Monday, June 20, 2016

Questions About Flag Worship Etiquette

State worship extremism seems to constantly achieve new heights of depravity within The Collective. Just when you think the antics can’t get any nuttier, some ludicrous, new tidbit of idiocy surfaces to raise the bar.

Such is the case of a report by Laurence Vance at the LRC Blog who tells a reader’s account of being refused service by a food vendor at a sporting event. Why? Was he being disruptive in some way? Was he threatening the vending employees or other customers?

Why no, he was much more callous than that. He simply desired to purchase some food while……..the national anthem was being played in the stadium.

Horrors! The audacity of the man to commit such an egregious, uncaring act!

Apparently, the vendor is not allowed (by some unnamed authority) to transact any business while The Empire’s War Anthem is playing through the stadium’s public address system. And by the looks of the photo, they are not allowed to do anything else, either, but stand still and gaze at Moldy Old Glory while it waves on the nearest monitor.

When seeing the war anthem played on TV, I’ve always thought what a great time for an attending fan to head out to the concession stand or restroom. Everyone else is frozen in place and you can quickly take care of your business and get back to your seat before the game starts. But I guess that’s not possible. Does security disallow any moving around at all? Can they kick you out for doing so?

My first thoughts go to the food vendor employees, now frozen in place as the anthem echoes throughout the stadium. What if several hamburger patties on the grill are just about due to be flipped…..and then, the anthem begins. Must the patties be allowed to burn as a necessary sacrifice? After all, it’s a pretty long song. What if the alarm on the French fry cooker goes off…..just after the anthem begins. Are the fries left to cook excessively long?

Are such instances exceptions to the rule? Do the cooks and other employees have some special dispensation from on high for rightfully and reverently handling such chores?

Let’s now move our attention to another important area of the sport venue- the restrooms.

I wonder if the “stand in place” requirement holds in the restroom, as well. I imagine the nicer parks have a TV in the restrooms. What’s the etiquette there? If standing at the urinal when the war anthem begins, should I stress my sphincter and “shut down” midstream while urinating? Should I then turn toward the nearest image of the war flag? Should I zip up first?

Is there a prescribed way to respectfully stand at the urinal while the War Anthem is playing that I’m not aware of? Perhaps this fellow has an idea.

Since transsexuals are a protected group, are they allowed more leeway in such a situation? Can they switch their identities back and forth to accommodate the situation they find themselves in?

Is this requirement to stand at attention and face the flag only for sporting events or for any situation where the anthem is played? If I walk into the McDonald’s down the street and begin playing the War Anthem from my Ipod, are the employees required to stop working and stand at attention until the completion of the song? No? Why not? What is the difference between the two situations that would make that so? And just who decides exactly what situations require obedience?

And the same goes for restroom etiquette. Should reverence also be displayed at any restroom that is paid a visit by my anthem- transmitting Ipod? Is it my duty as a loyal subject to report any subversives that fail to follow procedure?

So many questions to ask….So many things to learn...........

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters


Friday, June 17, 2016

Here Come the Hordes…………

Reports the Texas Tribune: “Dealing the final blow to Gov. Greg Abbott’s effort to keep Syrian refugees out of the state, a federal judge dismissed Texas’ lawsuit against the federal government and a refugee resettlement agency. The state was seeking to block the arrival of people fleeing the war-torn country.”

Instead of analyzing all the gory details, I think it would be more effective to throw some numbers at you about the immigration problem in just one Texas city- Amarillo, population 240,000:

Amarillo has the highest per capita ratio of refugees of any city in the world.

Amarillo has the highest ratio of Middle Eastern refugees of any city in America.

So far, Amarillo has become home to more than 1000 Middle Eastern migrants. When you take into consideration Muslim migrants from outside the Middle East, it’s much more.

The City of Amarillo gets more refugees per 100,000 population than any city in the world. The city receives about 500 refugees per year when the average for a city of its size should be about 65-90 per year.

“Ghettos” are being created in which bands of refugees from certain countries congregate and even claim to elect their own separate political leaders. [This has potential future violence written all over it.]

