Capitalized)
    3) He has received notice from a judge with demands. He ignores it.

    (Notices require 30 days grace in which one presented with notice can then present a notice of their own to discuss any given situation. Bob ignores the notice allowing it to be actionable as the judge was the only party to offer any discussion.)

    Bob then continues to enjoy life for ninety days, a more than generous time to offer amends to a party whom has attempted discussion, has been dishonored, and has not received communication back. That judge then issues an order that “BOB T FRUITBASKET” has 5 days to pay, appear to dispute charges against him (dishonorably enter into conflict) by his employer, or he will be in criminal contempt. He ignores it again.

    Bob kinda sounds like an asshole by the rule of Law, uncivilized, and rude. He won’t even agree to the rules that the judge has determined, through lawful process, he is bound to. But he’s not an asshole. He’s a human being misinformed as he never learned beyond what his family, friends, or government has told him. Unaware of the mechanisms that keep him bound to Law.

  26. By JXL on 14 December 2008

    Now just imagine he didn’t know his Common Law rights and his fruit stand was licensed.. OUCH!

  27. By Mike Gogulski on 18 December 2008

    JXL: The law prompting the cop to confront Bob in the first place was unjustified and immoral. Everything that flows after that traces back to that unjust law, and ranges from harassment up to murder in the enforcement thereof. The moment anyone starts demanding enforcement of the duodecimal “law”, things like “honor” and “rights” have become meaningless.

    PS: Whether or not your NAME IS CAPITALIZED on any given document is irrelevant, though discussing the matter is a feature of an indigenous American self-delusion which appeals to the idea that “you” the physical person are not the same “you” the juridical person addressed by statute. File together with “the 16th Amendment was never ratified” and “since the American flag in the courtroom has a yellow fringe, it’s an admiralty court” and the idea that writing some reference to a UCC code section and “without prejudice” (or whatever) next to your signature changes anything when you sign a government document.

  28. By Cynical in CA on 19 December 2008

    “The only alternative is *pure* anarchy (as opposed to anti-statism), and even *that* has that same rule… there it just depends on who’s the strongest rather than who has official power.”

    Exactly. The widest dispersion of power possible — down to the individual level.

    Power is most dangerous when it is concentrated in the hands of the few. In tha hands of the many, power will generate peace. The entire history of humanity bears this out.

  29. By JXL on 22 December 2008

    I have a big write-up ready, and saved, but before I continue, are you claiming that ALL courts in the US proceed under Admiralty Law with no Common Law alternative? If so, can you provide any info that explicitly states such a claim?

  30. By Mike Gogulski on 22 December 2008

    JXL: No, I’m not making that claim. I am making the claim that people who make that claim are quite often stark raving mad.

  31. By JXL on 22 December 2008

    Ahh okay, well that’s good. Mike, there is some truth to both sides of the argument being that anarchy could be an answer but it is still a tumbling of the system down to the very foundation. The foundation of a great system that has allowed prosperity for many hundreds of thousands of people is still intact, albeit not easily understood at all from many decades of smokescreen. There will be many innocents who would die from such action, and I refuse to condone that through inaction.

    Our words are our power. The written notice is the Law we are judged by. Our written words carry intent and focus, understood by those who know the language while appearing confusing and inane to those who don’t.

    The real tragedy is the failure to distinguish between the language of “Law” and the language of “English”. I find proof of this as our words are acted upon moreso than our actions. All in an attempt to maintain civility.

    If someone says, “I’m gonna give that bastard a surprise tomorrow.” You might not really think twice about the intent of the action, provided he didn’t add the line “..and by surprise, I mean ‘bullet in the brain’.”

    Lawyers, judges, officers, politicos, all use this tactic of “By ‘this’, I mean ‘that'” all because it’s written and certified through representatives of the ones truly in power (The People). Yet, The People don’t even know the language to which they are bound. They are convinced that it takes a lawyer to discuss and understand these words. Yet these definitions are spelled out for you to read should you only learn the language.

