by Frederick Mann
(Continued from Part I).
Responses to Frederick Mann's Original 12 Questions
Brad Barnhill <bradbva@chv.mindspring.com>; 29 Dec 1996:
>1. Are there certain "powerful things," such that if about 1,000 freedom
>activists knew, understood, and did them, they would terminate (or render
>insignificant) most coercive political systems within a few decades? If
>so, what might these "powerful things" be?
It only takes 537, if they are the Congress (all 535 members) and the President and VP - (two more).
However, if only 1,000 freedom activists knew how to regain their Sovereignty, including removing themselves from 14th Amendment citizenship, and to begin exercising the common law (where there is a crime only when there is harm to another Sovereign), and then inform and convert only 3 other people to the same "true path," and each of these three informs and converts 3 more, then after 10 levels we have 59,049,000 Sovereigns, which is enough power to effect the takeover of Congress and the Presidency.
>2. What has to be sold to freedom activists in order to maximize the
>probability that they will quickly bring about a quantum leap in the
>expansion of freedom and/or liberty?
(a) The benefits of self-government. (b) The benefits of divorce from the Internal Revenue Code.
>3. What things do tyrants want their victims to do that will increase
>the power of tyrants while decreasing the freedom/liberty of victims?
Tyrants want their subjects to feel helpless and ineffectual. Today they have succeeded with over 51% of the voting population.
>4. What actions might victims take to increase their freedom/liberty
>-- and cease to be victims -- while reducing the power of tyrants?
(a) Becoming Sovereign. (b) Removing themselves from the IRC. (c) Empowering themselves with the procedures necessary to fight off attacks from government officials, using the courts.
>5. What are the tyrants' "weak spots"; where are they most vulnerable?
Information about the true nature of individual Sovereignty, the IRC, and the Federal Reserve.
>6. What can freedom activists do to take advantage of the tyrants' "weak spots?"
Convert three people, who will convert three more, etc.
>7. What are the most common "weak spots" of freedom activists?
(a) Lack of knowledge on how to rescind their 14th amendment citizenship and become Sovereign. (b) Lack of knowledge on how to force government officials to obey the Constitution.
>8. What do freedom activists have to do to strengthen these "weak spots?"
(a) Make available information on how 14th amendment citizenship can be rescinded. (b) Pool resources so that Sovereigns under attack have the resources to combat the government in the courts.
>9. What are the "strong points" of freedom activists; in what respects do >they have most power?
The principles of self-government to the effect that they can responsibly create opportunities in their communities to help the less fortunate. These newly "fortunate" become Sovereigns.
>10. How can these strong points be utilized to defeat the tyrants?
(a) Rescind your 14th Amendment citizenship and become Sovereign. (b) Remove yourself from the IRC and instead (and unselfishly) invest this money into the community and wrestle Welfare from the government. (c) Empower yourself so that you understand how to use Sovereignty against government officials who are ignorant of the protections which Sovereigns receive from the Constitution.
>11. Consider the possibility that there are certain "powerful things" that
>many people who don't care about freedom or liberty might do that are
>obviously in their self-interest, and that, if done, would bring about a
>quantum leap in the expansion of freedom and/or liberty; if so, what has to
>be sold to them in order to persuade them to do these "powerful things?"
Show them the benefit of divorcing from the IRC (to themselves) and maybe they will catch on to the rest of the responsibilities which come from self government.
>12. What other questions should we ask?
How can we give this message (and legacy) to all children given the fact that public education has no incentive to do it for us?
Frederick Mann; 9/28/98:
>
>Brad, If I remember correctly, you had a "running case" on your
>website. If this is correct, please send me the URL.
Brad Barnhill <bradbva@chv.mindspring.com>; 9/29/98:
The URL for my journal is: http://bradbva.home.mindspring.com/freedom.
The URL for my IRS correspondence (the No 1040 Saga) can be found at: http://bradbva.home.mindspring.com/freedom/no1040.htm.
Frederick Mann; 9/30/98:
>Brad, What's happened since 2 Feb 1998?
Brad Barnhill <bradbva@chv.mindspring.com>; 9/30/98:
I have suspended the updates to the index page. The only activity is documented on http://bradbva.home.mindspring.com/freedom/no1040.htm. Since then, nothing.
>Do you plan an update?
When there is something to update. I am currently attempting to get some documents referenced in my IMF [Individual Master File?] which the District and Regional offices have yet to supply under FOIA/PA. I am getting an appeal prepared, and then I guess I'll have to file suit. I'll let everyone know when I decide what to do next. I am trying to be proactive rather than reactive.
[I don't know how viable Mr. Barnhill's strategy is. Sometimes it takes 5 - 10 years before someone applying such a strategy ends up in jail. Also, the IRS tyrants continuously seek to "improve" the methods they use against people they brand as "tax protestors." So even if a particular strategy has worked in many cases, it may not continue working for very long. Nevertheless, in the area of "beating the IRS," there may be one or more killer applications. I also suspect that among the large number (tens of millions?) of people who exit the IRS system in various ways, only a small percentage ends up financially ruined or in jail. In the media they mostly splash IRS "wins." They reveal IRS "losses" less often.]
For another "case history as it happens" along these lines, see http://www.wepin.com/store/freetech/irscase/intro.html.
"Hobbit" <hobbit@aminet.co.kr>; 29 Dec 1996:
> 1. Are there certain "powerful things," such that if about 1,000 freedom
> activists knew, understood, and did them, they would terminate (or render
> insignificant) most coercive political systems within a few decades? If
> so, what might these "powerful things" be?
I think that some of your earlier posted comments on living free and the "virtual frontier" are pretty potent ideas. As you ask in your question, then, "living free" and serving as good examples for others becomes an interestingly powerful thing.
> 2. What has to be sold to freedom activists in order to maximize the
> probability that they will quickly bring about a quantum leap in the
> expansion of freedom and/or liberty?
Hmmmm. How 'bout the idea that things are not going to get any better, despite promises to the contrary? Historically, things have gone downhill since 1787 and no turnaround is in sight. Therefore more vigorous activity may need to be considered or taken.
> 3. What things do tyrants want their victims to do that will increase
> the power of tyrants while decreasing the freedom/liberty of victims?
They want their victims to believe that the victims' lives will be worse off without the tyrant than with them. That the tyrant's demands are minimal compared to the good that the tyrant does. That the victims owe the tyrant a "debt" for something. They want the victims to remain in fear of everything up to and including the victims' own shadows, such that the tyrant can offer protection. They want the victims to be lazy and immature, so that the tyrant can offer to take responsibility for them....