In some cases, rival tribes -slaves and masters- are being settled together, [This has immediate threat of violence written all over it.]

Resettlement contractors work as head hunters to locate cheap labor for the meat packing industry.

The city currently fields 9-1-1 calls in 42 different languages.

More than 15 languages are spoken in the Amarillo school system, and when you include the different dialects, the number balloons to 75. The school system has 660 (refugee) kids who don’t speak English.

The US Regime demands that these children be at grade level within one year.

Many of the children do not know how to use a bathroom [We already know many adults don’t, as well.]

This is just one city in Texas. This is just one city in the US Collective. And it’s just starting, folks: “The U.S. is scheduled to bring in 85,000 foreign refugees this year and 100,000 in fiscal 2017 – with about half of them coming from Muslim-dominated countries.”

But that’s just part of this not-so-pretty picture: “According to the Center for Immigration Studies, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and other sources, the U.S. issues about 120,000 green cards every year to persons from Muslim countries. If temporary visas are included, such as those issued to college students and guest workers, the number balloons to more than 240,000 per year.”

And the final kick in the ass you all have been waiting for: “They [refugees] qualify for all federal welfare benefits on day one of their arrival and are granted green-card status within a year. They can qualify for full citizenship, including voting rights, within five years.”

But the Trump Chump will make it all good when he becomes Emperor, right? After all, politicians always keep their promises……..


Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters


Thursday, June 16, 2016

Borders- Beware of False Comparisons

When discussing the control of state territorial borders, a false comparison must be avoided to accurately argue for the supremacy of private property lines as borders. During such a discussion, people often use a faulty analogy when arguing for the support of state borders.

The analogy often used is that the purpose and characteristics of a state border can be compared to a gated (private) community, rightfully restricting access to outsiders when deemed necessary. However, using such an analogy is faulty. How do I defend this claim? By stating another, age old analogy- You can’t compare apples to oranges.

Apples and oranges are similar items, but certainly not the same. State borders and property line borders are similar at a glance but are most certainly not the same.

How? Each type of border is created and controlled by different entities with each serving a different purpose.

Differences Between the Two Borders

A state border is a line of demarcation created by a state through conquest or acquisition. A property line is created by an individual or group of individuals either through homesteading or acquisition involving a voluntary transaction with other individuals.

A state border is controlled by the same central ruling authority that claims control over the territory within these borders. A private property line border is controlled by the individual or groups of individuals who rightly, through homesteading or voluntary transaction, claim ownership of territory within those property line borders.

The purpose of a state border is to restrict and regulate the movement of individuals (whether its own subjects or subjects of other states) and commercial goods. The purpose of a private property line border is to restrict entry to only those individuals granted permission by a particular property owner (and to his property, only) and to restrict or prevent any unauthorized usage of that property owner’s territory.

One similarity of the two kinds of borders must be mentioned- The nature and extent of control of state borders can, depending on the type of state controlling authority, be petitioned and influenced, to some extent, by the subjects contained within such borders. It is the prerogative of the state’s ruling authority to reject any such influence. The controlling authority (owner) of private property can be petitioned and influenced, if it so chooses by other property owners or individuals, but this petitioning may also be ignored, if it serves the interest of the property owner.

The Conflict

It’s obvious that the territory contained within the state’s borders (and to which it claims control) also contains territory contained within the borders of property owners (to which these owners claim control).

The state’s controlling authority justifies this overlap of territory by claiming to protect property line borders within its domain from trespassers and invaders from outside the state’s borders that contain its entire domain.

The conflict arises when the interests served by the state’s borders do not serve or directly conflict with the interests served by the property owner’s borders.

The state may restrict or prevent movement of people or goods across its state borders at the expense of the property owner who may value and welcome such people or goods to cross his private property line borders. Or the opposite might be the case- The state allows people or goods to cross its state borders that the property owner perceives as a threat to his person or property. He would prefer that such people or goods not be allowed across the state’s borders.

In both cases, the property line owner must now petition (beg) the state to serve the interest of the property owner. The state is petitioned to allow such passage in order to receive the benefits of invited guests or desirable goods, or to disallow passage of the same to receive the protection of his property that the state has promised.

