11 votes

Should Advocates for Individual Liberty Be "Against Anarchism?"

This one may ruffle some feathers, but I encourage anarchists, minarchists, and everyone in between to look past the surface and really think about the ideas expressed here before opining (and I greatly encourage everyone here to opine!)

For more, head on over to Lions of Liberty!

UPDATE: Shayne has responded to some criticisms from the interview, including some of the comments below. You can check it out over at his blog.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


The round table turns to the subject of power.

This is not complicated.

Productive power produced into oversupply reduces the price of productive power while productive purchasing power increases because productive power reduces the cost of producing anything productive including things that produce productive power.

That appears to be complicated because that reduces the entire concept of political economy down into one sentence.

The entire concept of political economy can also be reduced down into one word: Liberty.

It is not complicated.

One accurate measure of productive power can be invested into producing a faster rate of production of productive power and that single word, production, cannot be false.

Take one kilowatt/hour of electricity for example.

That is productive power if it is used to produce productively.

If it is used to torture people to death then that same power is only "good" for a fixed number of people tortured and put to death by criminals who do such things with power.

So this game of fooling the victims into thinking that all power is wrong/bad/evil/destructive of life/corrupting/and forbidden is easy to see through.

Of course the criminals are going to want the victims to believe that all power is bad.

As soon as a criminal begins down the path of crime is the precise moment in time when there is an opportunity to expend some of the productive power produced in defense against the criminal in defense of the innocent victims that will be destroyed, in some way, by the criminal.

Therefore defensive power is potentially a productive power because both the criminal and the victim could be led onto a better (productive instead of destructive) path.

Why is that complicated at all?



Shayne introduces another group (an entity or a list of names of people who are in this group because they, as individuals, think, and act, in ways that cause them to be categorized into this group accurately, based upon those specific thoughts and actions done by those people) called "statists" who worship something.

What thing?

Is it the same THING that Shayne refers to repeatedly as a THING that does things, is responsible as a THING, and is accountable as a THING unto itself, a "government," that does good, or bad?

That thing?

There is no such thing, so who is guilty of giving this thing life?

Who is guilty of giving this thing credit?

Who is guilty of giving this thing power?

Someone other than Shayne or Marc is guilty and those other people are now pigeon holed into a group called statists?

Someone in this group of three, someone I know as me, points out the obvious, demonstrable, fact that there is no such thing as a State where the State, or the government, is responsible, accountable, for any thoughts, or any actions, whatsoever.

Legal Fictions (or straw men) do not exist, it is a carefully managed charade, a confidence scheme, and those who are fooled by it are fooled by it, and those who know better know better.



Speaking about misdirected (misled) efforts to do the right thing, the moral thing, which is already agreed upon as defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals, as already tabled in the example of the woman being raped as witnessed by someone placed in a hypothetical "do or fail" to do the right thing situation.

Cutting past a lot of the confusion bound to be discovered in a hypothetical example, and preferring to utilize real world examples instead, there can be a list offered to the group of 3, being Shayne, Marc, and Joe, hoisted up on the table of inquiry, so as to better understand the true problem and the true solution to the true problem.

1. The Revolutionary War
2. Shays's Rebellion
3. Respublica V Shaffer
4. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
5. The Civil War
6. The Battle of Athens Tennessee
7. The Martin Luther King Jr. conspiracy trial
8. Waco
9. The Bundy Ranch Stand-off
10. The next conflict between aggressors hiding behind the color of law and defenders exemplifying true law as it is willfully employed by true defenders in time and place.

Pick any example above and have at it, in earnest, if the idea is to get to the bottom of this problem so as to find a real, effective, workable, solution: please.

The examples offered offer true law working as it did work, in fact, in time, and in place.

What law can guide those who choose to participate in this inquiry? How about another list?

The principle of agreement
The golden rule
Let the facts speak for themselves
Individual responsibility and accountability
The cost principle
Common law understood reasonably if not specifically written on paper
Common law explained generally in The Declaration of Independence, the original Constitutions of the original 13 Republics, The Articles of Confederation (original, organic, true, federal constitution), and the Bill of Rights (vain attempt to defend against the criminals posing as The Federalist Party).
Indictment by Grand Jury (to hold people accused but presumed to be innocent) so as to afford someone their due process that is due everyone without exception.
Trial by jury involving any cause of action at law beyond a reasonable threshold of cost born by the whole people as a whole list of names of all the people without exception.
Whatever you think is valuable in reference to any concept held by anyone claiming authority of law anywhere anytime.



Shayne confuses what he considers to be "the government" with what he considers to be "the law" at that point in time as Shayne continues projecting his ideas onto people he targets as (nebulous) "anarchists."

A group of people, all having names, all individuals, constituting that group, calling themselves (falsely) "The Federal Government" act out actions as individuals, each in time and place, as they do, in fact, and each one who perpetrates a crime, under that color of law, is a criminal each time, in each place, to be discovered as such, and held accountable as such, if the true law of the land is employed by defenders defending the innocent victims from the guilty criminals.