> 4. What actions might victims take to increase their freedom/liberty
> -- and cease to be victims -- while reducing the power of tyrants?
Act like mature adults. Remove themselves from the system whenever possible. Refuse largesse stolen from other victims.
> 5. What are the tyrants' "weak spots"; where are they most vulnerable?
Truth hurts. Absolute truth hurts absolutely. Greed catches up with them, frequently. They suffer from more than a touch of hubris. Most don't wear body armor.
> 6. What can freedom activists do to take advantage of the tyrants'
> "weak spots?"
Well, shooting is only a temporary solution and is bound to get you talked about. Talk *to* people, not *down* to people. Live the good life as a good example.
> 7. What are the most common "weak spots" of freedom activists?
A sense of frustration which can breed impatience. Inability to recognize that some people LIKE to be taken care of like little children, and for those people liberty is anathema.
> 8. What do freedom activists have to do to strengthen these "weak
> spots?"
Cultivate patience, vary tactics -- this by talking to other activists. Social solidarity -- knowing that there are others out there "fighting the good fight" can go a long way to boosting flagging morale...
> 9. What are the "strong points" of freedom activists; in what respects
> do they have most power?
We're right. It don't get better than that...
> 10. How can these strong points be utilized to defeat the tyrants?
Again, prove it by example.
> 11. Consider the possibility that there are certain "powerful things" that
> many people who don't care about freedom or liberty might do that are
> obviously in their self-interest, and that, if done, would bring about a
> quantum leap in the expansion of freedom and/or liberty; if so, what has to
> be sold to them in order to persuade them to do these "powerful things?"
Appeal to their self interest -- finances, for instance.
> 12. What other questions should we ask?
What do we do with the people who don't WANT liberty?
Jim Davidson <davidson@net1.net>; 30 Dec 1996:
>1. Are there certain "powerful things," such that if about 1,000 freedom
>activists knew, understood, and did them, they would terminate (or render
>insignificant) most coercive political systems within a few decades? If
>so, what might these "powerful things" be?
Most of these things to do are actually things not to do. If you (legally) avoid paying taxes and show others how to do the same, and if you are really willing to do a lot of showing, the actions of 1,000 could have an effect on the actions of 100,000 of their friends, who could further affect ten million, etc. What would the effect of ten million people not paying their taxes be? How about 100 million?
I'm of the opinion that everyone should keep and bear arms and encourage others to do likewise. What would the effect of 10 million Americans marching through the streets of DC carrying rifles over their shoulders?
>2. What has to be sold to freedom activists in order to maximize the
>probability that they will quickly bring about a quantum leap in the
>expansion of freedom and/or liberty?
Nothing. Information can be given away.
>3. What things do tyrants want their victims to do that will increase
>the power of tyrants while decreasing the freedom/liberty of victims?
Pay taxes. Give up guns. Ask permission to do everything. Obtain a license to do anything significant.
>4. What actions might victims take to increase their freedom/liberty
>-- and cease to be victims -- while reducing the power of tyrants?
Send this list of questions to their friends. (E.g., post it to a web site.)
>5. What are the tyrants' "weak spots"; where are they most vulnerable?
Where tyrants have always been weakest: in the collection of taxes. Civil disobedience in this area is remarkably easy.
[A potential "killer application?" But don't most freedom activists currently believe it's too difficult and dangerous?]
>6. What can freedom activists do to take advantage of the tyrants' "weak
>spots?"
Encourage others to legally avoid taxes.
>7. What are the most common "weak spots" of freedom activists?
Most of them pay taxes? Most of them are waiting for someone to show them what to do.
>8. What do freedom activists have to do to strengthen these "weak spots?"
See Nike's ad. ("Just do it.")
[Is there a potential killer application in the form of one or more slogans that would motivate/spur/excite/enthuse/electrify freedom activists into "doing it?"]
>9. What are the "strong points" of freedom activists; in what respects do
>they have most power?
They tend as a group to be literate, informed, and creative.
>10. How can these strong points be utilized to defeat the tyrants?
Freedom proponents can write and communicate their ideas to others and start significant projects, such as sending this list around.
>11. Consider the possibility that there are certain "powerful things" that
>many people who don't care about freedom or liberty might do that are
>obviously in their self-interest, and that, if done, would bring about a
>quantum leap in the expansion of freedom and/or liberty; if so, what has to
>be sold to them in order to persuade them to do these "powerful things?"
Nothing.
[Really?]
>12. What other questions should we ask?
Of whom are you asking these questions? And why are you limiting yourself to that group?
Tim Starr <timstarr@netcom.com>; 1 Jan 1997:
>Jim Davidson (davidson@net1.net) wrote:
>
>>1. Are there certain "powerful things," such that if about 1,000 freedom
>>activists knew, understood, and did them, they would terminate (or render
>>insignificant) most coercive political systems within a few decades? If
>>so, what might these "powerful things" be?
>
>Most of these things to do are actually things not to do. If you (legally)
>avoid paying taxes and show others how to do the same, and if you are
>really
>willing to do a lot of showing, the actions of 1,000 could have an effect on
>the actions of 100,000 of their friends, who could further affect ten
>million, etc. What would the effect of ten million people not paying their
>taxes be? How about 100 million?
>
>I'm of the opinion that everyone should keep and bear arms and encourage
>others to do likewise. What would the effect of 10 million Americans
>marching through the streets of DC carrying rifles over their shoulders?
Martial law imposed by the Bubba-in-Chief, who'd call out the Marines to enforce it. Which is just one of the reasons why this ain't gonna happen.
Thinking in terms of this sort of mass, collective action is misguided. We have to recognize the fact that we're very much in the minority when it comes to our ideas. Our primary focus should be on recruiting activists & coming up with things to do that will increase freedom with the most benefit to themselves. One of the advantages of tax resistance is that it plays upon the financial self-interest of people, in addition to cutting the State's funding sources.
Advocating that people take responsibility for protecting themselves from threats to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is also good. But doing any of this without changing the ideas of the opinion leaders in our society, or without replacing existing opinion leaders who have bad ideas with new opinion leaders with good ideas, is futile.
For instance, I can name a country in which almost no one pays taxes, and almost everyone carries a rifle: Afghanistan. However, that country is currently undergoing a 3-way civil war over what kind of Islamic fundamentalist theocracy to impose. The worst faction, Taliban, seems to be winning.
If only they had a better idea of what it means to be free, even one that's consistent with the Koran as interpreted by people like Dead Ahmad, then they wouldn't be in such bad shape.
