Legalized Theft

I had a discussion the other day on the Patriot's Lament radio show on the word "theft." The discussion was about the city of Fairbanks upping the amount of forfeitures it needed to fill the gap in the city budget.
I claim that asset forfeiture is theft. A caller to the show said while I might think it is theft, the city council says it is not theft, as long as it is doing the stealing.
So if a city, State, or any legislature concludes that what it does is not theft, does that mean that it is not?
If I punch someone in the nose, can I claim that it is a nostril love tap?
If I murder someone, can I call it a long sleeping spell?
Can a body of individuals change the Law of Nature, to justify its perceived needs?
Is theft always theft?
If a starving person steals food from an open kitchen window, isn't it still theft? Whether the person who was stolen from wants to receive restitution from the thief is not the concern here. Whether the starving person really needed the food more than the owner of the food doesn't matter either.
It is still theft.
It's the question that is not really all that old: if a government steals, is it really theft? Is the State held above the Law, rather than to a higher standard of the Law?
I say it is not that old of a question because in the past, it was well known that even the King himself was not above the Law.
From William Blackstone:
"For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the...direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws."
 
And the Founding Fathers of America saw it quite simply, from Thomas Jefferson:

"Man has been subjected by his Creator to the moral law, of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him .... The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society, their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation."

In other words, just because man leaves the State of Nature and joins others in the State of Society, he is still held to the same Law as he was in the State of Nature, such as, do not Steal.
The very reason man leaves the State of Nature to join society is to protect his very property from theft, among few other things.
 Stealing violates the Law of Nature as its violator must take property that is not his from another person who has the rightful or higher claim to that property.
Simply being elected to an office does not grant the elected person special privileges, most certainly not the privilege to steal.

Otherwise this would mean that slavery would be legal and just. For we are talking about the very Right of Self Ownership when we speak of theft, and more so theft by the State.
If the State, or even some puny individual at a lowly city council, can steal from you legally, then that lowly city council claims ownership of your very body, and claims ultimately that you are its slave.

So, the real discussion over things such as asset forfeitures is not whether it hurts the poor at a higher percentage than others, it's not whether the State is too liberal in using the so-called law, it is not whether due process is violated or not, and I agree in the affirmative to all the above; the real discussion is whether or not it is theft.

And if it is, then this should be the focal point of our discussion.
It is theft.
Individuals using the State claim to be above and outside the Law, and choose to steal from their neighbors. They call it "legal" and the "law," but it is just theft, plain and simple.


                                                                       ______

Now I want to briefly speak to the Fairbanks City Council, that wretched gang of thieves, and enemy of a free people.
I am quite happy that you have been so forthcoming in telling the people of Fairbanks that you consider yourselves above the Law, and also that you consider the people of Fairbanks to be your slaves.
It has to be this, or otherwise you have to admit that you are simply thieves of other men's means.
The fact that you PUT INTO YOUR NEW BUDGET, additional monies you have not even yet stolen from us, through fines and asset forfeitures, by doing so you have opened many people's eyes to what you really are:

You are an enemy of the Poor.
You are an enemy of Justice.
You are an enemy of The Law.
You are an enemy of Righteousness.
You are an enemy of the People.
You are an enemy of God.

While Justice on this earth may not seem to always come swiftly, Justice will indeed come.

But don't take my word for it.


Whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society." John Locke










  

Trump's policy is stupid and dangerous

Please check out this post I wrote on our Facebook page.
Trump is dangerous to Liberty

Old war or new? "There is nothing new under the sun"

How true these words are.