That last paragraph is offered in response to someone claiming that nebulous anarchists are guilty of wrong thinking and wrong acting. I can easily be labeled an anarchist, so long as it is understood that the true meaning of the word is agreed upon, according to the principle of agreement, not according to the principle of dictatorial power employed by a dictator who dictates the meaning to me, without my agreement.

Stephen Pearl Andrews speaking about the use of the word anarchism (by Proudhon the originator of the modern use of the word) cautions people (future generations) concerning the obvious problems inherent in the use of that word, so now may be a good time to quote that warning.

The link again:

[For THE INDEX. June 22, 1876]

Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others. Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter.
Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.

Now, today, here are three people.

1. Shayne
2. Marc
3. Josf (Joe, or Joseph)

Then, in that past, there were three people.

1. Proudhon
2. Benjamin (Tucker)
3. Stephen (Anderson)

I can safely say that I am playing the part of Andrews in this repeat of an old, tired, argument.

Why argue?

The facts (the truth) speaks if people care to listen. Leadership exists in the form of discoverable facts, if people care to know.

If people prefer to hide the facts, then that is a fact that can be known by those who care to know why someone prefers, chooses, falsehood over facts.



Shayne claims that the government is capable of doing something good, and Shayne claims that the government is capable of doing something bad, however, these claims made by Shayne are claimed to be thoughts, words, ideas, projected into someone other than Shayne, not Shayne.

That is an example of projection.

Projection, or transference, is a tactic used by two types of people:

Those that know they are projecting/transferring their bad traits, their errors, their mistakes, their lies, their confusion, their ignorance, their willfully created falsehoods, unto other people, as they blame other people for what can be accurately accountable to the individual embarking upon the tactic of projection/transference.

Those who project/transfer without knowing they are doing so in a clear, unmistakable, willing, matter of preference, or will power.

In fact one of the so called anarchists, or two of them, or three of them if I am included, can see through this charade. There is no such thing as an entity called "government" that can do good or bad and thereby be responsible or accountable instead of the actual people who do good, or the actual people who do bad, actually accounted as the individuals who do what they do in time and place.

"Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all." Josiah Warren, Equitable Commerce, First American Anarchist (so called) 1852



Now Marc is tabling (setting up) the question to Shayne concerning so called anarchist political tactics. Before I dive into listening to this individual who expresses this individual viewpoint, at this time and in this place, concerning other individual viewpoints, according to this one individual who speaks for other individuals, I can offer a very important message from one of the founders of American (so called) anarchism.


The message concerns the origins of the current usage of the word anarchism as a word used by people to convey messages. The idea offered by Stephen Pearl Andrews (one of the original, first, American anarchists) concerns the failures demonstrated when individuals employ the word anarchism as a means by which an idea is conveyed in time and place. The word anarchism does not work well when the idea is to convey the intended message of moral right, rather, the word anarchism can easily confuse, rather than clarify, as explained by Stephen Pearl Andrews issuing a warning concerning the failure of the word choice in common use today.

That is a clear warning offered by a so called American Anarchist at the beginning of the use of the word Anarchism in America, so any confusion as to the intended message intended to be conveyed with the use of the word Anarchism is confusion that was predicted, demonstrated, warned about, made known, at least as far back as the mid 1800s.

Now I can listen to what Shayne offers as his version of what an anarchist may or may not say.



Confusion between what is and what is better (liberty is better than crime hidden behind a false version of defense of liberty) hides the laws/principles/morals/ideas/actions that move from worse to better?

Is that what is being said at that point in the inquiry?

How about competitive examples of ideas/actions that effectively move from worse (false Liberty) to better (true Liberty)?

The golden rule of law, for example, and for another example the tried, true, trusted, vetted, proven, trial by jury due process also known as the law of the land, and yet again another example provided as a working federation of independent people in independent republics joined voluntarily in time (1776 to 1787) and place (America), and an idea that those examples lead, as leadership, toward actions that do, in fact, work to effectively defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals in time and place within the obvious limitations of reason?



I need a break from this for awhile after a comment at this point where right and wrong (the moral question) is agreeably agreed upon by those who agree to help (if possible in reality) defend the innocent victims (children) from the guilty criminals (false congressman) in any case.

One of the major challenges by the true Federalists (George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, and Richard Henry Lee) against the criminal false Federalist Party usurpation of the working Federation (Articles of Confederation) concerned Direct Taxation, or the obvious change from voluntary taxing Republics (public things), pay or not pay at the discretion of the people in the Republics through their representatives say so, changing from that voluntary method of financing the Federal expense, changing to the dreaded Excise/Direct/Involuntary Tax System, which was the same criminal tax system used by the criminal British who started the Revolutionary War with their enforced involuntary taxing methods known as The Stamp Act, and other (hidden) variations involving fraudulent money systems.

So the discussion at that point begs the question of right and wrong involving true and false investment strategies, yet none of the speakers actually calls up the real world example provided in the rich American history.



Shayne is begging a question in such a way as to discredit his imaginary opponents as Shayne suggests that someone is capable of arguing against freely defending an innocent person from a current criminal currently perpetrating a crime upon the innocent victim.