Jim Davidson <davidson@net1.net>; 1 Jan 1997:
>Martial law imposed by the Bubba-in-Chief, who'd call out the Marines to
>enforce it. Which is just one of the reasons why this ain't gonna happen.
I was actually thinking in terms of a parade permit. There are frequent parades in our nation's capital of gun-toting individuals. Of course, they tend to be members of the standing military organizations. However, it would be interesting to organize some marches, if not on the nation's capital then on various state capitals, in support of the right to keep and bear arms. I'm actually surprised that the existing gun groups don't do more of this. There are, after all, lots of parades by liberal groups wanting farmer subsidies, welfare subsidies, gun control, and what have you. Surely gun owners could be "permitted" to have a parade of their own.
>Thinking in terms of this sort of mass, collective action is misguided. We
>have to recognize the fact that we're very much in the minority when it comes
>to our ideas. Our primary focus should be on recruiting activists & coming
>up with things to do that will increase freedom with the most benefit to
>themselves. One of the advantages of tax resistance is that it plays upon
>the financial self-interest of people, in addition to cutting the State's
>funding sources.
Excellent! Lately I've been adding a lot of items to my collection of things that I've been called. "Misguided" is a wonderful addition. Not only is it provocative, it is also moderate. Thank you!
I believe that an actual survey would be appropriate to determine just how much in the minority we are, especially when it comes to our ideas. There are, I believe, a very great number of disgusted, pissed off Americans who are fed up with the size of government, behavior of bureaucrats, and antics of politicians. As further evidence of this position, I would cite the last 5 biannual national elections, the poor turnout for which, I believe, can be at least partly attributed to a general disgust with the political process.
However, short of advocating a survey, and perhaps a parade as projects for the Liberty Round Table http://home.utah-inter.net/don-tiggre/lrthp.htm, I would agree that there aren't a whole lot of mass collective actions that present themselves at the moment as being particularly sensible. Tax resistance is, as I've said, something which I find politically appealing. However, I do like to be ever so careful in discouraging tax evasion, while encouraging legal tax avoidance. I believe the IRS takes a vindictive, and basically uncalled for aggressive, stance against tax resisters. So, I prefer to promote the cause of avoiding taxes.
>Advocating that people take responsibility for protecting themselves from
>threats to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, is also good. But
>doing any of this without changing the ideas of the opinion leaders in our
>society, or without replacing existing opinion leaders who have bad ideas
>with new opinion leaders with good ideas, is futile.
Well, I won't argue that there is a great need for changing the culture. I wouldn't be on this list* if I didn't massively admire Don [Tiggre] for taking on the idea of not only changing the culture, but also creating some culture of our own. Nevertheless, I take exception to your position that "any of this" as you describe it in your post, is futile in the absence of a changed culture. [* Liberty Round Table -- To subscribe mailto:LRT_list@sportsmen.net> with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field.]
Advocating liberty is not futile, or I wouldn't do it. Promoting the keeping and bearing of arms is the most effective way to limit crime and deter tyranny, and is certainly not futile. Parades might be futile, but they can be fun, and they are a part of the existing culture. Somehow, the idea of thousands of individualists marching, each to his own drummer, is not only amusing, but downright outrageous. And, of course, avoiding taxes, as you say, is a good way to enhance one's own situation while cutting funding to the bad guys, so that could hardly be what you mean by futile.
I really hate lost causes. That's one reason I have had such a hard time fitting in with the Harris County Libertarian Party. They simply don't expect to win any elections. They insist that winning isn't what they are about, just getting enough votes to keep ballot access. Talk about fighting the last war repeatedly.
>For instance, I can name a country in which almost no one pays taxes,
>and almost everyone carries a rifle: Afghanistan. However, that country
>is currently undergoing a 3-way civil war over what kind of Islamic
>fundamentalist theocracy to impose. The worst faction, Taliban, seems >to be winning.
Well, I can name one that offers no taxes, plenty of rifle carrying, and no Islamic fundamentalist theocracy: Awdal. And, of course, I will be happy to point out that my heart does not bleed for Islamic fundamentalists who are trying to wipe each other out.
>If only they had a better idea of what it means to be free, even one that's
>consistent with the Koran as interpreted by people like Dead Ahmad, then
>they wouldn't be in such bad shape.
Right. And yet, if they had to pay taxes and were not allowed to carry rifles, they would not be any closer to that status.
"Biophilos" <biophilos@flinet.com>; 01 Jan 1997:
>1. Are there certain "powerful things," such that if about 1,000 freedom
>activists knew, understood, and did them, they would terminate (or render
>insignificant) most coercive political systems within a few decades? If so,
>what might these "powerful things" be?
Establish their own banks, create their own money system to regulate the exchanges of goods and services, trade among themselves, establish a corps of guardians to protect the citizens, support small business, emphasize important of local elections, and EDUCATE THEIR CHILDREN.
[Potential killer applications -- see e-Gold and 'Complementary Money System.']
>2. What has to be sold to freedom activists in order to maximize the
>probability that they will quickly bring about a quantum leap in the
>expansion of freedom and/or liberty?
Turn off the malevolent influence of the controlled multimedia, Establish third party alternatives, establish valid and effective means to communicate with the vast population of people who know that something is wrong but do not know how to go about doing it. Keep religion out of political activity and concentrate on the political issues, that will provide and guarantee that citizens will have the rights accorded to them in a free society.
>3. What things do tyrants want their victims to do that will increase
>the power of tyrants while decreasing the freedom/liberty of victims?
Make them dependent on their created systems of life support.
>4. What actions might victims take to increase their freedom/liberty
>-- and cease to be victims -- while reducing the power of tyrants?
"Seek ye the kingdom of heaven and all things shall be added unto thee."
>5. What are the tyrants' "weak spots"; where are they most vulnerable?
Money, and communications.
[In addition to PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) there may be potential killer applications in the area of secure communications -- see SecureCom. If you open an account please specify "1127736B" as your sponsor.]
>6. What can freedom activists do to take advantage of the tyrants'
>"weak spots?"
Take advantage of precisely what is stated above, the weak spots. GET ACTIVE, AND HAVE NO FEAR.
>7. What are the most common "weak spots" of freedom activists?
All words and no action.
>8. What do freedom activists have to do to strengthen these "weak spots?"
To believe that what they are doing is GOOD, and that whatever happens will in the end benefit the gratuitous generations of the future.
>9. What are the "strong points" of freedom activists; in what respects do
>they have most power?
The power to THINK , COMMUNICATE, AND ACT.
>10. How can these strong points be utilized to defeat the tyrants?
Thru COURAGE.