The state is also petitioned by individuals residing within the state’s border who are not property owners. Their desires regarding the control of the state’s borders may directly conflict with those of property owners.

The property owner should now be able to see the superior nature of property line borders versus state borders. The unreliability of state controlled borders should be viewed as a threat to the property owner, not an asset as an extra layer of protection.

The Solution

The state’s negligence in securing its borders (for whatever reason) necessitates a drastic change of policy from the state’s controlling authority toward its borders. If such a change does not occur, the property owner will eventually view such unreliability as a reason to necessitate state abolition. After all, why pay for a protector that doesn’t protect you?

Further, individuals that are not even property owners may support the state’s border policy that threatens the property owners’ interest. When such interests ally with the interests of the state (regarding its borders), it creates an even more onerous predicament for the property owners.

In this situation, the state’s borders no longer serve the interests of property owners. The state claims it exists to be the ultimate protector of individuals (its declared ‘subjects’) and their property. Yet, it allows passage of outsiders (subjects of other states) that directly threaten the property of these same ‘subjects.’

Such a condition is not acceptable to the property owner. He now sees that the state no longer serves his interests. He now views the state as even a direct threat to the continued existence of his property. The state is no longer reliable as “protector.” An institution that no longer serves it purpose no longer need continue to exist. The property owner now sees abolition as a necessary action.

But first, the state must be held to its promise of using its borders to protect the property owner. It must be compelled to prevent entry to any more undesirable visitors (as perceived by the property owners) and any removal of those previously allowed entry.

Abolishing the state first, before securing its borders would leave a dangerous, chaotic atmosphere for property owners to create there new system of protection. Private defense agencies (protection agents for property owners) and protective alliances between property owners must be allowed the time and conditions conducive to creating and deploying such protective mechanisms. These mechanisms will now be controlled exclusively by property owners. Any agents assisting the defense of these property line borders will be under the total control of its customers, the property owners. This contrasts with their previous agent protection (the state) which ultimately decided, itself, the nature and extent of protection given its subjects.


State borders (false borders) are arbitrary lines set by state criminals and operated for the benefit and strengthening of the criminal mafia that operates the state's protection racket. With state borders, the enslaved subjects must beg or bribe their ruling masters to restrict access from outside invaders bent on destroying private property lines.

The given example of a gated community is private property, marked by property lines (true borders). Any uninvited visitors would be considered trespassers and subject to whatever action deemed necessary by the property owners. If the visitors refuse to leave, they could be righteously eliminated. No other authority need be petitioned for protection. The private property owner is now complete master of his domain.

This now accurate comparison establishes the obvious supremacy of private property lines as borders, exclusively, versus the additional, ineffective, duplicitous, and even hazardous state borders.

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters


Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Texas GOP Gangsters Terrified of Secession

It’s that time on the calendar when government gangsters battle for control of the US Collective. They accomplish this in tightly controlled skirmishes called “elections.” The GOP, one of the two streets gangs designated by the ruling class to constantly fight for control of this collective, recently had their Texas gang summit (state convention) in Dallas.

The Proposal

The only action at this summit worthy of reporting is the rejection of a proposal, heavily promoted by the Texas Nationalist Movement, to place a call for a referendum on Texas independence on the party platform.

The call for such a referendum was initially approved by two thirds of the Texas Republican Platform Committee, which certainly encouraged avid secessionists. This positive vote supported moving the secession proposal forward to a full vote of the delegates at the convention.

However, the proposal did not survive the next round of approval from an outfit called the “Permanent Platform Committee.” They narrowly defeated the proposal by a slim margin of 16-14, preventing it from being heard and debated on the convention floor of nearly 4000 delegates.

GOP Reactions

The reaction of loyalist GOP “leaders” was comically predictable:

Tom Mechler, (who claims the title, “Texas GOP chair”) dismissed the relevance of the Texas Nationalist Movement by whining, “Republican is not even in their name.” Millions would see such an observation as a positive for the TNM, whose movement and proposal is based on a principled action to preserve self determination, not a meaningless, vacuous platitude to please the leadership of a power seeking, political street gang.