The truth is laid out by Shayne is a hypothetical example that serves Shayne as a common sense example of right and wrong, and according to him, as far as I can tell, he claims that someone else is guilty of arguing against the common sense example of right versus wrong in that specific case created by Shayne.

The problem here is who knows the truth in that case at that time, and who has the power to employ in defense in that case, which are questions that cannot be answered without Shayne inventing those conditions within the example Shayne creates as a hypothetical example.

I prefer to use real examples instead of hypothetical examples and that is why the Revolutionary War, Shays's Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, and so called Civil War examples work instead of a lady in a house being raped while someone, somehow, discovers this fact as a fact from the viewpoint of the one discovering the rape in progress, if it is in fact viewed in time and place by the onlooker as a rape, in fact.

Why does Shays's Rebellion not serve as a better example, since it is real, not hypothetical, if the idea is to understand the concept of true law versus crime hidden behind a false flag, color of law, façade?



Note, please, that confusion appears to be shared concerning the stark difference between peaceful conflict resolution done by people agreeing (principle of agreement being the rule, or law, in force, and in force agreeably) to resolve "contract" disputes, and then confusing that (which could be considered "civil" law) with someone perpetrating a crime upon someone, such as libel, slander, fraud, or violently aggressive crimes involving physical injury to body parts.

Free market government processes involving the resolution of contract (agreement) disputes where free traders fail to remember their agreements and they need help from other people in peaceful resolutions to disputes of previous agreements that are no longer agreeable for any reason including failing memories, or changing conditions of any sort whatsoever.

Free market government processes involving willful perpetration of criminal injury done by a guilty criminal upon an innocent victim not limited to the "one gunman theory" so as to incorporate the often repeated offense where many criminals conspire in organized crime cabals to injure many collected, targeted, and injured victims where organized criminals perpetrate organized crime when, and where, that dominant organized crime cabal maintains their monopoly of criminal force upon their enumerated collection of specifically named victims.

Confusing the two can happen, and what are the costs of confusing the two, which may include the cost of failing to defend the weakest (children) from the worst of the worst (criminals operating under the color of law)?



Shayne attempts to address the idea of secession.

If a group of people are the worst criminals imaginable, child sex slavers, torturers, murderers, mass murderers, and they exist in a known location, known to be doing their worst to many poor, helpless, innocent victims, as Shayne attempts to describe with words, the question Shayne asks, in that case, is it right, moral, good, justified, OK, fine, a good investment, to save those innocent people from the criminals who are working on them?

What does Shayne think that the people in Washington D.C. are doing?

If it is right, as Shayne suggests, and I agree, then it is always right, and so it is well past time to free the slaves, to go to Washington D.C. and to hold the worst of the worst criminals imaginable, to hold them for trial by jury, according to the Bill of Rights.


"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,"

And here:

"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

The worst of the worst criminals in America are currently working at what they do best from the fraudulently constructed (false) federal government based currently in Washington D.C., and according to the rules that they are claiming to be their own authority, they are culpable as criminals caught red handed perpetrating treason.


That is an example of people working at defending their sanctuary of their making as they make a place where runaway slaves can secede from the union that is made by the criminals as the criminals make these involuntary unions upon their innocent victims.

What can be done to ensure a safe place for children, safe from child sex slave traders?


Follow the trail of victims to the source of the torture and mass murder, hold the suspects, suspects who are presumed to be innocent according to the law of the land, the common law, and afford the presumed to be innocent accused defendants the same due process that is due everyone without exception.

If what Shayne is saying is true, and I agree, then it is absurd to suggest that a criminal organization (monopoly of criminal force) is in any position at home, to then be a force for good in some other land, where other criminals are also ruling the roost.



Marc plops onto the table a word.


In clearly defined demonstrations of fact there are cases where so called slaves run away.

Victims of criminals opt out, in more than one obvious case.

Call it what you wish, what you will, it is what it is in fact.

Where can a slave go, seriously, to find sanctuary from the criminals who claim that slavery is legal?


Time 21:58

Shayne says there is no monopoly of force, it is a myth, and then he says that it will always (monopoly of force) exist whenever "some party or parties are the strongest" on and on.

That is an obvious contradiction held by Shayne, not his imaginary (or real) opponents in argument.

I don't argue, what would be the point?

Offensive (initiation of force seeking to monopolize force) fraud and violence (the deceptive pen is mightier than the aggressive sword) is one type of organization chosen by some individuals (criminals) so as to exist at the expense of anyone who actually produces anything worth stealing, including children.

That is one type of Monopoly of Force, the involuntary, the criminal, version.

The other type of monopoly of force is voluntary.

Confusing the two leads one (one individual in one individual case) to an obvious, demonstrated, contradiction.

The criminal monopoly of force depends upon criminal (aggressive/destructive) deception, threat of aggressive violence, and aggressive, destructive, involuntary, violence upon anyone who produces anything of value that is valued as valuable by the criminals who constitute the criminal organization.