    A good place to start on understanding this idea, and maybe worthy of an article by you would be the videos by Robert-Arthur Menard on google video or youtube. His presentations are aimed towards Canada but it has a specific aim at Common Law jurisdiction and being able to comprehend what it is that you “understand”. The information shared is gaining traction through practice in Canada, UK, Australia, and has plenty of US members as well.

    There are also writings on corporate personhood, as well as other advocates of such freeman activities such as Mary Croft. They make a clear distinction between acting under Maritime/Admiralty Law and Common Law.

    I recommend checking those out if you have misgivings and researching into whatever common laws apply to you, for your benefit.

    These regulations are meant ONLY to be in effect on Gov’t employees, and anyone who admits to being a person, or provides evidence of their person, must also have an SSN, hence, an employee.

    (Polic-e officer: Policy-enforcement officer) Policies only apply to persons or property.
    (Peace officer) Turned into Polic-e as they must investigate any breaches of contractual obligations.

    I believe sharing and exercising this knowledge will bring back the Peace officers and banish the Polic-e. Your power is still in your hands, but the day is approaching where it will be in your gun. I only hope people find their power with words before they give it away completely.

  32. By P.M.Lawrence on 23 December 2008

    Actually, because there is more than one way to kill a cat, it is not invariably the case that the state backs its demands up that way. It’s just that that is the approach that it currently finds convenient.

    Let me describe a few other things that have occurred in other times and places.

    Land Taxes developed from Quit Rents. Don’t want to pay them? Fine, the landlord can just revert to his alternative uses, e.g. driving his flocks and herds over fields, seizing any that were already being pastured and grazing his own where there were crops. It’s no skin off his nose if he gets the return one way or the other.

    British colonies often had Hut Taxes. What happened if the tax wasn’t paid? The authorities came and knocked the hut down. That didn’t leave the former occupants with a choice of paying or perishing of exposure, because they could always move in with someone else. Of course, they would wear out their welcome if they didn’t start helping out… Even so, the approach was changed to a Poll Tax as it became easier to police individuals and rather than keeping the tax take up by the slower methods of the case below (and the authorities were also aware of the sanitary problems of increased hut sharing).

    The Byzantine Kapnikon or Hearth Tax was similar but had more refinements that gave it an apparent slack for taxpayers (and it was only practical to introduce it as it was an improvement over an earlier Poll Tax – an English Hearth Tax without the refinements failed in the face of popular resentment when it was introduced). The tax was levied collectively on whole settlements, based on a notional number of people per hearth and a register of hearths updated in tax censuses or Cadastres every several years. Taxpayers who fled were actually dragged back by their neighbours, so they wouldn’t have to pay the difference (but it was no skin off the state’s nose if they didn’t – whole communities didn’t have enough opportunities to flee). Moving in with neighbours lowered the payments over the medium term (this was the apparent slack), but the state then raised the rates per hearth. This led to a Tragedy of the Commons mechanism and clawed back the slack, and also taxpayers got easier to tax as they got more concentrated. (Since the Ottomans continued the system where practical, e.g. in Albania, traditional lifestyles there meant people in Kosovo were still living in family compounds that were convenient to get at when the Serbs came looking for them. Ironically, Enver Hoxha’s modenisations had led to an end to this traditional practice in Albania proper.)

    And finally, when it proved difficult to levy taxes on the Anerican colonies more directly, Britain introduced the self-policing Stamp Acts. Various kinds of legal documents needed stamps to be valid. Nobody forced people making transactions to pay for stamps – but if they ever needed them in court, i.e. if they ever sought state aid in enforcing a title, they needed to have them already. The revolt wasn’t sparked by taxes, just by taxes that worked! But the rebels had already conceded the principle of taxation by accepting earlier taxes that they could ignore, so they were driven back onto a specious claim that it was only taxes without representation that were a problem (the same objection didn’t apply to that, since they could have argued that earlier population levels hadn’t justified representation if they were challenged on the point – but Britain didn’t make the challenge, probably because it would have conceded the principle of the new claim). So they produced a result for themselves that was worse than the one they revolted against, both in principle and in practice.