Dan Patrick (who claims the title, “Lt. Governor”) rejected the proposal by saying, “Too many people have died for this country.” Well, Dan, I would counter that no one died for any “country,” but died to preserve individual liberty and the power of self determination to produce, reform, separate or even abolish whatever “country” they happen to live in. In the case of restless Texans, this means separation (secession) from a tyrannical, fasco-communist collective ruled by a far away, despotic ruling class, whose interests rarely, if ever, converge with the interests of those who call themselves, “Texans.”

Greg Abbot (who claims the title, “Governor”) chose to offer an alternative action instead of outright rejecting the secession proposal. Abbot wants to organize a convention of the states to amend the US constitution. He cites the authorization of such action by Article V of that document. “As the person who holds the record for suing the federal government, I can tell you it takes more than lawsuits to fix what’s broken in Washington, DC,” claims Abbot. Such a convention would supposedly be “limited,” “focused on curtailing federal power and spending, and boosting states’ rights.”

Excuse my pessimism in accepting the notion that politi-gangsters, who often don’t even obey the very laws they create (or outright exclude themselves from their coverage) would obediently “limit” themselves and legislate changes only relevant to carefully declared and clearly defined political objectives. Knowing the present prevalence of the entitlement mentality and the continual spreading of reality-optional social constructs throughout the US Collective, it’s understandable why anyone would have reservations about such an action. All manner of thievery and degeneracy could achieve constitutional establishment and protection.

According to Abbot, such a convention would, “propose things like term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and restoring the 10th amendment the way it was intended by the founders.” So a ruling DC regime, that has constantly disobeyed, dismissed, ignored and incorrectly interpreted many federal power restrictions and limitations (written in plain, understandable language) for decades, will suddenly obey to the letter new directives limiting its scope and power? Excuse me, once again, for my pessimism and lack of faith in my political masters.

My disbelief that such a convention result will force federal obedience is only surpassed by my well founded cynicism that two thirds of the thoroughly corrupt and liberty hating US House and Senate would allow such a convention to even take place. That leaves the necessity of gaining the acceptance of two thirds of the state legislatures which would require a massive, expensive, and time consuming project that would takes years to accomplish.

Then, if by some miracle a convention is actually held and amendments are approved, they don’t become part of the constitution until “ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” So still more time and expense must be incurred simply so Joe Citizen can beg his DC master to behave…….and for real, this time!

David Watrous (who claims no title) offers the most laughable alternative to secession and a convention of states: “You can’t just sit around and vote, you have to take some time out of your busy schedule and be involved.” So, Mr. Watrous, working for secession isn’t being “involved?” Working for a convention of states isn’t being “involved?”

“The system isn’t broken, Watrous says. People just need to take control in order to make it work the way it should.”

This view implies that secession and even a calling for a convention of states are not part of the “system,” even when the documents that created that system say otherwise. Such drastic actions would not be contemplated if the “system” wasn’t “broken.” And what better and certainly more efficient way to “take control” than outright politically parting ways with an overreaching, all powerful, empire building ruling entity that repeatedly treats its subject’s pleas for meaningful reform and adherence to constitutional restrictions with utter disdain?

Reason for Defeat

The platform process for the Texas GOP contains a number of hurdles to overcome before any resolution survives to become part of that platform. Each hurdle to overcome seems to be controlled by those further and further away from the grass roots who initiate such resolutions. Those grass roots activists will be eventually be replaced by party hacks the further a resolution travels the gauntlet of conventions, committees and sub-committees. These party hacks deem the existence, survival and the power of the party to be superior in importance to any relevant, positive and suggested change toward the governing system. The public’s perception of their party is of paramount importance. The slightest reference to any non-mainstream political action must be silenced to avoid being perceived as a party controlled by its “kook wing.“

The leadership structure of the GOP has the most to lose from any significant change in the governing system. In Texas, and probably most other states, the leadership class is heavily invested and ensconced in the federal system that operates the US Collective. They may occasionally throw a bone to their state electorate (as “Governor” Abbot has done) but will never allow any truly revolutionary actions threaten their secure sinecures within the party controlled, federal political system. Outright secession of Texas would mean, to them, a disastrous loss of power within their national party and a loss of influence and potential financial reward received from the federal system.