The opposite of the criminal monopoly of force is a monopoly founded upon accurate accounting as to who has perpetrated a crime upon an innocent victims, having done so willfully as the phrase "with malice aforethought" suggests, doing so in time and place in fact, as facts are found according to the law of the land, which was known as due process of law, which was founded upon a monopolistic idea known as the truth, whereby the truth shall set us free, and other monopolistic ideas, such as the golden rule of law.

The monopoly of truth is not, as Shayne appears to be confused about this, the same thing as the monopoly enforced by criminals through deception, threat of aggressive violence, and the all too familiar aggressive violence option.


More on the Monopoly of Force Deception

Why would someone endeavor to cover up the Monopoly of Force reality?

World War is the obvious demonstration of precisely what happens when the Monopoly of Force idea inspires action in time and place to the obvious extreme that Monopoly of Force can occur in time and place on one Planet.

There was at least one such demonstration, factual reality measured in body counts, and the next one, the next world war, the next demonstration of what happens when the Monopoly of Force demonstrates precisely what it is when it is extreme, will in all likelihood out perform the previous one.

Exponential grow rates in the destruction direction is this Monopoly of Force idea as it is demonstrated each time it is demonstrated. The Revolutionary War here in America, then the Civil War here in America, were demonstrations of competitors competing in the Monopoly of Force association game invented, produced, and maintained by those who have the power to do so.

Most recently there is Waco, with powers that contend for the top spot demonstrating their Monopoly of Force upon 80 or so people, burning them alive after torturing them, and now in Nevada, at a place called the Bundy Ranch, there are demonstrations of those who oppose the Monopoly of Force association idea.


Those whose choice is to knowingly, willingly, join and maintain the Monopoly of Force Cabal can never leave it, they are in it for life, because that is the way that type of association works, the cost of allowing "whistle blowers" to leave the "organization" is a huge threat to the "organization" as it exists under the color of law, under the cloak of deception, as a criminal organization covered up by falsehoods that increase exponentially until such time as the entire organization crumbles under it's own weight of lies, each rat stabbing each other rat in the back, racing to consume the last morsel of stolen loot that is produced by the one remaining productive individual.

A moron may develop and then demonstrate a capacity to condemn before investigation, knowable as willful ignorance, concerning the Monopoly of Force (organized crime cabal hiding under the false flag of true government) as it is amply demonstrated on a daily basis in many places at many times, as agents of the Cabal do what they do best, a moron may be able to ignore it for some time.

Time: 20:53

Shayne voices the words: "...our federal government..."

Each individual during each individual moment in time has an individual, unique, idea when perceiving the federal government power as it exits in view to that individual perceiving that power in that moment.

How does Shayne's idea of his federal government become "our" federal government without that Myth knowable as the Monopoly of Force working to deceive Shayne into voicing those false words.

That power that currently employs only the name of "Federal Government" is a collection of the worst criminals imaginable who work effectively at maintaining the power of that deception so as to then profit handsomely, as individuals, at the expense of all who are too ignorant, too foolish, too apathetic, too sick, too weak, too powerless, to defend against that specific false flag, confidence scheme, deception, which was started as a deception in 1787 in Philadelphia PA.

If there was, is, or will be a voluntarily agreeable (not "manufactured consent" under the threat of "extraordinary rendition" and "quantitative easing") federal government in power, what would that power look like on paper?

1. Any one of, or the best of, the original constitutions of the original 13 Republics created by the people in defense of the people against the criminal British Cabal of fraudulent bankers/kings/mercenaries.

2. The Declaration of Independence signed by people who constituted a Continental (federal) Congress of representatives representing the people of 13 Republics joined into a voluntary association of the people defending against the criminal British Cabal of fraudulent extortionists who constituted one of the worst of the worst Monopoly of Force competitors then ruling this planet.

3. The Bill of Rights attached to the criminal Constitution of 1787 in a vain attempt to contain the home grown criminals then known as The Federalist Party within that Bill of Rights boundary.


Monopoly is a Myth

That is said at about time 20:00 by Shayne. If that were true then there would be no aggressive violence and no fraud required to cover up the aggressive violence. There are two types of associations possible as such:

1. Voluntary
2. Involuntary

The first type works in the form known as Liberty, the second type works in the form known as crime.

In an involuntary association (Monopoly of force) type of association those who lie, cheat, rob, rape, torture, murder, and mass murder earn their way to the top of that type of association as a matter of demonstrable fact that was, is, and will be demonstrated as fact each time involuntary association is employed as the type of association employed by guilty criminal people upon innocent victims.

That type of association is entropic, or destructive of life, proven each time it is employed by people upon people, every time.

The alternative, which is Liberty, which is also not a myth, is non-antagonistically competitive, compared to the criminal competition version (monopoly of force) known as involuntary association/organized crime/monopoly of force/dictatorship/tyranny/color of law/divine right of kings/false religion/false science/false economy/false government.

The tell tale signs that the opposite of Monopoly of Force (a.k.a. tyranny) is employed by people for people is an opposite result opposite of entropic destruction of life on earth, and the tell tale signs are increases in standards of living and decreases in costs of living for all, as the saying goes: the rising tide lifts all boats.