The old war, Liberty vs. the State. Whether man can or should be free to do with his Life, Liberty and Property as he sees fit. Isn't Property all these 3?
The State, particularly the U.S. state, sees itself as the ultimate arbiter of all these things that the founders of this people took for granted as the basic Rights of man.
But how?
Isn't every politician voted into office but a mere mortal?
And yet these, these treacherous beings of the State, claim that some certain people are not worthy of Rights that others have.
Hmm.
The Japanese internment?
Who are these, mere mortals that will face the same judgment that all men will face, to decide what is right for you and for me?
Randy Weaver?
Waco?
Boston?
Our Liberty, the basic ones, the Unalienable ones, that De La Boetie and Locke showed for the world to see 300, no 450 years ago, that could not be infringed save the minimum tacit support of a people.
And at whose cost?
Those same people.
The Leviathan State of America routinely devours even the most basic human Rights that a person has.
The TSA? Airport security, what kind of people subject themselves to such ridicule, only to be told, "you don't have to fly."
And who are these gods that claim the right to hold you and touch you and prevent you from travel?
Mere men, most that were jobless before they became TSA "agents."
Law Enforcement officers are caught daily on camera beating, shooting, and abusing all manner of men, women and even children. The only "peace" they are concerned with is the peace of the State. Who are these brave Combatants that "risk their very lives" as they march into a protest of unarmed, sitting people, clubs swinging? Just other people. No more.
 We have a State department that has decided what things are not to be on the Internet. Every sort of filth is allowed by these gods, but not simple plans to build an even more simple gun. They claim ownership of these plans and say that mere mortals cannot have them.
Who are these gods in the State department? Just a bunch of people.

The Tyranny goes on and on; we live in a Corporate State that is literally feeding off the wealth of the people who live within its borders, in a way that has never before been seen in history. Their standard of living continues to rise and rise, while the sheep continue to feed them, and live on less, and are beaten and killed for asking why this is.
But I do think their time is short. Very short. The frantic way the State is increasing its militaristic approach on its "own people" tells me they are very afraid, and know their time draws to an end.

Psalms 3
 O Lord, how many are my foes!
    Many are rising against me;
² many are saying of my soul,
    there is no salvation for him in God. Selah^[a]

³ But you, O Lord, are a shield about me,
    my glory, and the lifter of my head.
⁴ I cried aloud to the Lord,
    and he answered me from his holy hill. Selah

⁵ I lay down and slept;
    I woke again, for the Lord sustained me.
⁶ I will not be afraid of many thousands of people
    who have set themselves against me all around.

⁷ Arise, O Lord!
    Save me, O my God!
For you strike all my enemies on the cheek;
    you break the teeth of the wicked.

⁸ Salvation belongs to the Lord;
    your blessing be on your people!

Patriot's Lament January 12, 2013: Coming for Guns and Stand Up for Vets

In this episode we talk more about the state "coming for our guns", and about soldiers with PTSD. We talk about Rights, and whether or not one can even give up their Rights voluntarily, and read John Lockes view on the State trying to infringe on them.

Patriot's Lament December 29, 2012: John Locke and Obey The Law

In this episode we talk about 17th century classical Liberals John Locke, and Algernon Sidney, and the importance of their contribution to Libertarian Revolutionary thought. We also talk about America's heritage of being a free thinking people, and one of secession from injustice and tyranny. We also talk about gun laws and the Right to Keep and Bear arms, and the real reason for that Right. It doesn't come from the 2nd amendment folks. In the second hour we discuss positive laws and how the State excuses themselves from the laws they impose on us mere serfs. Enjoy!

Law abiding citizen

I am sick of the term "law abiding citizen" and I am especially sick of it when used in reference to gun rights and gun control.
What does having the Right to defend yourself have to do with some State deciding whether or not you deserve that right based on how law abiding you are to its edicts and proclamations?
If the State says that guns are now illegal, and to own one would be to break the law, are you going to be a law abiding citizen then? What if the State, which is nothing more than a gang of thieves, is unethical; am I still supposed to be a law abiding citizen?
My Right to defend myself, my family, and my property predates the State. The 2nd amendment didn't invent the Right to be armed, it was already known that one had the Right to be armed.
What gives an illegitimate State the Right to say that only "law abiding citizens" can be armed? Abiding by what laws? Whose laws? The State's arbitrary law that merely is intended to enslave us?
Quit using that term. It's another way of saying law abiding serfs.
 Boot licking slaves.
You think when the colonist revolted against the King he thought that they were law abiding citizens? Should they have been disarmed because of it? Should they ever have been allowed to be armed?
Following the regulations, statutes and political laws of a State has nothing to do with the Right to be Armed.
Our Right to be armed is specifically to resist an overpowering and corrupt State; secondly, for personal self- defense, and lastly to be able to feed ourselves by hunting.
We know why Patrick Henry cherished the rifle.
An armed people.
Not a "Law abiding citizen".