Even allowing the mere discussion of secession so terrifies the Texas GOP leadership, they refuse permission even to allow such discussion, let alone allowing language in their platform calling for a party referendum on secession, let alone calling for a state referendum allowing individual voters to actually decide their state’s future.


How are such roadblocks to be overcome? Persistence, I suppose. I’m not one that calls for political action but state secession seems the best chance to start the collapsing dominoes, eradicating the US Collective and its ruling, muderous death cult, once and for all. The slim margin of defeat of the secession proposal would seem to encourage further efforts in the future. In the meantime, secessionists should do whatever they can to keep such an idea in mainstream discussion.

Why bother proposing and initiating such nonsensical projects as a “convention of states” to tweak a document, written by minds far superior to the dregs that replace them today, and faithfully hoping that this prevents future failings?

Why bother listening to decades old pleas for individual “involvement,” consuming still more time and resources of individuals? Why should such individuals repeatedly sacrifice to reform and influence a federal system that repeatedly ignores them?

Why waste time and resources to “fix what’s broken in Washington, DC?” What better way to “take control” than to make decisions from the state and local level where there is much better hope of finding agreement among homogenous populations that tend to share values and goals.

Finally, ask yourself this question: Why does Texas or any other state need a “US?”

Look what being part of the US gives us now:

Endless war, ever increasing spying, destruction of the currency, wasteful spending, unpayable debt, bailout protection of thieving banksters, constant looting of our individual wealth, and depraved edicts from the throne that regulate every private minutiae of your life. I’m sure you can immediately think of still more “abuses and usurpations” to add to this list.

Looking to the future, what better way than state secession to begin a “succession of secessions,” each one creating an ever smaller ruling entity until each individual is sovereign? Each secession will reveal to individuals how little or not at all they need political “leaders” to organize their lives; “leaders” who prove themselves nothing more than thugs with guns, enforcing their role of self-appointed gatekeepers to individual lives, liberties, thoughts and futures. Such anachronisms as “nation states” and “rulers” will become a distant, bad memory, only to be examined historically as how not to order a society.

Other sources:
Doesn't look like Texas will secede, at least not now

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters


Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Dismantle the State First, Then It’s Borders

I used to think that open borders and treating migrants as fellow sovereigns would help destroy the power of that particular state collective that oppresses me. I figured that supporting the enforcement of the state’s borders was consent to the state’s rule and therefore should be ignored. I’ve since come to realize that such a viewpoint is not practical in the reality of a state controlled world and will create even more oppression than I currently experience.

Look at Germany- Yes, they have borders but the state has created a de facto obliteration of such borders by allowing unrestricted immigration of violent, low IQ, illiterate, culturally medieval monkeys and forcibly integrating them among pre-existing sovereigns. This forced integration also includes coerced financial support and demanded tolerance of these invading hordes. The inevitable conflicts were easy to predict. And look who the state is protecting- not the pre-existing sovereigns and their property, but rather the low IQ, illiterate, culturally medieval monkeys!

To a ruler committed to obtaining ultimate power, there are no better subjects than parasites and deviants- the former looking for a big daddy to support them, the latter needing an enabler for attention, comfort, and protection.

State power will continually increase as the culture conflict increases. The state feeds off conflict and misery. Will the state admit to their error and reverse their failed policy? Of course not! They will offer still more “solutions” that create still more winners and losers……and still more conflict.

This conflict will create more calls of state intervention, not less, among the resident loyalist populace, leading to still more power transferred from individuals to the state. Border abolition and the resulting invasion will not help abolish the state but only strengthen it. A closed border at least creates some form of “stability” in order to gradually hammer away at state power. The massive chaos resulting from a juggernaut of migrant monkeys will only make it even more difficult to reach the goal of abolition. Any hope of gradual abolition of the state will wither and die. State power thrives in chaos. It does not weaken it.