Monopoly of force is not a myth, it is in two words organized crime, or two other words it is involuntary association, or just one word it is tyranny, or another one, it is despotism.

The worst of the worst are rats racing to what they claim to be the elite all seeing eye position at the so call top of their pyramid scheme where the worst of the worst command all at once and their methods are three in number.

1. Deceive everyone, especially those who threaten your power most.

2. Threaten everyone with the worst possible violence including violence to be done to those who are loved.

3. Perpetrate aggressive violence upon those who threaten your power most first, and then everyone else in turn.

Rules for success on the road to absolute destruction of all forever, and to claim that this is a myth is tantamount to lending moral and material support to those who define the meaning of organized crime, as you help them cover up their crimes with more deception thrown upon the exponentially increasing pile of stinking, putrid, falsehood.

Those whose reaction is anger, and then aggressive violence (punch in the nose), are in a boat filled with similar people doing similar knee jerk reactions, as that boat still floats, before the rats eventually sink it, and then there is no more "economy" to consume, all are rats, each rat at each other rats throat, until there is only one rat left, and that rat drowns in the world of his making.


Every single time this tyranny stuff is tried the truth reveals itself in time, each time, as the so called myth proves just how mythical it is, with body counts.


So, some people know better, and those people offer a competitive (non-antagonistic competition: no punching in the nose because one can) accounting of the facts. Look, for example, into game theory, also known as the Prisoner's Dilemma for a simplified (overly simplified but useful) mathematical explanation of the stark difference between the two types of associations.


Shayne is apparently speaking about something that is a myth, but this myth that Shayne is speaking about isn't the same Monopoly of Force that is accurately demonstrated by each antagonistic competitor that enters the free market of organized crime (tyranny) looking to claw their way to the top of that world wide world war prisoner's dilemma type of enforced association.

Criminals enslave themselves along with their targeted victims.



Marc tables "monopoly of force" as Marc exemplifies the thinking that empowers such a thing as "monopoly of force" which cannot exist without both falsehood and aggressive violence. Marc employs English words as if the message Marc intends to convey is a message that creates an entity that is both responsible and accountable for "monopoly of force" and that entity is not a number of people who have names, rather that entity is an entity unto itself, a legal entity, a thing, a creation that becomes a life itself, a being capable of thought, a being capable of action, and a being that is therefore capable of responsibility and accountability itself, instead of individual people who are actually responsible and accountable.

That is called a man of straw, or a legal fiction, or a corporate person, which happens to also be limited in liability for reasons that can become obvious.

No such thing does exist. There is no "government" in that sense. Government is, always was, always will be, people acknowledging true government, and employing it, voluntarily, by agreement, or not, and the alternative is precisely what is happening when people give credit to this imaginary being that does not exist.



Shayne says that both anarchists and minarchists get mad at him. He is speaking about confusion, not anger, unless he is speaking about false anarchists and false minarchists, who are, in Shayne's own terminology, charlatans, not merely confused individuals who are following false leads left by charlatans who know better.

There were two Federal Governments at the time of the so called Civil War added to the example already provided in the 1776 to 1787 example, so Shayne does not have to invent this free market government example, it existed, proven to work, and proven to not work for demonstrable reasons, demonstrable flaws, so as to offer those who may want a true federation to make one that adapts to solve known flaws.

Vermont, for example, was a competitive Federation of city states, fitting the mold of voluntary association, the principle of agreement (combination of individual and cost principles) at the time of Shays's Rebellion, adding another competitive free market government supply to the list of examples.

Here is a revised list:

1. Icelandic Commonwealth (ancient and modern)
2. Switzerland (ancient and modern)
3. The United States (between 1776 and 1787 before the usurpation)
4. Vermont as an independent federation of counties (fitting the mold in principle if not in semantic language)
5. The Confederation of States seceding from the Involuntary Union imposed by the false federal government then commanded by a rouge "President" named Lincoln.

What could have happened in the last example was an avoidance of the crime of War of Aggression and a peaceful resolution by people, for people, as the two competitive Federations offered to people a supply of higher quality and lower cost government in that case when people created a Brand X to compete with the Brand Y.

Those who claim that slavery was outlawed after the so called Civil War are mistaken, as proven by that so called 16th Amendment, which is quoted in the following text:


Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The criminals took over in 1787 making slavery legal, according to criminals, in the following text:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The so called 16th Amendment is supposed to be the end of slavery made legal by the criminals who made slavery legal in 1787, but that is clearly a bold faced lie, as the wording clearly stated in English, that it is henceforth a crime to even think that people are not slaves. The criminal order clearly states that merely thinking that you are not a slave is against that criminal law, or false law, which is not law, it is dictators dictating orders to be obeyed without question.



At time 18:00 Shayne is diving into the principles that govern mankind for good or bad and in this area Shayne claims that there is no principle. There is offered in the work of Josiah Warren a few principles that fit the supply to this demand for principles and the supply is high quality and low cost, or that which is adapted to fit the demand.

The individual principle

The cost principle

These two principles work to help people discover the supply that fits the demand for defensive (true) government within the obvious limitations imposed by nature; including the natural limitations of mankind.