Part 2: John Locke

Rothbard puts it this way, "If Liberty found its martyr in Algernon Sidney, it found its elaborated systematic defense in the 'Essay concerning Civil Government' of the noted philosopher, John Locke."
He goes on to say, " The Essay, we now know, was written in the early 1680s at about the same time as Sidney's Discourses; it was therefore written when Locke too was a Revolutionary plotter against Stuart Rule, and NOT, as had been assumed, as a conservative ex post facto rationale for the Glorious Revolution."
Locke starts his theory with the state of nature, where each man is able to maintain himself by mixing his labor with his hands. This gave the "mixer" ownership of land that was before unowned or unused. It becomes his private property, which he is able to sell, trade, or use to whatever benefit or detriment he chooses. Basically the fruits of your labor are yours.
The owner also has a Right to defend his property, which is now beyond just his own person, and this was the rationale that Locke used for the purpose of government, that governments are instituted among men to protect property. If the government fails to protect or, even worse, becomes destructive to private property, it is the Right of the people to remove that government, since the only reason men consent to its existence is merely to protect their property.
Locke put it this way, "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war against the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence."
Locke's first Treatise was written to refute Sir Robert Filmer's "Natural Power of Kings" that claimed the absolute Monarch was ordained by God, saying Adam was the first Monarch ordained by God. Locke attacked this theory, and claimed if it were true then Adam's lineage would be the only rightful heirs to any kingdom. Locke also pointed out that God gave Adam dominion over the animals and land, NOT other humans.
We need to remember what was going on here--the King had been deposed, and some folks wanted to reinstate a monarch. Others did not. I think we can see that the ones who wanted to reinstate a monarch were the ones who would directly benefit from having one, a benefit of both finance, position and power. Of course the local serf doesn't benefit from having a monarch; Kings don't normally give land grants and positions of power and wealth to serfs plowing fields or working in textile mills. He gives gifts to his buddies, the ones who either help him into power, or the ones who help keep him in power.
 The revolutionary John Locke, on the other hand, sought to give people power over their own lives, and for them to keep the rewards of their labor, not to have it arbitrarily taken at whatever whim the monarch or his governors might have. He simply stated that men ought to be free, and any government that men agree to, can only exist at the pleasure of the society. And any violation by that government made itself not only useless but criminal.
Locke had a huge influence on Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence," and some even accused Jefferson of plagiarism. I don't really see it that way myself; nothing is new under the sun. If we can't look to our past great thinkers and expand upon them, what good are they? What good is it for us to discuss and pursue Liberty if our posterity cannot use what we find to progress even further?
Back to the point, and I will try to expand on this later: Revolution was first and had to be first thought of to be a Right of the people before they could actually revolt. Locke showed that this was not a bad thing, and that  people will normally not revolt until the abuses of the government finally become too much to bear. What the 17th century thinkers changed was the actual thought, that the people had not only a Right but a Duty to throw off the chains of oppression brought by any government, even a King that claimed a Divine right to rule. Our American Heritage of Secession and Revolution had to first be justified against thousands of years of thinking to the contrary.  And this thought was simply that the lowly man had just as much Right as the King himself, to be free to do as he pleased.
More from Locke; In all States and Conditions the true remedy of Force without Authority, is to oppose Force to it. The use of force without Authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of War, as the Aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.

But if they, who say it lays a foundation for Rebellion, mean that it may occasion Civil Wars, or Intestine Broils, to tell the People they are absolved from Obedience, when illegal attempts are made upon their Liberties or Properties, and may oppose the unlawful violence of those, who were their Magistrates, when they invade their Properties contrary to the trust put in them; and that therefore this Doctrine is not to be allow'd, being so destructive to the Peace of the World. They may as well say upon the same ground, that honest Men may not oppose Robbers or Pirates, because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. If any mischief come in such Cases, it is not to be charged upon him, who defends his own right, but on him, that invades his Neighbours. If the innocent honest Man must quietly quit all he has for Peace sake, to him who will lay violent hands upon it, I desire it may be consider'd, what a kind of Peace there will be in the World, which consists only in Violence and Rapine; and which is to be maintain'd only for the benefit of Robbers and Oppressors. Who would not think it an admirable Peace betwixt the Mighty and the Mean, when the Lamb, without resistance, yielded his Throat to be torn by the imperious Wolf?