>11. Consider the possibility that there are certain "powerful things" that
>many people who don't care about freedom or liberty might do that are
>obviously in their self-interest, and that, if done, would bring about a
>quantum leap in the expansion of freedom and/or liberty; if so, what has to
>be sold to them in order to persuade them to do these "powerful things?"
PROFIT from new arrangements that bring about a greater good for all who live and breathe and share life on this tiny little planet.
>12. What other questions should we ask?
"Ask and it shall be given, seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened."
Gail Lightfoot <LPCChair@aol.com>; 1 Jan 1997:
I received this letter in response to a request that Karl Hess share some comments that I could use to inspire attendees at a strategy seminar in California in 1993, following the 1992 election and preceding the LPCA annual convention.
"I try to remember that everything each one of us does in walking the libertarian walk helps to teach the lesson of the value of liberty."
Gail Lightfoot LPC Chair
9 December 1992
Gail,
Your "where do we go" event sounds great.
Here's a message for all the Libertarians who will attend:
Liberty is so much more than a political cause. It is both an essential human activity for those individuals who strive for it and it is part of a long historical movement just beginning to become a goal for all who have been liberated from tyranny.
Americans, who broke with a regal tyranny more than two hundred years ago, have, by and large, forgotten the virtues of liberty, and still are being sorely tempted by the false promises and failed performance of collectivism.
Libertarians need to reach them with a reminder of liberty reborn. I feel that every item on your agenda of discussion has a place in that cause.
Some libertarians will go one way, others will go other ways.
Because of that, your question about co-operation with Libertarians is crucial.
Unless we can disagree about tactics while being committed to the strategic goal of liberty, we will be doomed to the cracks and corners of our neighborhoods, towns, cities, and the nation.
Let me suggest a tactic that might help. There are only about 3,000 counties in America. If there could be one libertarian contact in each of those, and if they could generate ongoing information about liberty and the lack of it -- where they live and where it affects their neighbors -- we might discover many new opportunities and ways to spread the word and to organize support. I will take care of Berkley County, West Virginia. That leaves only a few thousand or so to go.
Good luck. Live long and prosper.
KARL HESS
Thank you Karl for all you personally did in the cause of Liberty. You are missed by us all but your actions and words remain to inspire us still.
Victor Milan <72327.3717@CompuServe.COM>; 3 Jan 1997:
Those are great questions. I particularly like #11, about getting people who don't give a rat's fanny for liberty to act to help bring it about out of their own self-interest; if we find answers to that one, it will likely do more good than any other thing we can do.
I have no answers to your questions yet, I'm afraid. But I have another question:
Do we really have decades?
That answer I have: No. Most probably within ten years, almost certainly within twenty years, and all too conceivably in less than a single decade, the govt will achieve one or more technological means of enforcing unbreakable subservience upon the bulk of the population.
If that sounds too much like science fiction -- which after all is what I do for a living -- then I have an additional question:
Are you willing to bet your life, your freedom, your very sense of self that I'm wrong?
I am not being pessimistic here, only [what I believe to be] realistic. In fact, I believe that we can achieve a free society within five years, and possibly 2-3; how's that for optimism? I feel that it's urgent to make people aware that we have a real window of opportunity here -- but that when it closes, it closes for good.
Victor Milan <72327.3717@CompuServe.COM>; 3 Jan 1997:
>> 12. What other questions should we ask?
>What do we do with the people who don't WANT liberty?
This one I can answer too: Ignore 'em. F... 'em if they can't take a joke.
However we get there, and there's no one path, I believe freedom _will_ be achieved, and _only_ be achieved, when a sizable minority of the population decides, whether from principle, self-interest, or just being fed-up with the foundation of lies on which all govts are built, turn away from the govt and simply refuse to participate any more.
If we achieve a certain level of noncompliance, external govt becomes impossible. Imagine what would happen if just 10% of the population opted out? That's 28 million or so. If they refuse to be seduced, and are prepared to resist by force any attempt to return them to servitude, they are ungovernable. The preponderance of the population will be functionally neutral; how many people will be willing to heave their carcasses off the couch and quit watching "Oprah" to risk their lives to defend some bureaucrat's pension -- even if Oprah's telling them to? For the rest -- let them come.
Galt's Gulch is your own back yard!
[This is a profound aphorism! Maybe it can help point the way to a killer application in the form of one or more slogans that would motivate/spur/excite/enthuse/electrify freedom activists into "doing it."]
Tom Fosson <tfosson@amug.org>; 4 Jan 1997:
Somewhat crude, but tells it like it is. I began withdrawing my support from them nearly twenty years ago. Today, I give them zilch. They can do whatever they want with me -- I will NEVER give them one red cent to help support their criminal activities. I live by my conscience. I sleep GOOD at night.
Charles Curley <ccurley@wyoming.com>; 4 Jan 1997:
>Do we really have decades?
>
>That answer I have: No. Most probably within ten years, almost certainly
>within twenty years, & all too conceivably in less than a single decade,
>the govt will achieve one or more technological means of enforcing
>unbreakable subservience upon the bulk of the population.
I recall reading predictions that both computers and atomic weaponry were exactly that sort of technology. Neither prediction has panned out; in fact (as Jerry Pournelle did predict) computers gave the Soviets a dilemma they couldn't handle and contributed to their collapse.
>If that sounds too much like science fiction -- which after all is what
>I do for a living -- then I have an additional question:
>
>Are you willing to bet your life, your freedom, your very sense of self
>that I'm wrong?
They don't need new technological means of enforcing unbreakable subservience. They already have 1) television, and 2) the government school system. What was it Cardinal Richelieu said about give me a child until the age of ten, and he's mine for life?
In any case, would you care to speculate here on what those technologies might be?
>I am not being pessimistic here, only [what I believe to be] realistic.
>In fact, I believe that we can achieve a free society within five years,
> and possibly 2-3; how's that for optimism? I feel that it's urgent to
>make people aware that we have a real window of opportunity here -- but
>that when it closes, it closes for good.
Please elaborate here also. Especially here, as this bears directly on the topic of the list. [Liberty Round Table -- To subscribe <mailto:LRT_list@sportsmen.net> with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject/topic field.]
Tim Starr <timstarr@netcom.com>; 5 Jan 1997:
>Original Written by: Jim Davidson <davidson@net1.net>
>
>>Martial law imposed by the Bubba-in-Chief, who'd call out the Marines to
>>enforce it. Which is just one of the reasons why this ain't gonna happen.