As Shayne points out there are obvious measurable problems when the suppliers claim that there is only one (monopoly) government that can be in any case. One federation for example. The claim is made by an individual in time and place, then another individual seconds that claim, and now there is a conspiracy in fact. That is what happened in Philadelphia in 1787 by the way. The conspirators got together and claimed that there will be only one (monopoly) government, and no other, forever, for eternity, because they say so, and to back up their claim they formed this cabal, which was, is, and will be a false federal government for as long as they make their false claims (monopoly) work for them, at the expense (cost) of those who are fooled into the involuntary association.

Why only one? There were two when the Declaration of Independence was signed by the organically grown federal governors, those who banded together and documented their viewpoint in that document written in 1776. There were two then. There was a true federation of republics run by a Continental Congress of people who were accountable and responsible at that time. There was a false government in the form of a so called King, divine right said to be the authority, and a very large army of criminals ready to make good their claim of authority.

Was there a third competitor competing to offer the people a supply of government to fit the demand for it?

Yes, that is explained already, since the federal design joins competitors called Republics into one voluntary defense association called a federation. So there were 13 competitors in that free market government supermarket. Where there two Federations? Yes, there was at that time a place called Switzerland, which was an obvious competitor too.

1. The newly formed federation formed in 1776 with that Declaration of Independence.

2. Switzerland working as a federation design for some time before 1776 and an inspiration for people in America who used that federal design to create an American version/adaptation.

3. The false government known as The British, Red Coats, Loyalist, Central Banking Cabal, Criminal Organization hidden behind a thin and thinning false front, knowable as fraudulent extortion.

So there are three competitors, not one Monopoly Dictatorship, and in America people could vote with their feet, even while the criminals were currently rioting in the blood of the innocent. So Shayne is right in knowing the stark difference between true, natural, law, such as the law of agreement, or the principle of agreement, and the stark opposite which is crime, or involuntary association, which is a monopoly imposed by the worst of the worst criminals upon anyone anywhere.


Shayne appears to be failing to see the principle of agreements (which can be a combination of the principle of cost and individuality) as the golden rule of law applies (voluntary association) at the root, or the top, or the authority, or the leadership, or the mold, that commands from above, at the federal level, no matter where, when, and how it is done, in time and place, with a shinning example or two provided in America between 1776 and 1787, and Switzerland sometime before and after that American version. The mold, the authority, the leadership, is a voluntary association of competitive Republics (res-publica = the public thing) of any design imaginable, and when one Public Thing (voluntary association) becomes rouge, becomes criminal, is usurped, is taken over by criminals, then there is a stark demarcation line viewable at the boarders of that goodness that turns bad in that place at that time. Here again is where American history serves us well in point of fact. The so called State of Massachusetts exemplifies this goodness turning bad, or this voluntary association turning involuntary, as the influence of the criminal cabal known as the British took over the Massachusetts government turning it from defense against criminals (Public thing) and turning it into a criminal cabal in the example that became known as Shays's Rebellion in the time of 1786-1787. That example inspired, in fact, the formation of the false Federalist Party, so as to usurp the Federal government, instead of usurping each competitive Republic. This is the cost principle at work from a criminal viewpoint. Why would the criminals spend extra stolen loot on usurping each free state (Republic/Public Thing/Voluntary Association) when they can spend much less of their stolen loot reaching for the Top, taking over the Voluntary Federal government in one fell swoop that then takes over all the competitors in the free market of government in America.



Marc tables the concept of a demarcation between natural law (or true law) and man made laws (or merely crime, or dictatorship, or tyranny, or rule by the mob of men, or rule by so called divine right of kings, or fraudulent extortion, etc.), which is a demarcation line that is made forensically precise through due process such as trial by jury, or it is as wide and as grey as can be made by criminals to serve criminals at the expense of the victims who are fooled by the false grey area.


Shayne is avoiding the forensic marking of the precise demarcation line between natural law (true) and whatever is hoisted up by criminals as the false versions. Here is where help is offered in abundance from someone named Jesus in his offer of what is or is not law in Matthew 7:12. I don't have the direct quote myself, and what has survived as the meaning of the message offered falls into an obvious reasoned idea knowable as the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That can be simplified and retain the meaning of the message with two words in English: voluntary association. The message can be further paired down into one word, and the message can remain intact, without any grey area, and that word is Liberty.

The message is clear for those who find it. The message is not clear for those who don't find it. The message is willfully obscured by those who employ deception as a means of gaining something at the expense of other people.

Federalism, as explained earlier, retains the free market (voluntary association or Liberty) process by design, if that is the goal in mind for the people seeking that goal. If the goal in mind is obscure, meaningless, or fraudulent, then a false Federalism works for them.


Shayne works into the discussion a vague assumption concerning the meaning of property. If all true things can be falsified for criminal purposes then this notion of property can too. If it can be understood that stewardship is a way to convey the meaning of property in a true sense, then it may be understandable that the false property is a criminal version of stewardship; whereby the criminal does whatever the criminal wants with everything the criminal claims to own (including owning other people) regardless of how much cost is borne by the victims who are made into victims by the one who abuses stewardship (ownership) in any case of abuse.

