This is more of that Rush Limbaugh anti-third party rhetoric.  They mention anything associated with the Glenn Becks. Yeah no mention of any libertarian minded individuals or constitutionalists, just throwing the word Constitution out there again.  It just supports the same Neo-Cons who have been running this country.  The message is to cling to the NAZIS Republicans and give up any thought of leaving their defended two party system.  This NuRepublican crap is nothing but more of the same. Republicrats ruin the country & any other country they are bombing and waging wars in.  These are the same ones who held power while I was protesting the Iraq War.

That’s what I want.  I want the golden days of America.  You know, the ones where we were just going into war fearing Terror Threats and Anthrax while running massive debts up.  Anthrax was wonderful I loved Attack of the killer B’s.

Let the NAZIS GOP bring you freeDumb.

This was the video I saw that got me ranting.  I’m not shocked to see someone wants to preserve the patriarchy. Watch with caution it may get you all pissed and rambling nonsense like me. The video seems to be supporting Palin and all the same old GOP names you have heard passed around for so long.  It’s the Neo-Con push to take complete control of the GOP.  It seems most people that are emphasizing the word “Conservative” over the Republican party right now are the Neo-Cons.  Rush would be proud of his little Statist Nazis.

Related posts:

1. Two Party System Tyrants!
2. Media Serving Republicrats
3. Big Government Corporatism In Free Market Clothing

• Is there anything we can get from this?
• Is it all crazy tin foil hat stuff or is there more?
• Is there some power over the U.S. president?
• What is legit here if anything?
• How do you see this and what do you think of all this?

Related posts:

1. War & Taxes to Separation of State & Capital
2. Democracy, Failing mankind for over 2,500 years
3. What President Obama has done right

Update: I updated this with the official Hulu version. It has a better picture quality and you don’t have to go from video to video.

Also the full article accompanying this from John Stossel can be found here.

You can read the article Freedom Foundation of MN Investigation: The Obama Administration’s Serious Conflict of Interest here from the Freedom Foundation of Minnesota here.

And you can see where we covered the Big Tobacco Story back in September as it was happening in our article Government & Phillip Morris Corporatism at it’s finest here. John Stossel has expanded on that showing how Phillip Morris gained something nuts like 30% increase in their stock by this move.

Related posts:

1. Breaking News! Phillip Morris Bailout!
2. Corporatism and disregarding the law of the land
3. Government & Phillip Morris Corporatism at it’s finest

Related posts:

1. A case against government Part 1: Police State
2. NFL or NBA?
3. The State Marriage and Homosexuality

Brown the establishment GOP candidate won in Massachusetts. Many are excited. Prior to the election, The Tea Party group was telling the Libertarian Party candidate to drop out so that the Democrat could be defeated. I am furious. They see this as some kind of great victory. I tell you it mattered not if the GOP or the DNC took that election. The GOP brought us here. If you really see salvation in the GOP you are somehow having selective amnesia.

Is this what the tea party was all about? Preserving a patriarchy and establishment GOP resurgence? Take it! You can have it! I am not always completely behind the Minarchy promoted by the Libertarian party, but it is at least not more GOP.  The only wasted vote in this country are the votes thrown on those who hold power.  Support the green party, communist party, constitution party, or the socialist party before you support those who hold power.  This goes out to the left and the right. No change will come from this patriarchy that has stood for over 230 years.  Do not support two party duopoly.  It is time we stooped serving them. I will not pay my dues to the Republicrats! I am ashamed of every one of you who spoke of “small government” and supported the system with your vote.

Many say if you don’t vote you have no right to complain.  Well I say if you keep voting for these Republicrats you have no right to complain! You are like a dog returning to it’s own vomit.

Related posts:

1. Ander Crenshaw GOP feeding you lies
2. Bush’s Or Obama’s Fault? Updated
3. Media Serving Republicrats

War is the governments business and business is good. From military imperialism to militarized police the government is in the business of death and theft. The government is in the business of forcing people to do what it wants with its guns. We discussed in A Case Against Government Part 1:  Police State how police are not for the people but to serve the interest of the state. I would like to expand on a concept that Stefan Molyneux of Free Domain Radio proposed in his Lew Rockwell article The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives. The idea is the the Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO).  I would like to point out the business of peace can be a highly marketable thing to sell as opposed to the business of war which brings financial disaster, death and destruction.

A DRO is described on Wikipedia as:

a conceptualized organization providing services such as mediation and arbitration through the private sector.