>
>I was actually thinking in terms of a parade permit. There are frequent
>parades in our nation's capital of gun-toting individuals. Of course, they
>tend to be members of the standing military organizations. However, it
>would be interesting to organize some marches, if not on the nation's
>capital then on various state capitals, in support of the right to keep and
>bear arms. I'm actually surprised that the existing gun groups don't do
>more of this.
I'm not, as it's been illegal since the late 19th century. Someone else has already pointed out the Supreme Court decision that upheld this bit of tyranny.
>There are, after all, lots of parades by liberal groups wanting farmer
>subsidies, welfare subsidies, gun control, and what have you. Surely gun
>owners could be "permitted" to have a parade of their own.
Unarmed, sure. Armed? No f...ing way.
>Excellent! Lately I've been adding a lot of items to my collection of
>things that I've been called. "Misguided" is a wonderful addition. Not
>only is it provocative, it is also moderate. Thank you!
Except that it wasn't about YOU, it was about the sort of strategy that you had advocated.
>I believe that an actual survey would be appropriate to determine just how
>much in the minority we are, especially where it comes to our ideas. There
>are, I believe, a very great number of disgusted, pissed off Americans who
>are fed up with the size of government, behavior of bureaucrats, and antics
>of politicians. As further evidence of this position, I would cite the last
>5 biannual national elections, the poor turnout for which, I believe, can be
>at least partly attributed to a general disgust with the political process.
Being fed up with government does not constitute support for individual liberty. Half the people "fed up" with it are mad 'cause it's not giving them all the tyranny they want. The other half are bad 'cause it is giving them the tyranny they want, but it's not turning out the way they wanted it to.
A study was done in the early 1980s on whether people wanted more or less civil liberties, and more or less free markets. They used the Nolan Chart to graph their results. Only about 17-22% even fell into the "libertarian" part of the Chart. Experience using the Nolan Chart to recruit LP members indicates that almost no one who isn't already at 90% on both axes ever joins or becomes an activist of any sort. The number of 90% total self-governors, as the Advocates for Self-Government call 'em, is much smaller than 17-22% of the population. Exactly how small, I'm not sure, but pretty small. Maybe 1%.
My top priority is to figure out ways for this tiny group of hardcore individualists to become an activist cadre that can increase the freedom of themselves and those around them in ways that will bring the most benefit to themselves. That means learning how to hack the political systems they find themselves in.
My second priority is to figure out how to increase the number of these activist cadre. Those who've been the most successful at this have found that it's easier to make an activist into a libertarian than it is to make a libertarian into an activist. The strategy this suggests is finding activists with similar goals as ourselves and making ourselves useful to them in whatever ways we can. This teaches them that at the very least we can be effective allies, and at the most will pique their curiosity about our ideas.
I share your worries about legal threats from the IRS, which is why I don't advocate illegal tax evasion either.
<SNIP>
>I take exception to your position that "any of this" as you describe it in
>your post, is futile in the absence of a changed culture.
>
>Advocating liberty is not futile, or I wouldn't do it. Promoting the
>keeping and bearing of arms is the most effective way to limit crime and
>deter tyranny, and is certainly not futile.
Agreed. But those DO change the culture.
I actually think that parades would be a good idea at some point. I just think we'd have to have a lot more popular support first. I think we've got to start small, then build from there. My idea is to try to figure out the smallest possible project you could do to increase your own freedom in your own local area, hopefully recruiting allies in the process, try that, then move on from there.
Victor Milan <72327.3717@CompuServe.COM>; 17 Jan 1997:
>>That answer I have: No. Most probably within ten years, almost certainly
>>within twenty years, and all too conceivably in less than a single decade,
>>the govt will achieve one or more technological means of enforcing
>>unbreakable subservience upon the bulk of the population.
>
>I recall reading predictions that both computers and atomic weaponry were
>exactly that sort of technology. Neither prediction has panned out; in fact
>(as Jerry Pournelle did predict) computers gave the Soviets a dilemma they
>couldn't handle and contributed to their collapse.
Indeed. I think the information revolution which contributed so mightily to the USSR's collapse computers is, overall, intrinsically decentralizing. But the USSR wasn't exactly riding the wave of computer progress. As long as the US govt has No Such Agency and the world's most expensive accretion of computer hardware and know-how at its disposal, I'm not sure we're out of the woods on this one.
Because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never can. People predicted manned flight for centuries before it panned out. Predictions of space colonization, or even of any human activity in space whatever beyond wasteful extravaganzas to stroke govts' collective egos, haven't done so well, either. Does that mean humans will never really live in space?
>>If that sounds too much like science fiction -- which after all is what I
>>do for a living - then I have an additional question:
>>
>>Are you willing to bet your life, your freedom, your very sense of self
>>that I'm wrong?
>
>They don't need new technological means of enforcing unbreakable
>subservience. They already have 1) television, and 2) the government school
>system. What was it Cardinal Richelieu said about give me a child until the
>age of ten, and he's mine for life?
I always thought it was Richelieu's deadly foes, the Jesuits.
One way or another, as "means of enforcing unbreakable subservience," TV, the schools, and Armand-Jean's or the Company of Jesus' methods have one conspicuous feature in common: Manifestly, they don't work.
Are _you_ subservient? Do you think I am? Is anybody on this list? We can't all have been living in isolation bubbles or on other planets all our lives. That's pretty piss-poor performance for absolute control, no?
>In any case, would you care to speculate here on what those technologies
>might be?
Yep. Direct interference with brain chemistry, possibly by nanotechnological means, permitting direct, real-time external control of your every thought and action. That's _one_.
>>I am not being pessimistic here, only [what I believe to be] realistic.
>>In fact, I believe that we can achieve a free society within five years,
>>and possibly 2-3; how's that for optimism? I feel that it's urgent to
>>make people aware that we have a real window of opportunity here -- but
>>that when it closes, it closes for good.
>Please elaborate here also. Especially here, as this bears directly on the
>topic of the list.
Two major considerations:
1) The experiment of Big Govt is a manifest failure. I believe -- as always, YMMV -- that a great many more people are aware of that, if not perhaps on a conscious level, than most libertarians credit right now. I'm not saying most Americans are "really libertarian" -- but it won't take anywhere near a majority of the population simply refusing to participate in the govt scam to make the country ungovernable.
2) Govt's reach has already exceeded its grasp. It _will_ run out of money -- here's something else that's been predicted but hasn't yet happened, but in this case the only real question is when, not whether. Meanwhile, every day the govt arrogates more power to itself -- but it cannot _actually_ control what it already claims to hold. For me the unimistakable evidence of that was the LA riots, in which the riot ended not because of the deployment of troops, but because the rioters got tired & their living rooms got full of VCRs and big-screen TVs.