  33. By stephen on 8 May 2009

    Too often people whine and bitch about living in the American system…yet do nothing about it. You, however, are in inspiration to those sick of America because you chose to renounce that which you wanted no part of.
    So thank you for renouncing your citizenship and leaving the United States of America. I, for one, have no qualms about being “submissive” to an “evil” government nor allowing them to “steal” from me so that it may benefit those who are not as well off as I. I am, however, pleased knowing that none of my money stolen by the government will ever go to benefit you in the least.

  34. By Mike Gogulski on 9 May 2009

    @Stephen: You’re quite welcome, and, hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

    One question, though: when the tax bills come due, do you kick in a bit extra each time, you know, to help others?

  35. By Kent McManigal on 9 May 2009

    People like Stephen are so funny when they engage in mental contortions in an attempt to deny the true nature of evil acts. He probably can’t even understand the difference between “The United States” and America. Thanks for making me smile.

  36. By Tony McGuire on 29 July 2009

    The Individual does not live by at the good will of society.

    “Bob” chose not to participate in the state. That is his absolute right.

  37. By magiclife on 28 July 2010

    The crime is to make up shit laws like that, and the state(s) do it all the time. And no matter how silly the law is, they enforce them. “They” being the minions. In this case I think Bob would probably just get fined multiple times, not pay it, not be able to get his vehicle inspected because of database cross-referencing (so much for the internet being a tool of freedom), go bankrupt, lose his business, his family, his sanity (according to popular sanity norms) and either kill himself or take off into the wilderness (which actually can’t be found any longer). So he’d have to become one of those registered homeless people who gets your tax money.

    Regardless, the state is wrong and always has been wrong. I mean hell, in my “home” town, you are not allowed to pay a parking ticket in person while wearing cologne or perfume. And it has to be a money order, no checks.

  38. By oby on 18 August 2010

    this site and the points of many cannabis smokers are very similar. a guy smokes some reefer his nabor calls the cops he get arrested gos through the same shit that bob went through and in the end he has done no harm to any one. but the state now has him in prison and a shit ton of fines.

  39. By Ronin on 14 November 2010

    Can’t we all just play nice and get along like in kindergarten? The answer is NO! The bullys have always ruled the schoolyard, and now they are government goons who lord it over the people who just want to live in privacy and peace. So, get out of the schoolyard! Go for a walkabout.

  40. By LokeRundt on 4 June 2011

    So what do you say then about States like Norway, where the police are not allowed to kill you (they do not carry firearms and are trained to disable/subdue without injury), prison terms are short (22 years is the maximum term you can serve), and the State enrolls you in (and pays you for) job training, therapy, anger-management etc.

    What happens to the argument about taxes and all, when there is actually no gun in the room? (In fact, private citizens are allowed to posses firearms, and the police are not)

  41. By Mike Gogulski on 5 June 2011

    @Loke: I say: try it and see. Just because you can’t see the gun doesn’t mean it’s not there.

  42. By 1love on 10 October 2013

    Coming late to this party but wanted to say thanks for talking about this subject. People try to rationalize away the sword or gun buried under the pillows and sheets of rules and regulations and turn the victim into the aggressor.

    An example that might resonate more with a few more people is war. Say I am appalled at a war the govt has started and I believe it to be illegal, atrocious, and the murder of innocents. Should I be required to fund murder?

    A large portion of the govt’s budget is for “defense” therefore a large portion of my taxes are for defense (ignoring that taxes probably only pay interest on the debt at this point). What happens if I refuse to fund murder by refusing to pay taxes?