This is his answer to the common question and objection of the statist, “What about Police?”  No, we do not need police but we do have disputes that need a resolution.  Will it end rape? No, but it will come closer to ending violence and rape than any police force or government entity which has proven incapable of doing.  With a Free Market a DRO may be one of many ways to resolve issues.  In a free market many employers could begin to offer a DRO contract as a part of their benefits packages.  When I bring this up I am often asked about the people who can not afford a DRO or those smaller employers who can not afford a DRO contract.  I believe that just as cell phones have become affordable for the homeless now that a DRO may also be something they can access.  That is just not good enough for some who see the state as the only solution.  I will go further to make another proposal.  Let us call our proposal a Citizen Protection Organization (CPO).  This would be closer to a cooperative.  This would work as a joint effort to meet the needs of the members. There could be organizations similar to neighborhood watch groups that are often implemented currently.  There would be more options if a system failed a person they could look elsewhere for a working system, or even make an impact on the company that did not work by bringing the issues to light. Investigative journalism would be more feared by the system, and a boon to the people.  I will not delve into many of those concepts since this is focusing on a specific aspect of a DRO.

A DRO has to turn a profit.  If it is paying out for violent crimes it will be loosing money. If it chooses to not hold it’s end of the bargain it will loose business and go under.  For the first time in history this creates a market for peace.  Peace becomes profitable? It becomes profitable for the company to promote and research violence, rape, or murder.  It becomes profitable to have legitimate scientific breakthroughs.

A company that offers a DRO plan with employment may find that they pay a lower premium for sending employees to classes for prevention education.  With a desire to invest serious time and money in what currently is mostly handled by non-profits and volunteers.  Here we would look at causes and address those because it is profitable.

With the concepts of violence being a huge liability financially for a whole industry we have capitalized on peace.  We begin to focus on things like violence against women and what are the root causes.  Violence against the marginalized in society begin to get serious attention for the first time.  This attention will finally be out of the hands of the state who profits from violence.

There will be some issues resolved instantly with the introduction of a DRO and non-government organizations.  The first would be the American system of power and abuse.  Let us look at a woman stuck in prostitution.  I do not condone nor support prostitution in any way or form.  I do however oppose making the prostitute a criminal.  I oppose the laws that exist.

The woman forced into prostitution is victimized and marginalized before she enters into prostitution.  This woman holds little to no power.  Often she has been abused throughout her life by those that hold the power.  The state then addressed the issue of prostitution by criminalizing those women and locking them up.  It uses the power it holds to continue this cycle of abuse.  With the current system the poor and marginalized receive little protection or defense.  The only resolution that has come from government is to make matters worse and criminalize those that are already beaten down. We have not “fixed” the problem.  Neither system will fix the problem.  But, we will see more resolutions and progress outside of the state. Eliminating a state tyranny will eliminate the abuse and criminalization those people face.  In an already difficult situation a felony will only make things harder in that persons life.

The DRO begins to address with serious research and money the subject of violence against women.  It must protect it’s assets.  It has incentive to stop this violence.  It then begins to find solutions.  These solutions will more than likely have certain goals and results.  It will lend to educate men who are abusers and this will have a direct impact on the demand side of the supply and demand in prostitution.  This will also go to make progress in the area of violence against those women who end up in prostitution. This is not limited to this single area.  We will see this in many areas by many sources.  One quick law did not fix a problem it only punished after the problems happened.  It advances little and there is no progress with a static law.

Imagine your company wants to save money with the DRO.  The DRO will be able to cover people who are educated and less inclined to commit violence crimes.  This will result in education and training for employees and those covered under these plans or packages.  My company already practices similar things.  Just imagine those company wide meetings and training now focused on things like eliminating violence and aggression.  Wow, we just capitalized on peace by eliminating government.  This is the beginning to finding true solutions.  Just as with the free market and technological advancements in computers or any other profitable technology and science the future and advancements of peace and non-violence is not even in an infancy compared to where it should be in a free system.  When we begin to look at this here is where we will find advancements in racism, sexual assault, aggression, and a plethora of other issues we face today.  These advancements will flood the markets and society.

When existing groups that advocate for social issues are placed in a free system we will see people placing their resources into making real changes and solutions along side this new booming industry.  It would benefit to use such resources to impact the issues we worry about instead of paying off lobbyists and greedy politicians.

It is time people brought about real changes and advancements.  I’m a bit tired of politicians blowing hot air up my ass promising but never delivering. I’ll promote peace and healing over fat rich patriarchies and concentrated power any day.