What I see therefore is widespread disillusionment of govt combined with an imminent crisis in govt's ability to exert power. That suggests an immense opportunity. The fact that the govt's power ultimately rests on what may be the greatest economic bubble in history suggests the situation could break quickly...
Jim Davidson <davidson@net1.net>; 17 Jan 1997:
>USSR wasn't exactly riding the wave of computer progress. As long as
>the US govt has No Such Agency and the world's most expensive accretion
>of computer hardware & know-how at its disposal, I'm not sure we're out
>of the woods on this one.
We're certainly not. And we probably can't even rely upon the widespread disaffection and libertarian underpinnings to the politics of most computer programmers and hardware developers. Although I'm sure there are more than a few bugs in NSA software and hardware, they have the budget for brute force solutions.
>Because something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never can. People
>predicted manned flight for centuries before it panned out. Predictions of
>space colonization, or even of any human activity in space whatever beyond
>wasteful extravaganzas to stroke govts' collective egos, haven't done so
>well, either. Does that mean humans will never really live in space?
Well, yes and no. People move out onto frontiers in order to get away from government, excessive characteristics of civilization, and to make the most of their own capabilities. As long as the government controls access to the space frontier, it will remain closed. And the agents of our government can't conscience allowing private industry to have open access to the space frontier because that same capability can be used to wage effective war. You can't have the capability to put a man in orbit without also having the capability to land a bomb anywhere on Earth.
So, humans will never really live in space until we can affect a fundamental change in the government of the last remaining superpower. Which is why I'm on this list and not out in West Texas with my buddies building low cost rockets.
>I always thought it was Richelieu's deadly foes, the Jesuits.
Bartlett's Familiar Quotations is silent on this question.
>One way or another, as "means of enforcing unbreakable subservience,"
>TV,
>the schools, and Armand-Jean's or the Company of Jesus' methods have
>one
>conspicuous feature in common: Manifestly, they don't work.
Yep. I recall as a child the great game among my brothers and myself was to challenge each other's imagination to find the holes in the reasoning of TV commercials. We invariably resolved the plots of TV shows in the first few minutes, using the cadence of "trouble for the good guys, important break, trouble for the bad guys" and the never-broken adage, "Stars of the show don't die." Of course, that was in the days before remote control (yes, dating myself badly, I know) when muting the commercials meant going over to the set to turn down the volume.
I don't believe skepticism is universal, but it is a damn sight more widespread than most people seem to believe.
>Are _you_ subservient? Do you think I am? Is anybody on this list? We
>can't all have been living in isolation bubbles or on other planets all
>our lives. That's pretty piss-poor performance for absolute control, no?
All it takes for absolute control is for good men to do nothing. Which is, after all, a pretty major thing.
>Yep. Direct interference with brain chemistry, possibly by
>nanotechnological means, permitting direct, real-time external control of
>your every thought & action. That's _one_.
Human pheromones are a step in this direction. Mood can be controlled today using pheromones.
>1) The experiment of Big Govt is a manifest failure. I believe - as always,
>YMMV -- that a great many more people are aware of that, if not perhaps on
>a conscious level, than most libertarians credit right now. I'm not saying
>most Americans are "really libertarian" -- but it won't take anywhere near a
>majority of the population simply refusing to participate in the govt scam to
>make the country ungovernable.
YMMV? Acronyms, acronyms, and not a drop to drink. Okay, my liquor stock is my problem.
>2) Govt's reach has already exceeded its grasp. It _will_ run out of money
>-- here's something else that's been predicted but hasn't yet happened, but
>in this case the only real question is when, not whether. Meanwhile, every
>day the govt arrogates more power to itself - but it cannot _actually_ control
>what it already claims to hold. For me the unimistakable evidence of that
>was the LA riots, in which the riot ended not because of the deployment of
>troops, but because the rioters got tired and their living rooms got full
>of VCRs and big-screen TVs.
The borrowing habits of the government benefit folks like David Rockefeller. Morgan and his associates did a world of harm pushing through the income tax and the Federal Reserve system. I'm not sure what the limits to that system are, but they very clearly have not been reached.
>What I see therefore is widespread disillusionment of govt combined with
>an imminent crisis in govt's ability to exert power. That suggests an
>immense opportunity. The fact that the govt's power ultimately rests on
>what may be the greatest economic bubble in history suggests the
>situation could break quickly.
Which reasoning does suggest that a careful libertarian will have a diversified portfolio of currencies. If you aren't investing offshore, you need to think seriously about what you will do with a devalued dollar...
[Are there potential killer applications in the area of doing business and investing in offshore tax havens?]
Rick White <rick.rabbit@elmos.com>; 19 Feb 1997:
>1. Are there certain "powerful things," such that if about 1,000 freedom
>activists knew, understood, and did them, they would terminate (or render
>insignificant) most coercive political systems within a few decades? If
>so, what might these "powerful things" be?
One thing that would be VERY useful would be a concerted effort to de-mystify, ridicule and de-legitimize government at the deepest psychological levels. The culture as a whole has actually been doing this well at _superficial_ levels -- i.e., this and that government program is wasteful, corrupt, and ill advised. But the population at large SEEMS to STILL believe in the institution of government as somehow desirable -- and reformable.
Especially "liberals" seem to have a deep psychological need, despite all facts and reason, to believe "the government" will save and protect "the children, the poor, the disadvantaged," etc. by "redistributing" the wealth. Part of this may just be a displacement reaction -- they believe THEY need to be saved and protected? From what?
We know (or think we know) better. "The government" CREATES most of the poor and disadvantaged, (a) by taxing people, directly and indirectly, into poverty, and (b) by disingenuously convincing them "government" will take care of them, thus lolling them into a false sense of security and fooling them out of taking care of themselves. Further, government severely weakens individuals, "families," and "communities," more normal and more controllable sources of protection, by taking a huge amount of resources away from these groupings, using it to feed the members of the government clique and, often as not, bestowing huge amounts as "corporate welfare" upon their brown-nosers, suck-ups and hangers-on. Historically, this has nearly ALWAYS been the case. Any liberal in his right mind, recognizing this, should immediately convert.
The apparent paradox, as Peter Drucker points out, is that the countries that try hardest to redistribute have the greatest disparity in income. *1** Once you understand that, historically, redistribution in _larger groups with governments_ has _ALWAYS_ been from "peasants" "mainly to the nonproducing part of the population, that is, to the officials, the military, and the leisure class" *2 -- that is, to the politically influential and those who protect them -- but that our altruistic small-group instincts _assume_ redistribution in the _opposite_ direction -- this isn't paradoxical at all. Today, as always, poor-to-rich redistribution permeates _all_ government-dominated societies.