Pretending that property means the same thing to everyone all the time, if that is what Shayne assumes at this point, is giving way to much credit to people who abuse the concept of property, proven as abuse in so many cases, such as "legalized" slavery, and other pollutions of things that are claimed to be owned by people.


Time 14:25

Here at this time in the discussion/interview/inquiry Shayne explains the (false) Federalist and (false) Anti-Federalist (false) History of America at the time when the usurpation was initiated. I think that is very important to know, and it is good news to hear someone offer this distinction: even if it is not well understood by the speaker himself.


Shayne explains the Nationalist (false federalist) ideal of creating what Shayne mistakenly calls "laws" that could be understood as statutes, or dictates, or proclamations, or acts, or orders to be obeyed without question, or crimes, or anything but "laws," since these Nationalist dictates are not laws, they are criminal orders that can accurately be understood knowledgably as fraudulent extortion perpetrated by fraudulent extortionists upon the people who are thereby turned into victims. Law, as in "the law of the land," is tried and true over time, in order to be law, through the processes that work, such as due process, such as the example known as trial by jury. It can be accurately accounted as law when the people voluntarily agree to it, through some process, such as trial by jury, and those true Federalists (George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, and Richard Henry Lee to name only 4) knew how law, true law, was worked out in time, through that process of trial by jury, which they advertised as the palladium of Liberty, because it is that in fact.

Trial by jury, known as common law, known as the law of the land, known as the palladium of Liberty, was understood as such by the true Federalists.


Shayne is "being precise with the terms" in such a way as to offer knowledge concerning that clear distinction between Crime and Non-Crime, or Nationalism and Liberty, or Nationalism and Federalism, or false and True, or Dying and Living, or Monopoly and Free Markets, or Involuntary and Voluntary, or Despotism and Liberty. I appreciate this effort to be precise, even if there is a failure to see the free market aspect of Federalism, as explained very well in the following source:


Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.

I have to go to work before finishing this disjointed discussion effort.



I don't know if this topic will be read by anyone. It is very interesting to me as these people discussing these topics are obviously misinformed to a degree that is arguably pathetic, as in pathology.

We the people are victims of a very destructive pathology that can be called a name that would help us understand (and defend against) that pathological destruction of life on earth.


When crime is made legal, then it is obvious that the criminals have taken over (defensive and voluntary) government.


Listening and commenting:

Time: 8:00 (minutes)

Getting terms straight: meaning: the principle of agreement.

On the table:

Anarchy means: you don't have a government.

That is an answer demanding a supply for a definition of government.


The Robinson Crusoe definition of anarchy is offered on a desert island where there is (presumably) only one individual sentient life form (man) alone and without "government" and so: government is then defined (indirectly) as connectivity among sentient life forms.


The speaker defining terms (Shayne Wissler) introduces a THING (government) as an institution (presumably a responsible/accountable THING, or "Legal Fiction," exiting according to someone: Robinson Crusoe responding to someone other than Robinson Crusoe) created by, or parroted by, Shayne Wissler.


Question tabled by interviewer (Marc Clair) concerning specifics concerning a demarcation between true/semantic (true/false, accurate/inaccurate, honest/deceptive) anarchism (defined previously as an individual on a desert island which is anarchism of a specific, false, type) so I am on the edge of my seat wondering what is true anarchism according to Shayne Wissler, other than the almost never to exist individual alone on a disconnected (from anyone) area that supports sentient life.


"Someone who wants to eradicate government."

That is true anarchism? That sounds like someone connecting to other people and acting upon their idea to govern other people who do things that are things done by other people other than the one who "governs" the people who do things.

So there are people doing things that they do, and then there is this Robinson Crusoe dude who governs those people who do things, and that is, according to this definition of "true anarchism," someone acting out the idea of "true anarchism," and this sound exactly like crime to me.

Someone "eradicating government" in this case sounds like someone connecting to other people and that same someone who connects to other people is someone who "governs" those other people against the will of the other people when the other people would have done just fine without the so called "true anarchist" acting out his idea of "eradicating government" on those innocent (until prove guilty) people: crime.


Now on the table are people who "hate" either "government," or "the State," as defined by whomever. My interest in this interview is evaporating at this point.

A discussion may be helpful where lack of meaning is demonstrated.


Both Marc and Shayne at that point are speaking as if "government" (a label/idea/thing/process) can "do" this or that, or act, or think, or be responsible, or be accountable as an entity unto itself. So...semantics is important because semantics exposes the way someone is thinking. If these people are not "fooled" into thinking that "governments" can be responsible, then they could explain that they are not, if asked. If no one asks, and no one answers, and their messages continue to convey the same idea, the same message, the same assumption, that "governments" are responsible and accountable (not people) then that idea gains currency as an idea, and the idea happens to be false.


