44 votes

Larken Rose on Dangerous Myths

An oldie but a goodie. Larken Rose is fast becoming my favorite liberty speaker.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ok, what with

the current status of the crops burning up in the US, maybe we need to throw a virgin (preferably a male virgin!) into the volcano. Maybe the volcano god will make our crops grow better!!!!

I Am Never Able To Agree 100% With Someone

Larken has a lot of wonderful points, but where he errs is the fact that Anarchy would be better for us than our current situation. Limited government is absolutely necessary and should provide for courts, police, and defense. Should significant disagreements between individuals arise, courts would help manage that dispute as a third party. When any person believes he can infringe/strip another of their rights, police step in to subdue him/her. If a someone is violating our rights on a much larger scale, defense provides a means whereby we will be protected from the violator(s). This system is borderline anarchy, but provides just enough government to keep the few of us who cross the lines of self-governance in check. All that anarchy has become today can be described as a scene full of rebellious people causing massive amounts of destruction and chaos, as sad as that is to say. I will agree that we have all been mind-controlled. I myself have not been a Libertarian for more than a couple of years, but have eaten up as much of the philosophical and intellectual material as I could find. I research voraciously long into the nights and find myself tracing one item through many different avenues in an endless cycle. I know what I believed was dead wrong and have come to believe in very limited government. However, I cannot condone Anarchy as it stands today, in the slightest degree. Perhaps a utopia will arise one day when government is no longer needed, but until that day I cannot simply discard all government as useless garbage. I am a very open-minded individual and welcome any and all criticism. We are all learning and I find that criticism best points out my weaknesses, thus allowing me to further my education. Thank you for the post.

-Logan Altom

I should probably keep this to myself...

But I won't. I found this guy to be frustrating and unwatchable. His style seems repetitive and very slow to me. I agree with his ideas and concepts, I just found his choice of metaphors and the delivery to be annoying. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, nothing personal is intended.

I am so sick of stupid

It is this simple.

"The people or sovereign are not bound by general word in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign,.....It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King (or the people) he shall not be bound." People v Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825)

Those rules made by "the government" are codified and are called statutes. All law that is written is statute, or statutory law.

"...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty." CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

The people have vested sovereignty, you have vested sovereignty. That means you make the rules that guide you in your life. The meaning of sovereignty?

"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903.

Statutes only apply to government, your law is decreed as case law and only exists when you are the plaintiff in a court at law.

If you get put in a cage because of a statute you are just stupid and maybe deserve to be in a cage.

Fun but False

He points out that our criminal government is bad. And he's right. But he reasons that therefor no government can be good. That's false.

We are all individuals. We are also part of a group. When becoming part of a group it is important that you have a choice to/not to join, and that being part of the group is beneficial to you (does not violate you/your morals).

A football team is a good example. You can join an NFL team by free will. You must be up to their standards. You must follow their rules. But you can also leave if you want. Join a different team, join a different league, start your own league, or do something entirely different. But, as part of the team, there are certain things you must do that the team determines will benefit the team. If you don't do them, the team, just like an individual, will decide it does not Live for you, and you can move along.

The question is not if we can get all people to agree on and abide by certain rules. Some people will see the value in the team, claim to agree, and then break the rules. There will be people who steal.

The solutions: Have small teams that people can join or leave. Ones that are careful in choosing their members so that the percentage of rotten apples is kept to a minimum. And one where the physical force is proportioned so that there is a small group controlling enough force to over power any one individual, but the might of all individuals can overpower that small group. The small group will never be able to overpower the larger team, so long as the individuals are vigilant. But an individual also can't overpower their neighbor who can call the small Force group.

This is how the US was created. Governed for the people by the people. Government wasn't separate from the people. Now it is. That's the basis for the video.

I'm not so sure about false.

I'm not so sure about false. For myself, I imagine the ideal situation to be each individual being responsible to govern themselves. I don't think the lack of a government would result in chaos. Just give it some thought. Of course it wouldn't be a perfect world as perfection is not a possibility under any scenario. Everybody is so use to having others make the rules and provide protection that they can't imagine existing peacefully without it. It may take some training for individuals to once again realize that they are capable of protecting themselves and operating in an orderly manner while in a state of cooperation with other individuals, but I do believe it is entirely possible as well as natural. Perhaps what we think of as government could actually wind up being something like a universal code of conduct that is understood and upheld by each individual rather than the small elite groups that become corrupt. It's something to think about. It would probably be the most functional among small local communities. Then again, we could always give our founder's Constitutional government another try. I'm all for that.

There is a distinct difference between a team...

that you join voluntarily and a chain gang where you are forced to labor against your will. Teams are not government. Community is not government. And coming together as a community to provide mutual aid, or to solve problems, or improve your society as a whole, is fine as long as EVERY interaction is voluntary, as soon as force enters into the equation the line is crossed. Government is force. The good doctor Paul advocates a voluntary society.

p.s. - Keep the force of your team away from me and mine and everything will be fine.

Read my post. Looks like we

Read my post. Looks like we agree mostly.

With the exception that force should not be used. If you don't use force, someone else can use force you. I will protect myself with force. In other words, I will force a gangster out of my house if necessary.