One modern random though significant arcane poor-to-rich redistribution example: Interest on the National Debt is redistributed FROM taxpayers whose taxes pay that interest and who, on the whole are less rich, TO buyers of government bonds who, if they can afford to buy bonds, are clearly richer. Large amounts of this interest go to richer people in other country's who now buy US Treasury Bonds and "T-Bills." - testimony to Joint Economic Committee of Congress, CNN, 12 Feb 93 ~11:30 AM. Interest on the national debt is the largest single Federal expenditure and amounted to $241 billion dollars for FY 1996. - L. Reichard White, _Unrecognized Enemies_, (Brownsville: White INK 1997) p. 5.
*1 Peter F. Drucker, _Post-Capitalist Society_, (New York: HarperBusiness 1993), p. 164.
*2 Karl Polanyi, 1944. _The Great Transformation_. (Boston: Beacon Hill 1944), p. 52.
If freedom activists REALLY knew WHY governments aren't desirable --- mainly because they invariably redistribute wealth from poor to rich, CAN'T be controlled and aren't re-formable (as long as they make their living by extortion and armed robbery) --- and could explain this convincingly, especially to liberals, I believe this would go a long way toward dissolving liberal support for the "state." Remember, all the classical anarchists were socialists -- and "The withering away of the state" was a main ideal motivating the world-wide communist revolution, the most wide-spread revolution in history.
The right wing is more difficult, since they tend to be hierarchical, believe in the state as an instrument of group protection from force, and that casualties are inevitable.
>2. What has to be sold to freedom activists in order to maximize the
>probability that they will quickly bring about a quantum leap in the
>expansion of freedom and/or liberty?
Practical alternatives to state coercive programs that can be easily explained, understood and BELIEVED. This PROBABLY means programs and tactics with a track record. THIS probably means guinea pigs who are willing to put their freedom on the line to prove one or another of these programs work --- and careful documentation (including video, etc.) that they DO work -- and how to make them work. In the incredibly cheap-information age, quality, integrity, and credibility of information will be at an absolute premium. Merely "bending over backwards" to maintain integrity and trust isn't nearly enough any more.
>3. What things do tyrants want their victims to do that will increase
>the power of tyrants while decreasing the freedom/liberty of victims?
(a) Go to sleep: Eternal vigilance ISN'T the price of freedom -- but it IS the down payment. (b) Attack and blame the wrong "enemy."
>4. What actions might victims take to increase their freedom/liberty
>-- and cease to be victims -- while reducing the power of tyrants?
Keep their money at home. Other than that, I don't have any current specifics at this point, but a thought on GENERAL guidelines. KISS (KeepItSimpleStupid) -- that is, these actions should be as individual as possible, counting on the cooperation of as few others as possible. This way, those who are brave enough and motivated enough can squeeze out through the bars, and don't have to take reluctant couch potatoes with them. The main thing is to deprive the TGs [territorial gangsters] of money.
>5. What are the tyrants' "weak spots"; where are they most vulnerable?
In a "democracy," they are SOMEWHAT vulnerable to public opinion -- but not very -- because it takes tremendous effort and persistence to develop, and maintain action based on it. Also, a short public memory (the memory hole) is a handicap when trying to do away with parasites whose existence depends on conning, fleecing and robbing the "public" day after day, year after year. What has the "Million Man March" accomplished 1 year later? On the other hand, the million gathered in Tiananmen square and the 3000 of them killed universally alerted the Chinese to the true nature of their government. Currently, who can hold out longer, Melosevic and the Serbian TG clique --- or the Serbian demonstrators?
I believe a presentation of Steiger's Law is in order here:
*Steiger's Law:* Sam Steiger is a former six-term US Congressman from Arizona. This means he served in the US House of Representatives for some 24 years. He ran for governor of Arizona on the Libertarian ticket in {1984.} He's a genuine gentleman rancher and has the "people's touch." At a talk given July 31, 1982, at The Nevada Libertarian Party "CANDIDATE'S CONVENTION" in Las Vegas, Nevada, he suggested what he modestly called "Steiger's Law": "People involved in a structure spend more time and energy maintaining that structure than in working toward its goals."
During a question period, I asked him "How much more?" After a moment or two of thought, he suggested about 85% was spent maintaining and about 15% working. He added with a twinkle, "But that's only if it's a _very good_ organization." Thus for me, Steiger's Law became:
"People in a very good structure spend 85% of their time and energy maintaining the structure and only about 15% working towards its stated goals."
This clearly applies to government organizations in particular, and is the basis of one of the main problems we have with them.
The TG's only REAL weak point is the same weak-point that every organism/organization has; sustenance, in this case tax money. It is my belief that this is almost the ONLY leverage point with any hope of success. The only way the "US Government" has been able to control the UN is by withholding money from "it," for example.
>6. What can freedom activists do to take advantage of the tyrants'
>"weak spots?"
Never miss an opportunity to stir-up anti-TG public opinion.
Find ways to help people opt-out of the IRS (Internal Robbery System.) I believe I sent you a copy of "Liberty Leasing," a somewhat developed but certainly less than complete notion of one way this might be done. ['LIBERTY LEASING A Modest Proposal for Freedom in Our Time' by L. Reichard White . By happy "coincidence," while preparing this text for publication, I received details on American Contracting Services, which looks like an implementation of Liberty Leasing!]
[Is Liberty Leasing/American Contracting Services a potential killer application?]
What do you think? You have much more complete info and experience with the sovereignty/jurisdictional knowledge than I. Could Liberty Leasing be developed into an organization/plan that would check-mate the TG's taxing the incomes of those flesh-and-blood individuals who choose to patronize a Liberty Leasing-type business?
[Yes! I think Liberty Leasing/American Contracting Services could provide a "high reward/risk ratio way" for large numbers of people to extricate themselves from some of the TGs' most important killer applications.]
How else can we aid our fellows to escape the IRS?
>7. What are the most common "weak spots" of freedom activists?
(a) Many of them, like most victims of government education, don't really trust themselves at the basic psychological level of being capable of [doing very much beyond their habitual rut], especially anything without a "safety-net" provided by SOMEONE ELSE. They don't really _KNOW_ they earn their "daily bread." They, like the majority of the population, don't know and can't handle the fact that at least some degree of "risk" is an inescapable and necessary part of EVERY action in life. As a result, they neither evaluate, accept, nor prepare for the results of taking risks. They lack the "skill-set" for risk taking. As a result, they aren't prepared to take actions perceived as "too risky," such as opting out of the clearly unconstitutional tax system, etc., nor do they recommend that others should do the same.