Can I have my Nobel Peace Prize now, or do I have to wage a war for that?

Related posts:

1. A case against government Part 1: Police State
2. A case against government Part 3: State Violence
3. A case against government Part 4: The Invisible Hand Oppresses

Just imagine people paying anywhere from 30% to 60% or higher of their annual income at one moment then receiving their ballots.  I think the people may think twice about how many wars they want to fight and just how much they feel they want government.  I am 100% for this.

I wonder how many likely voters we would have?  If the government were up front and honest like this they might just cease to exist.  Government would quickly run out of money and support.  I love it.  I say we push this one.

Related posts:

1. Health Care Is Broken: A real solution
2. I Voted Today: Vote NO to the War on Drugs
3. The DMV Helps Itself

Now in this new system I will begin to say we need to abolish the GACC.  This will lead to people screaming “You want the poor to go naked!” or “How would we get clothes?” and ” Why don’t you like clothes?”  I have nothing against clothes.  I wear clothes.  I have never seen a naked homeless man in America.  There are systems of charity and compassionate individuals who give gloves and coats at Christmas.  I want clothes.

The people have become complacent and can not imagine buying their own clothes.  They do not think for a minute that the clothes could become more appealing and desirable.  They start to wonder what they would do if they left town and split their britches.  Would they have to walk around naked?  They start to fear the thought of buying their clothes.  Nobody wants to risk nudity.

Now I paint this little picture of an alternate government (which is not far from the truth) to show the thought of those of you who still cling to government control and power.  Many assume if I do not support government in an area that I want the worst case scenario.  It is apparent that we have many choices and options for clothes.  We have thrift stores, and free stores that provide for the needy.  We have WalMart and K-Mart for those of us who have a little more and of course we have the high end fashion.  There is no shortage of clothing, and in cases where there is we attempt to provide for everyone with our excess.  This is not even something you have to go out of your way to do.  There are drop offs all over the United States.  Yes, I want clothes.  I don’t want the GACC.  I want more clothes, and more advances in fashion.  In fact I choose to not have the government because I want more clothes and better clothes.

I will be writing soon on how we are to improve our world with out government.  I will show how supporting government violence like police is in fact counter productive to eliminating violence and what we assume the government should be doing.  I will show how just like clothes all things are more accessible and advancements will only be made outside of government.  I will show how foolish it is to let the government handle things like violence, rape, and murder. I would rather see real advancements in those areas and the problem areas of the world instead of seeing their advancements stifled by a government.

Related posts:

1. A case against government Part 1: Police State
2. Does the Existence of the State Cause Conflicts of Interest?
3. A case against government Part 3: State Violence

We are looking for not only free market and anarchist solutions to issues of society, but any concepts that are resolutions to any ills of society that are outside of government or that embrace self governance. I am going to write about new concepts to replace old and would love to see what is out there. Free Domain Radio has many I would like to delve into. How many of you out there can point me to ideas I may not be aware of?

We could be addressing crime, welfare, poverty, murder, war, roads or any issue that is often thought of by the masses as a job for Governments. Please leave links, and ideas in the comments. Also, do not be afraid to use the contact sheet to contact me.

Thank you all…

Related posts:

1. Urgent Action needed to save H.R. 1207
2. A Case For Self-Governance: The Business of Peace

No related posts.

No related posts.

I say to you Anarchists that attack Capitalism that you have much to attack in our current systems. It is the concept of a free market that you are not comprehending.  It is not wealth at the expense of others, but ownership and power being returned to the people.

A free market concept that I preach is not the concept of powerful men and women asserting their will to profit without any restriction.  A free market will not allow such to happen.  A government will step in and decide that a company will continue to survive despite the common census of the people which has decided certain corporations should be smaller, hold less power, or even cease to exist.  This happens daily in the United States.  Monopolies are created and we are left under the tyranny of these corporations at the dictation of the state.  This has been in the spotlight in the last few years.  Look at the bailouts.  These are companies with massive power and wealth.  When the market demanded them to become smaller, broken up and sold off to smaller companies, or even wiped out of existence the government decided they are “too big to fail”.  Why?

Maybe some will choose to serve the abuser as we currently do with the state under a free market, but when offered alternatives I believe most will choose otherwise.  Think of a concept of voting with dollars.