So what do you do when someone agrees to fix your car for an oz of gold. You give them gold, and come back and you car is not fixed, and missing a few extra parts they stole. You ask him politely? I believe, in this case, force is necessary to enforce the contract.

What would your solution be?

PS. Don't fight your friends.

Wrong. You dont own my life.

Wrong. You dont own my life. Im my own team. Please leave.

Your post is not a reply to

Your post is not a reply to what I wrote. I understand you hate a government that steals from you. But don't hate your friends who fight for Liberty.

If you are truly your own team, then don't trade with anyone. Once you trade, you are not fully self reliant. A car mechanic relies on farmers to eat. You''ll be best served defining what your team looks like, and choosing your team wisely. The fact that you signed up for DailyPaul means you are looking for like-minded individuals. Smart.

Im my own team and my team

Im my own team and my team will decide what is best for my team. I don't need you to tell me what team I should or should not join or if I should join one at all or at what time or where. I was born with a team between my ears. Ill decide to join another team if and when I want to. You are not like minded. I don't think you own anyone's life at the dailypaul and you definitely do not own mine.

Did I claim to? What are you

Did I claim to? What are you talking about?

I agree

I liked your analogy of a team. The many small groups/teams are really a metaphor for small communities. You can pack up and leave a city or municipality and move to another if you don't like the "teams'" rules. Also easier to change the rules if you tried, because you'll have a bigger influence at a local level cause there are less people lobbying. You have a voice at the local level. That's why states were given so much sovereignty over their land. I think it should be even smaller geographically. Empower local authorities with more sovereignty and people will be more likely to participate in local politics. Take education as an example. Imagine a country filled with literally thousands of different cuiriculums for students. Imagine one town has a school leaned more towards the arts, or another leaned more towards sports, or maths or sciences, or outdoor recreation, or an "all-round" school etc etc.... Parents would decide what education their children got. But just like ANY business , some are going to be fantastic and ground-breaking and some are going to suck big time. I've bought crappy products in the past. But those bad businesses usually go bankrupt pretty quickly and everyone follows the model that succeeds. We allow this to happen for the most part in post-secondary institutions. But I'm a big believer in school choice. That the government sells all the school buildings to private entities and then attaches a voucher to the child worth say 10 grand a year and the private school gets that voucher per student they have. Would have so much competition and so much innovation not to mention choices.

Ahhh, thanks Narco. I do

Ahhh, thanks Narco. I do imagine that, every day lol. The corruption in a country at all levels is directly related to the size of the population.

Government = Force

Government, by definition, has a monopoly on the initiation of force. If you believe that the initiation of force is wrong, then there is no such thing as a government that isn't a "criminal government," as you say...

...even a government that forces you to do things that you regard as "good."

The world is separated into

The world is separated into three classes of people.

One, the Atlases, great men and women who understand morality, all acting individually as traders. They have certain "rules" that they all agree to, simply because they understand their truth. And the only things keeping them from breaking the rules are their own knowledge of truth and dedication to it, and the fact that the other Atlases will on an individual basis stop trading with them.

Group Two, the middle world, is made up of all the people who have not reached this level. They don't understand fully the truth of morality, and aren't fully aware of how to use their brain to its productive potential.

Group three is the Vampires who will work tirelessly not to have to work honestly. They don't create value, but they will work to extract it from others.

Atlases have a certain code when dealing with those in the middle. The basic idea is, don't do "it" for them, let them learn on their own. They set up a simple government body a ways back(US constitution) and it slowly withered away with time. It was rarely ever maintained. And when someone in this group becomes an Atlas, they join them, and agree to their code, because being with these greats is worth more to them than helping the people who weren't able to reach this height.

This is why your ideal government does not exist to you. You have not gone to it. You are not worthy. This is, so to speak, the kiddy pool.

People think, but I own myself, and my fruits should not be taken. Well, they're in the jungle. Liberty is not naturally occurring. What they're really thinking is, why don't the authorities create a world that respects Liberty. Because there are no authorities. You're in the jungle.

Where are these Atlases? Why don't they make public their morality so that we may learn from it. As Ben Franklin said, a society of good men must remain secret, and only admit good men who are good without the knowledge of the society. If a man sees the fruits of a moral society, some will try to get in, for the fruit, not the morality, corrupting it. They also might try to steal the fruit.

As Ayn Rand said, her work is proof that they exist, as is the work of many others who share it with the common man. Some Atlases choose to share it, some don't. They create incredible works, that could be traded for billions, but they choose to trade only with those in Atlantis.

So in this middle world, between Atlantis and the vampires, there will always be a percentage of leaches who naturally aid the vampires, and weak who will trade the vampires false promises for their Lives, and therefor a need for a system of placing force in the hands of those who will defend Liberty.

Some people say our

Some people say our constitution was based on tribal law which kept force of government at a minimum.

If the tribe wanted to make it against the law to go barefoot outside your teepee EVERYONE in the tribe had to agree. If one person didn't agree than it didn't become law.

Russell Means discusses this and all the other problems we face today in a video he did titled WELCOME TO THE RESERVATION where he compares what we're going through now to what the government did to the native American Indians like him and how it's all the same.


When you have the time, watch the video, there is plenty to learn from it.

Russel Means Rocks...!!!




another version of this


i remember this coming out in 2009 i think.

Love this guy!!

Truth is its own virtue.