    The govt will get its money by force and the threat of violence. If I attempt to defend the innocent victims of by resisting paying taxes I may eventually end up with armed men breaking into my home to drag me to some rape room prison. If I am the breadwinner of my family and fear for their welfare when I am taken away and they are left abandoned and destitute and I resist at that point…

    We all know what will happen. I could very well be shot and the govt will say I am the bad guy. It’s ridiculous that people defend the state when it is obvious that they are the aggressors at every turn in this and your example.

    If people are not hurting anyone else, they should be left alone. If someone is so concerned about people not paying their share when they drive down a road or for any particular service, charge a fee at the road or for the service. Don’t force people to pay taxes for “roads, police, and emergency services” when that is a lie to cover up funding wars, entitlements, and corporate welfare.

    The solution is so simple yet people can’t imagine a world without compulsion. As if all men would be rapists without the threat of jail time.

    I know I am ranting at this point, but my final point for those worried the impoverished will not be able to pay for using roads and emergency services: charity will take care of them. Charities have done superior jobs to govt institutions in the past and will do so again. Why should people pay taxes when most of it goes to a bloated inefficient bureaucratic middle man and a small portion actually makes it to those in need? Give them the freedom to donate a much higher amount directly or nearly directly to the truly needy in their own communities.

  43. By Mike Gogulski on 10 October 2013

    @1love: Indeed. Something I like to use in response to people who say “but taxes are the price we pay for civilization” or other such rubbish is: “How do you know you’re not paying less than you ought to? If you think taxes bring us civilization and that the ‘civilization’ produced is a good thing, why don’t you regularly make excess deposits to the state’s treasury?” This is usually followed by a dumb silence.

  44. By 1love on 10 October 2013

    Ha, perfect! Those are the best types of questions — they force people to examine the soundness of their logic and the fairness of their judgments.

  45. By flarpy on 7 January 2014

    So what you’re saying is Bob is used to killing people on his property and because property rights are above civil rights that’s amazeballs. All this bla bla about police, but capital also needs tons of police to enforce capital. Capital needs the state, and it is in constant fight with labour over controlling the state. So that autistic farmers in Texas can murder anyone if their bicycle’s being stolen.

  1. 21 Trackback(s)

  2. 2 July 2008: …no third solution » Blog Archive » All Your Property Are Belong to Uncle Sam
  3. 9 July 2008: |
  4. 21 July 2008: » Blog Archive » What libertarianism isn’t
  5. 23 July 2008: Parsing the politicization of childbirth |
  6. 11 August 2008: Two--Four
  7. 13 August 2008: …no third solution » Blog Archive » Do We Have to Be Afraid of Being Shot
  8. 14 November 2008: » Failblog captures the essence of government
  9. 20 May 2009: WTF? Who will build our roads in a free market? « Gilligan’s Corner
  10. 29 June 2009: Liberty Camp question: Are you a criminal? |
  11. 12 August 2009: Against Me: An interesting observation « Gilligan’s Corner
  12. 15 October 2009: » Fish in a barrel 4
  13. 12 November 2009: » Get it straight: the military does not protect our lives or our freedoms
  14. 30 March 2010: reboot the republic » Using What You Pay For- Paying For What You Use
  15. 23 April 2010: State sanctioned killing - Club3G Forums
  16. 26 April 2010: Militant Libertarian » Authoritarianism attracts the worst of humanity
  17. 30 June 2010: Militant Libertarian » Who kills your freedom?
  18. 9 December 2010: » Yes, it is absolute, and no, it is not debatable
  19. 4 July 2012: Militant Libertarian » It’s OK to hate government. Really.
  20. 9 July 2013: Ken's Weblog» Blog Archive » What government is all about
  21. 16 September 2013: » The Penalty is Always Death Christopher Cantwell
  22. 24 January 2016: Why Good (Government) Police Cannot Exist – The Zeroth Position

    comments rss Comments RSS

Post a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Core Dogma