What success do you think you will have convincing a loyalist to lessen state power while they are surrounded and threatened by migrant violence? Yes, the state is the source cause of all this conflict but your loyalist won't care or listen. They will only further petition their state master for change and/or protection concerning this problem- a problem that need not exist in the first place if borders were enforced. The slave will beg and the master will listen. Begging is music to the ear of the master.

In order for the libertarian idea of open borders to be successfully realized, first the state itself must be neutered and neutralized through repeated secessions, resulting in decentralization and eventual destruction of state power over individual liberty and property. This power will eventually shift to sovereign individuals and small collectives of culturally homogenous populations. Property rights will be the ruling authority, not the demented edicts of ruling tyrants.

Only then can you open or eliminate those borders and properly deal with any invaders, free of artificial restrictions or coerced integration.

And maybe even a hang a few banksters for the fun of it.

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters



Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Christmas Hypocrisy

And the nonsense continues……

People talk about “peace and good will toward men” for a few hours, then they’re back to killing each other for the rest of the year. This has gone on for centuries. Why? Because The State, master creator of hate, death and destruction, still exists!

I’m all for replacing the deceiving “Christmas” bullshit with “Death to the State Day” or even the less antagonistic “Abolish the State Day.” Both names encourage the exact same result.
The invention of “Christmas,” itself involves deceit. It was originally a pagan holiday celebrating an astronomical constant (winter solstice), then somehow morphed into the day the Son of God was born. Huh?

It has become obvious that Jesus most certainly was not born on December 25, branding this hijacked holiday with a tattoo of deception. And why would the birth of the Son Of God, surely the most fantastic event in the history of this planet, only be recognized ONE stinking day of the year? Why aren’t believers celebrating this daily?

For you Christians upset about this proposal, please remember that The State is the Devil’s infrastructure. It allows the strong and the evil to oppress the weak and the peaceful. What a better way to challenge the Devil’s work than to abolish his tools? Think how much easier it will be to change men’s hearts towards the rest of humanity when The Great Deceiver/Great Divider/Mass Murderer- no longer exists!

If Jesus came to earth to “save mankind,” the most important revelation of that rescue is the declaration that hierarchal, Old Testament institutions (both secular and religious) enslave the lives and minds of God’s ultimate creation. In order for humans to remain free, they cannot tolerate self-appointed gatekeepers to regulate and control their consumption of universal knowledge, ethics, and spiritual guidance. Hence, their inevitable and even dutiful hostility toward the state.

Just as the secular Christmas is a silly fantasy, the religious version of “peace, good will towards men,” has equally been a fantasy used to perpetrate a fraud. The Christian “Church” (not necessarily individuals) will never be able to claim such a sentiment as genuine as long as it accepts, legitimizes, and obeys the criminal state and it’s opposing agenda.

Let “Christmas” be a time when Christians and sympathizers rise up and demand the end of their centuries old subjugation at the hands of the criminal state. Let the children enjoy their presents and holiday illusions (I certainly did) but let’s encourage those with an adult consciousness to work for a state-free world in which the potential for peace and prosperity is near limitless- surpassing any fantasy that a child could imagine.

Later, they can deal with the equally despicable enslavement by their organized religious institutions.

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters


Friday, September 11, 2015

The Self-Inflicted Persecution of Kim Davis

Kim Davis is the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who was jailed (and since released) by a U.S. District judge. Her accused crime? She refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses as authorized by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. This action has inspired a multitude of opinions concerning the justness of the actions of both Ms. Davis and the District judge who had her jailed.

First, I must admit a perverse pleasure in reading of such cases where the state “eats its own.” These are situations where state apparatchiks suffer the consequences of the state’s illegitimate “laws,” rather than enslaved mundanes who usually bear the brunt of such criminal interventions. Better to see a parasitic state operative suffering the wrath of their state master than non-consenting tax slaves who generally suffer the bulk of such abuse and who are also forced to finance such an operative’s lofty position of power. My empathy is saved for such non-consenting sovereigns- the truly “persecuted” ones.