(a) Also, like most of the population, they literally can't imagine (create a mental image of) a society WITHOUT government force being an integral part of it.
>8. What do freedom activists have to do to strengthen these "weak
>spots?"
(a) Experience individual, personal success -- a more competent self-image. Take enough "gambles" (risks) that they "lose" some of them -- and thus learn they can survive "losses" quite well.
(b) Someone once told me about a party game they played. The situation was that suddenly (from a selective virus?) all government bureaucrats and operatives got amnesia and stopped doing anything. The game was to suggest solutions to problems "governments" had normally handled -- but with one difference; no-one could be FORCED to do ANYTHING. The way this story was told to me, people were at first stumped by the simplest problem -- most of their solutions required force. But once they got the hang of it, they began to come up with forceless solutions to almost everything. How about a board game or computer simulation game based on this?
>9. What are the "strong points" of freedom activists; in what respects
>do they have most power?
(a) Especially in the united states, we have the force of tradition -- and at least lip service to freedom -- on our side, not to mention most of the founding documents. While the constitution isn't the ultimate in freedom, it sure looks good from here.
(b) We're right, and more and more people recognize this every day.
(c) The TGs rely on the threat of force keeping everyone in line. When the threats fail, they can't be everywhere at once. Anti-police riots in various cities are examples. Some sorts of coordinated _constructive_ activity that they can't cover -- with appropriate publicity -- might demonstrate this incurable totalitarian weakness, and encourage others to take advantage of it more often. One example of the "they can't be everywhere" principle is internet commerce which facilitates what William Rees-Mog has dubbed "disintermediation," which de-centralizes distribution to the extent it may no longer be feasible for TGs to tax the equivalent of retail transactions. This gives small business an inherent price advantage over companies which must pay these exactions.
"...[D]isintermediation...is already one of the Internet's most striking characteristics. Instead of people dealing with each other through an intermediary, thay are able to deal direct; they no longer need the distributors, brokers, bankers and so on who put them in touch with each other in terrestrial business, because the Internet lets them do that for themselves. But these intermediaries are the people who report taxable transactions to the authorities, and they are essential to the tax system. No intermediary, no reporting." -- William Rees-Mogg, London Times, Dec. 2, '96.
"You cannot tax the man with the laptop if you do not know who or where he is." -- William Rees-Mogg, London Times, Dec. 2, '96.
"In short, cyberspace is an impregnable tax haven..." William Rees-Mogg, London Times, Dec. 2, '96.
[Are there potential killer applications in the area of e-commerce that is effectively impregnable to TG interference?]
>From the production end, it is much more difficult for the establishment to tax "service providers" than it is to tax manufacturers for much the same reason -- taxing centralized facilities is much easier than taxing a bunch of individual independent contractors. How can you tax two people who pass cash from hand to hand without any central records available to thieving authorities? I talked to one such service provider, (he was filling joints in brick houses with mortar) who told me he doesn't declare any income from this work -- he said he couldn't afford to support his family if he did. He also mentioned that many people he knew operated the same way. Estimates are that by the turn of the century, only 18% of the population will be involved in producing or delivering manufactured goods. This spells trouble for the IRS, since presumably the other 82% of the population will be providing services in some way -- and tracking and taxing such providers largely depends on their cooperation.
>10. How can these strong points be utilized to defeat the tyrants?
(a) Perhaps we can confront the TGs by getting them to make their underlying implicit assumptions explicit (that freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. are quaint, old, out-dated anachronisms -- and that because people are too stupid to take care of themselves their families and their neighborhood, freedom is outdated) -- and then kick their ass on that revelation right in front of the media and everyone.
The 10th (and 9th) amendment would be a good place to start. I know there's already some lip service paid to this by some Republicans, (Dole even mentioned it a few times in his campaign) but they were so PR stupid in their handling of the "Contract ON America," even the lip-service has stopped. Was that the plan? If they looked closely at these two amendments, they must realize they would gut their beloved organization. Remember, the fight between the democrats and republicans is over who will occupy the castle for the next four years. As long as they know they may occupy it _next_ term, demolishing the castle has little attraction for them.
How's the 10th Amendment movement doing, by the way? Who's running it?
(b) Hang in there; have faith; keep writing and speaking -- finally, the momentum is WITH us:
* Only 19% of Americans trust the government.
* 48% of surveyed Americans say they WOULDN'T give up any of their rights (including their rights to bear arms) to fight crime, feel more secure or for any reason. 38% said they WOULD give up rights, 15% were undecided. - CNN Headline News, 12 May 1995, 12:06:31 AM
* 18% of Americans believe they have the right to arm themselves to resist the government. 25% believe that Americans have the right to purchase and store large amounts of arms and ammunition. - CNN Headline News, 15 May 1995, 9:34:51 AM
(c) Promote more "they can't be everywhere at once" activity and more "disintermediation." Provide the moral arguments (why it is immoral to pay taxes) to aid those disintermediated folks to make the right decision when it comes to voluntarily reporting "taxable" transactions.
>11. Consider the possibility that there are certain "powerful things"
>that many people who don't care about freedom or liberty might do that
>are obviously in their self-interest, and that, if done, would bring
>about a quantum leap in the expansion of freedom and/or liberty; if
>so, what has to be sold to them in order to persuade them to do these
>"powerful things?"
Except for the perceived threats, a large portion of the population would like to opt out of the IRS (Internal Robbery System). This has nothing to do with philosophy or love of freedom, it's increasingly a matter of self-preservation. Harry Browne's question "Would you give up your favorite government programs if you never had to pay income tax again?" got about a 45% positive response, with a smaller percentage saying "No" and the rest undecided. Large numbers of people are ready -- they just need a workable, reasonably safe and simple way to 'do it.' This would significantly reduce the beast's food supply. [Liberty Leasing could play a major role in this respect -- see American Contracting Services.]
>12. What other questions should we ask?
Why, despite the historical record and current history, do people accept the inferior services at inflated prices -- and unwanted externalities such as wars, etc. -- that are the hallmark of governments? What are the underlying biological drives that contribute to this aberration?
L. Reichard White lives six houses up from the old Black Horse Tavern, a birth place of the Whiskey Rebellion -- which explains a lot. His current project is a revision of historical perspective, based on the theory that many modern problems find their basis in small-group altruistic instinctive drives which make dupes of us in modern history's large super-groups. He has supported his writing habit for over twenty years by beating casinos at their own games.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com