Shayne defines government as an institution that purposefully designs laws. So, there you go, the idea is conveyed as a responsible/accountable THING that "designs laws" and the obvious problem there (at least obvious to me) is holding those responsible for crimes done under the color of law (false laws/bad laws/extortion hidden behind fraud) accountable for their crimes done under this false version of government that they create as a THING instead of government existing as a number of people who are responsible and who are accountable.


Shayne begins to speak about the idea of Federalism. Here is where the true federal government of the people, by the people, and for the people, a process that existed at least between 1776 and 1787 in America (due process) in a federal form (created organically/grass roots/by the people for the people) serves to illustrate what is the meaning of a federal union of people who have created a number of republics (13 republics at that time) which were so called city states/countries/nations which were of the people, by the people, and for the people or respublica types of governments or republican forms of government, knowable as republics.

What I do not hear from Shayne is the connection between the federal design of unionizing a number of republic and connecting that idea to the idea of free market government supplies that are offered by people to people to fill the demand for higher quality and lower cost government (defense) services. That connection is well made by many as proof positive that so called anarchism can work, or free market government defense services can work, if the idea is to be precise with language.


Now Marc speaks for those who jump to conclusions based upon false meanings of words such as federal government. If people knew the difference between a true federal government design (such as the existing one between 1776 and 1787) and a false federal government design (such as the one created in 1787 in Philadelphia which was used to usurp the true one) then that knowledge could eliminate the knee jerk reactions made by people who fail to understand the stark difference between true federal (free market) government design and false federal (legal fictions claimed to be responsible and accountable) design.


Here Shayne speaks as if it is true that The Articles of Confederation were the law of the land. That is contentious since the "law of the land" was known to be "common law" or organic law, which was law that was formed by the people, of the people, and for the people, in ways that were separate from so called statutes/legislation/codes/writs/orders/dictates/proclamations/acts/etc. If there was, is, and will be anything that constitutes the law of the land then such a thing would show up, and be done, as a due process, over time, in many divergent civilizations, despite the changes in language, because the law worked as law, and there is, in fact, and example of such a law of the land, which has survived ages of time, and many diverse civilizations, and that law of the land arrives today in the same form it was formed thousands of years ago, and the form is trial by jury.

So the law of the land was not The Articles of Confederation, instead the law of the land was, is, and will be trial by jury when trial by jury is a process used by people to defend innocent people from harm done by guilty criminals. If trial by jury (which is the law of the land) is counterfeited by criminals, then people get what they deserve when they are fooled in that way.

The Articles of Confederation were rules agreed to by representatives of 13 Republics of various levels of quality and cost to the people in those Republics, and that was the limit of those laws, which is how a true federal government is designed to work, as the so called Federal power/jurisdiction/enforcement was a connection between representatives of Republics and NOT a direct connection (taxation power) between people hired to run the Federal government as those people connect directly to (tax) the people in each Republic. If people do not understand this then people will not understand the significant difference between true (defensive/accurately accountable/responsible) federal government design and the false version that was put in place in 1787 by the criminals who took over despite the efforts against that usurpation. The defenders who were against the usurpation included George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, and the 6th President of (continental)Congress Assembled: Richard Henry Lee.


Here Shayne is dangerously mistaken in claiming that the so called Federalists were for a true federal (voluntary) union of people in Republics. The Federalists were the criminals who took over as they hid behind their false "Federalist" labeling. Those Federalists included Alexander Hamilton who openly worked to return the people in America to rule by fraud and extortion done by so called "bankers." Those who did, in fact, work for a true federal government design (defensive and voluntary or free market) were called, oddly enough, the Anti-Federalists, and they included, again, George Mason, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, and Richard Henry Lee.


Thank you for that summation.

Thank you for that summation. These disjointed and acrimonious debates here and elsewhere are painful to watch sometimes.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

Thank you

My guess now is that the participants in the discussion linked are actually not interested in any inquiry concerning their viewpoints. I may have spent too much of my time offering a competitive viewpoint; so thanks for your response which helps me justify my use of my time with a measure of value.


First timer

I have yet to hear this and I can offer a first timers viewpoint before diving in: later.

I am available for podcast interview as a Libertarian Congressional Candidate in 1996, and having just served as a National Liberty Alliance California State Coordinator for about 1 year.

If there is anyone out there who can speak for Individualist Anarchism then it is me, since the 2 other people who can do so are dead, those being Josiah Warren and Stephen Pearl Andrews.

I can write, sure, but reading is a lost art, and so there is speaking that can be done, so the offer is on the table (an offer that was on the table previously) for this podcast stuff.

Dare to venture outside the box?


Listen First?

I feel like a lot of people arguing against this didn't even listen to the podcast :(


Yes, hjs, that much is clear....

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You might as well be

debating Kirk vs. Picard. Neither debate is going to get us out of the stranglehold that is now around our necks. Kind of what Grandpa used to say about "If". If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they hopped.

What do you mean..

by "neither debate?"

If you give a listen, one of the major points here is that there are problems with both "anarchist" and "minarchist" positions, and that it's a false dichotomy overall.

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Definitions and Straw Men

I decided to write an article and post a new thread addressing some of the biggest criticisms here, which center around definitions, and the straw man arguments that often come along with them.


*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*