The argument is always placed on the evil nature of humankind.  Then some leap to a resolution that is government. Who runs the government?  I guess the government must be ran by people with others interest at heart right? Wrong.  The government is made up of the same population that would run the companies that exist.  The greed and self interest are present in a government that are present anywhere else.  In fact with the democratic mockery the United States has the greed and self interest are present much more.  Here these individuals are encouraged to sell themselves and the actual results of policy and decisions are rarely a determining factor on deciding if they will go on to maintain control.  If the efforts and work of these people were based on the results in a free market they would not be able to make decisions to run a government in debt that exceeds ten trillion dollars.  None of it would exist.  Despite the excessive debt these people in charge are flying around in personal jets bringing in six and seven digit incomes.  All with the lack of results.  What does this do?  It works as a parasite on a market.  In a system that taxes the overall market in excess of thirty percent with a ten percent unemployment rate we see where the jobs went.  They were all sucked up by the greed of the state.

When the people see the injustice they can not turn from this state monopoly.  If people find that a private company is acting against our interest and harming others they will go to the company that is acting in the best interest of humanity.  In the case of a state this does not happen.  The state maintains the monopoly at the threat of death and violence.  The state then does what any other company would do.  It seeks to expand.  When a company expands it must turn a profit.  When a state expands it can just add it to the “national debt”.  This results in the overall health and welfare of an economy being impacted negatively.  Because the state is consuming without producing anything it becomes a parasite.  It begins to consume the production of the people.  This results in politicians being wealthy without crating wealth, but simply by forcing it from the workers and businesses.  A free market forces those within it to look where it can streamline and become more efficient.  This will never happen for the state, so improvement becomes a hindrance and a negative for a state.

Let us look at the poor.  Since the state took the funds for more jobs there will be a larger rate of poor and unemployed under a state.  If we returned 30% of the wealth back into the economy we would then only have 10% of the jobless out there to fill that leaving a deficit in workers in the united states.  There would be too many jobs for the workers to fill giving them the upper hand again.  Even with this there would be poor.  Not by choice, but by inability.  We will have less poor but those poor must be taken care of.  So, what is the resolution?  Let us look at the options and see why the state is the worst option.

I will not say the state enables the poor.  That is rubbish.  People want to work.   People want the basic self respect that the wealthy have.  People want to be higher on the social ladder.  To say they want to live in poverty is not something I believe. Yes there may be a small percentage that do abuse the system, but really the mass that abuses the system are those in power not those under the tyrants.  So when we say this why do so many then just rush to the only answer being government? Why is a state the answer to the problem?  We have seen the greed and abuse of the system is from the state, those in power.  We also see the state is like a company with nobody to answer to.

The state will promise to cure poverty.  We see this does not happen.  This can not happen.  When the state cures poverty it decides the way to do that is to take one dollar from every person who produces and to give twenty cents for every dollar to the poor.  Where does the rest go? I think you know.  So if the state fixes the problem, and cures poverty it stops getting wealthy.  The state needs a lower class to keep taking and keeping the wealth it gains.  It must keep the bureaucracies running.  The state does not walk out into the cold night to offer a kind hand and warmth to those that need such.  It can only see it’s benefit and serve this.

What is needed? With wealth restored and the parasite of the state removed we have less poverty.  We will then have less of an effort in fighting poverty.  How does this get resolved? I would like to first point out that the state has failed to resolve the issue of poverty, but everyone with the promise of doing so is taking home these six figure incomes.  Systems do not work.  People work.  This becomes an effort of all.  When the state is removed those that have spent so much lobbying and fighting against injustices will not loose their passion or resources.  Their resources will be more.  Those who care about resolving the problem will be the ones working with it.  Those who seek to profit from the problem will no longer hold their power.  This new shift of power will solve the problems instead of leaving them stagnant.  When the rich white patriarch maintains his control over society by force of the gun government will only seek it’s own just as many claim will happen within a free market.  Yes, some will seek their own, but those that do so at the expense of others will be discarded by a free market.  They will hold no power over you.  You will seek the alternatives that provide for your benefit.

Only when this self seeking dynamic of power over the powerless ends will we resolve the problem.  The megalomaniac will loose the power it holds.  It will loose it’s profit off of our suffering.

Is it time for us to end the power others wield over us.  Is it time for the system of force and power over another human to end.  Is it time for the people to have the power.  As long as we give the patriarchy our servitude it will maintain it’s power and oppression.