I’ve read two, well written and logical analyses regarding this case. One claims Ms. Davis is being persecuted because she obeyed her state constitution, the other insisting she is rightfully being disciplined (though unjustly jailed) for not obeying an overriding, higher ranking constitution. Both views make sense to me but both presuppose the legitimacy of such a governing state that claims to govern and rule individuals. It also assumes that state created “constitutions” are equally legitimate as control mechanisms that regulate this institution’s ruling power. Though I respect this popular default perspective, it has become my secondary, not primary, perspective when viewing state created conflicts.

As one who believes that all men are born sovereign and free, only to be rightfully governed and ruled by their individual consent, I view such state created conflicts without the presupposition of the state’s legitimacy.

Knowing this, let’s begin my analysis with an examination of the players involved in this seedy drama:

The State
The state is an institution claiming governing and ruling power over a designated geographic area. Despite any state created designated limitations on its power (constitutions), this institution is prone to ignore such designated limitations if it so serves its relentless pursuit of more power. Neglecting such limitations is often defended with decisions made by state created courts who have the power to interpret such limitations. Such interpretations can only be overturned by the state itself. The state has thereby evolved into nothing less than a criminal mafia, financed through extortion, while claiming near limitless power and ultimately being accountable to no one. It is a self-regulating cabal.

Claiming the authority to ignore such designated limits of its power at its discretion (and confirmed by its own courts), the state has become involved in virtually every behavior, action, and transaction involving individuals. It has built itself to be a gatekeeper to nearly every conceivable human activity. The particular intervention discussed here is marriage.

Kim Davis
Ms. Davis, born as a sovereign and free individual, has chosen to discard her intrinsic sovereignty and consented to be governed and ruled by the state. She has done this by voluntarily becoming a paid, state operative, subject to the orders of her superior. The institution she works for is funded by coercive taxes enforced through violence, not voluntary contributions. Her duties include enforcing state dictates claiming power to permit or deny a “legal” marriage between individuals.

The conflict
The conflict arises when Ms. Davis refuses her master’s dictate to issue “legal” permission to marry among same-sex individuals. She defends her refusal, citing that allowing such a marriage is a violation of her Christian religious principles.

Any time I hear individuals adamantly citing religious objections to defend their actions my ears perk up. Such claims often come from those who pick and choose just what “principles” they fervently follow and those they don’t. Such is the case with Ms. Davis.

Why? Christians govern themselves in large part by doing their best to obey the Ten Commandments. Check out Commandment #8. Ms. Davis chose not to make her livelihood by way of free market, voluntary transactions with solicited customers. Instead she chose to become a willing, consenting employee/operative of an institution that funds itself through coercive taxation/theft that is enforced at the point of a gun! Such criminal activity is what directly funds Ms. Davis’ lucrative paycheck. As a declared Christian, what part of “Thou shall not steal” does Ms Davis not understand?

In the smoky cloud created by the state’s ambiguous legalities and varying interpretations of “law,” Ms. Davis’ plight can viewed as both fair or unfair. From the clear and unambiguous perspective of individual human sovereignty, the inherent right of consent, and the necessity of personal accountability and responsibility, Ms. Davis has created her own nightmare. She unwisely and voluntarily consented to being a paid operative of an inherently unjust criminal operation. Criminal operations rarely have qualms about persecuting their members if it serves their goals.

Ms. Davis’ religious objections ring hollow to observers who view her participation and employment with an institution funded by violent theft- an action that patently violates one of the most basic tenets of her adamantly declared religion.

It is my contention that the punishment suffered by Ms. Davis is self-inflicted, and she is ultimately responsible for her unwise choices and decisions.

I offer no pity for her, as she willingly and voluntarily became part of the state apparatus that now “persecutes” her. This lack of pity is further intensified when considering her blatant religious hypocrisy. My empathy, as always, will be saved for those non-consenting sovereigns (no matter their spiritual consciousness) who continue to suffer persecution from a bloated leviathan whose appetite for power and control is insatiable.

Resistance is Mandatory
No rulers

No masters