A discussion

Here is part of a discussion I am having. Well, aren't we all having this discussion in some fashion or another?

It is in response to this:

If you are going to put your faith in government for anything, including protecting your “rights” you will ultimately

be disappointed and a lot poorer.

James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution, said (from his reading of John Locke, the father of “property Rights”) that good government's only function is to protect property, and that was to be the end of good government. That’s it. He called any other function of the State unjust. Even here we have a problem, in that the State must first expropriate (Steal) a portion of that same property to provide the protection. The individual has no choice whether or not he wants or needs that protection.

Even small government conservatives offer the same thing as the big government liberals, the State.

Having local control of tax money further obfuscates the real question, are taxes moral, or are they just theft, whether a huge government forces you to pay them, or a tiny local government? It still comes down to theft, a minority stealing from one to spend the way they want for the “good of all.”

That’s what I say is crap.  

We should not want state control of our public schools, we should abolish them.  Limited government is a fallacy.

Government is force and violence that the individual would be locked up for if he tried the same things government does.

Government = Force/violence/theft

Limited government = limited force/violence/theft?

So that is the better option? Are we as individuals able to “opt out”? No matter how close to home a local government is, it will still spend money in ways that some find immoral. So who decides how the tax(theft) money is spent? A majority? Who decides if that allocation of the theft is moral? The majority?

Then you are back to square one, majority, mob rule, where the rights of the minority are crushed.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits  drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law',  because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the  individual."  Thomas Jefferson

How many “Constitutional conservatives” do you know actually believe that? Even small government advocates have plenty of duties they think the government needs to perform.

And none of these things answers the first problem. If the Founders of this Country said that government's only role in society was to protect property, (John Locke said the only reason people come to form society is for the protection of property) then how can we defend any other role the State has decided in its wisdom to control?

The State is not your friend, it is your enemy, whether large, small, limited or otherwise. It should be abolished at every level.

This idea is not un-American, as the government is not America.

It is the essence of Liberty.

Protect your rights by voting?

The people who live in the Fairbanks North Star Borough are facing another round of draconian "laws" by its Borough Assembly, namely to "ban" certain heating devices, such as certain wood stoves and hydronic heaters. Well of course, the movement is out to vote on a proposition that would prevent the Assembly from doing such things to us.
Again.
Every 2 years now, we are told we need to vote on a citizen's initiative to "prevent" the Assembly from taking our right to heat our homes in the way we see fit.
"Protect your rights!! Vote for your freedom"!!
The usual well-meaning folks are out in mass to get out the vote to secure our freedom.
But I will not give my consent.
By voting for this initiative, I am giving legitimacy to the Assembly, saying that unless I vote against them, they have the right to take away my Liberty, against my own property.
I am not a serf.
If I vote for this initiative, I am relenting to give them moral ownership of my property. I am gambling in this way, if my side wins, you can't do what you want. If your side wins, then I must give consent to you to restrict my freedom. I legitimize your claim.
I refuse.
The majority collective has no right to tell me what I may or may not do with my property, and I will not consent to let them.
I will stay at home, or perhaps I will bid on a contract, or maybe I will take my family fishing. But I will not bend my knee, to acknowledge to a few scum that they have the right to compel me, unless I persuade more people to compel them.
Let these 9 scum pass whatever law they want against my property. Do they have legitimate claim to it?
Absolutely not.
How much greater would it be, if the 55% or so folks who will go out and vote against the Assembly, would get off their knees, have some decent self respect, and stay home that day?
And when the Assembly's ordinance comes into effect, these same people refuse to consent to their tyranny?
They heat their home the way they feel they themselves need to, the most cost effective way they can?
Wouldn't they then be actually free, instead of having a 2 year waiver?
What would the Borough do? They have no police powers. Fine 50,000 people, who would then fight the fines in court, virtually bankrupting the Borough coffers?

If you feel you must consent to the authority of 9 people who have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, and are perfectly no different than you, go ahead and vote.
If you want to be a free man, if you want to be one who desires Liberty over servitude, a Revolutionary in the lines of your Forefathers that you claim to honor so much, stay home, and tell the Borough, whatever you may say, I refuse to consent to your whims.
The only way to be free is to live as free men. Refuse consent, and they instantly lose legitimacy. Without your consent, they cease to exist.