Related posts:

1. A case against government Part 1: Police State
2. A case against government Part 2: Migration
3. Big Government Corporatism In Free Market Clothing

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Politics, Junkies and Lunacy
2. Media Serving Republicrats
3. Big Government Corporatism In Free Market Clothing

I always find the apocalyptic mindset to be kind of hard to swallow. Remember Y2K? For thousands of years the end of the world has been preached by many religions. The dead sea scrolls came from an apocalyptic sect of Judaism. On the other hand the conservative mindset tends to be limited, dismissing the turmoils and problems that others face. They tend to see their immediate world as the only reality that matters.

I believe there may be a danger to the environment. I do not believe however that this danger is as immediate as some say. Steps have been taken by private companies to go green. Innovative companies like Tesla motors are looking to the future of our consumption of fossil fuels.

The Cato Institute has pointed out that much of what the EPA releases as findings are sadly lacking in citations. Where does this all come from? Can something be peer reviewed if your peers do not know what to review? Even the peer review process used by the EPA for their findings is less than par. What we see is a selected group of “Sub-Specialists,” who are being selected by politicians, reviewing the findings. Those listed to review the findings are federal employees with previous involvement. Much of the data used is dated and tends to ignore recent scientific findings that have seriously challenged these older findings. We see a system of pick and choose. Yes, if I prove the existence of the Christian God by only seeking Christians as a source I will most likely find what I am looking for. By ignoring the atheists my findings will not be contested. This and more can be seen in depth in Cato Institutes’ publication:Scientific Shortcomings in the EPA’s Endangerment Finding from Greenhouse Gases by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. Knappenberger Click Here for the PDF.

I am almost certain that you will find similar issues on the other side. The climate change deniers have most likely taken part in similar practices.

I am not writing to say there is no effect on the environment from what we do. We can see many of those effects just by using a little common sense. What I wish to point out is that in our country, the largest polluter is in fact the United States Government. The major innovations have been made in the free market. Look at how many companies are turning green in response to the public demand. Why didn’t the government go green? As I pointed out back in April in response to the Cap and Trade, (Click Here) forced innovations will be stifled. As pointed out by Sallie James from the Cato Institute Free Trade is a boon to the environment (Click Here). She states:

The political tension between protection-seeking domestic constituencies and those in favor of more open trade is beginning to appear in the climate change debate. Importantly, the free flow of goods and environmental soundness are not necessarily at odds.

Indeed, because trade leads to wealth, and wealth to an increased desire and ability to protect the environment, the two are complementary. Nonetheless, many G-20 leaders are doing their best to set them up as being inalterably opposed. President Sarkozy earlier this month became the latest politician to call for carbon tariffs to “level the playing field” for French products that will attract a carbon tax and yet compete with untaxed imports.

Now, I do doubt the apocalyptic views. I do not doubt the damage to the environment. The extreme conservative view that nothing at all is wrong seems to be even more dangerous, and it also seems to be not accepted completely except for a few extremists.

The federal government seems to be bent on giving us the next thing to fear. We had our killer tomatoes and spinach and we have our H1N1 all exaggerated out of proportion. We had our terror alerts, and we have our end of the world scenario. They perceive their job as being “Protect The Paupers.” In turn these politicians seek out the next thing we should fear and build another expensive bureaucracy to capitalize off of your fear. In reality if there is a need a free market system will fill that need. The perception that people in governments are saints is a myth, they are driven by greed and profit. “A Conspiracy!” you say? No, not a conspiracy. This is just a simple case of misguided idealism. In the same way they use junk economics to ruin an economy in their attempt to save it, we see politicians chasing good intentions. These good intentions ignore many other realities blind-sighted by biases and an unwillingness to accept economic realities in their policies. They would rather embrace an keynesian fantasy that says they can do all things when the reality of markets and basic human interaction escapes them. The Cato institute once again points out that governments hinder advancements in a way by working against them. Stifiling Innovation by Subsidizing it

Only when we realize the limitations of a government and the damage government causes can these issues truly be addressed. All the resources spent lobbying and paying off legislators could be put to better use actually addressing the problems at hand. A government will never be able to eliminate the problem. This works against its interest. If the problem is eliminated the government finds it will not be able to perpetuate the myth of its necessity. It will need to keep symptoms controlled and regulated and the presence of the bureaucracy will always need to keep itself alive. The bureaucracy will need to keep the problem around so that it will also stay around dealing with it constantly.

Related posts:

1. Reality Of $100 Million White House Cut Backs
2. Cap and Trade PC VS. MAC
3. Government Knows Best: Smoking Bans

No related posts.